Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the psychometric and administrative properties of outcome measures in the ICF Participation category, which are used in stroke rehabilitation research and reported in the published literature. METHOD: Critical review and synthesis of measurement properties for six commonly reported instruments in the stroke rehabilitation literature. Each instrument was rated using the eight evaluation criteria proposed by the UK Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. The instruments were also assessed for the rigour with which their reliability, validity and responsiveness were reported in the published literature. RESULTS: Validity has been well reported for at least half of the measures reviewed. However, methods for reporting specific measurement qualities of outcome instruments were inconsistent. Responsiveness of measures has not been well documented. Of the three ICF categories, Participation seems to be most problematic with respect to: (a) lack of consensus on the range of domains required for measurement in stroke; (b) much greater emphasis on health-related quality of life, relative to subjective quality of life in general; (c) the inclusion of a mixture of measurements from all three ICF categories. CONCLUSIONS: The reader is encouraged to examine carefully the nature and scope of outcome measurement used in reporting the strength of evidence for improved participation associated with stroke rehabilitation. There is no consensus regarding the most important indicators of successful involvement in a life situation and which ones best represent the societal perspective of functioning. In particular, quality of life outcomes lack adequate conceptual frameworks to guide the process of development and validation of measures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.719 | 0.879 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".