An Examination of the Reliability and Factor Structure of the Physical Activity Scale for Individuals With Physical Disabilities (PASIPD) Among Individuals Living With Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity is generally thought to be beneficial to individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD). There is, however, limited information regarding current rates of physical activity among individuals with PD, possibly due to a lack of well-validated measurement tools. In the current study we sampled 63 individuals (31 women) living with PD between the ages of 52 and 87 (M = 70.97 years, SD = 7.53), and evaluated the amount of physical activity in which they engaged over a 7-day period using a modified form of the Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities (PASIPD). The PASIPD was demonstrated to be a reliable measure within this population, with three theoretically defensible factors: (1) housework and home-based outdoor activities; (2) recreational and fitness activities; and (3) occupational activities. These results suggest that the PASIPD may be useful for monitoring physical activity involvement among individuals with PD, particularly within large-scale questionnaire-based studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".