Item analysis of the Functional Status Assessment of Seniors in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report some psychometric properties of the functional status assessment of seniors in the emergency department (FSAS-ED) at item level. This 40-item tool addresses the person's functional status prior to and following the decision to consult in ED. METHOD: A sample of 150 community-living elderly individuals who consulted the ED was recruited. Two evaluators administered the FSAS-ED in the ED and scored it independently. Three measurement properties were considered relevant for the item analysis: response distribution, inter-rater reliability and the ability to indicate a change between before and following the decision to consult ED. Criteria related to these properties were established to classify items as being excellent, acceptable or weak. RESULTS: The response distributions were excellent or acceptable for 36 items (90%). Results pertaining to inter-rater reliability showed 39 excellent or acceptable items (97.5%). Comparison of the responses between before and following the decision to consult to ED showed 24 (60%) excellent or acceptable items and 16 (40%) weak items; the latter were related to communication and cognitive skills. CONCLUSIONS: At the item level, the FSAS-ED provides reliable and clinically relevant information about the functional status of older adults consulting ED.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".