Validity and reliability of the Chinese translation of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To translate and assess the reliability and validity of a Chinese version of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE).Methods: Participants included Chinese individuals >65 living in the community or assistive living facilities. At baseline, 73 subjects completed the translated PASE, and Chinese versions of three other scales to evaluate validity; the Timed-Up and Go (TUG), the Older American Resources Services Activities of Daily Living (OARS ADL), and the Activities Balance Confidence Scale (ABC). At follow-up, 66 subjects completed the PASE and a questionnaire to determine if there were any changes in health over the retest period.Results: The mean baseline PASE-C score was 76.0 (±49.1) at baseline and 78.33 (±50.27) at follow up. Correlations between the PASE-C and other variables were: age r = −0.51; TUG r = –0.52; OARS ADL r = 0.56 and ABC score r = 0.62. The retest reliability was ICC = 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.68–0.86).Conclusion: Our results indicate that the PASE-C has acceptable reliability and there is support for validity in the older Chinese population.Implications for RehabilitationPhysical activity is one to the best modalities for promoting, maintaining and/or remediating health after illness or impairment therefore knowledge of an older individual’s physical activity level is fundamental to rehabilitation clinicians and researchers.Translated standardized measures enable clinicians and researchers to capture data from otherwise inaccessible subjects/populations.The most commonly understood language in the world is Chinese yet almost no self-report measures of physical activity are available for this population.There is evidence supporting the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE-C).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".