Do Older Adults’ Beliefs About Their Community Mobility Predict Walking Performance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among older adults, preserving community mobility (CM) is important for maintaining independent living. We explored whether perceptions of the environment and self-efficacy for CM (SE-CM) would predict walking performance for tasks reflecting CM. We hypothesized that perceptions of the environment and SE-CM would be additive predictors of walking performance on tasks reflecting the complexity of CM. Independent living older adults (N = 60) aged 64-85 completed six complex walking tasks (CWTs), SE-CM, and the environmental analysis of mobility questionnaire (EAMQ). Multiple regression analyses indicated that for each CWT, the EAMQ scales predicted walking performance (range: model R2Adj. = .078 to .139, p < .04). However, when SE-CM was added to the models, it was the sole significant predictor (p < .05). Contrary to our hypotheses, SE-CM was the best predictor in the additive models. SE-CM may be more correspondent to walking tests and thus a more sensitive predictor of CM walking performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".