Factorial validation of a walking safety scale (GEM scale) for the geriatric population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The GEM scale is an objective assessment tool evaluating walking safety of elderly individuals. It includes 33 walking items divided into three subscales (A, B, and C). The purpose of this study was to estimate the internal consistency and factorial validation of the scale. Seventy-four subjects (> or = 65 years) recruited from geriatric units were assessed by a total of 11 physical therapists. The internal consistency data were analyzed by using the Cronbach alpha coefficient. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to analyze the factorial structure of the scale and determine the construct validation. The internal consistency for the three subscales revealed high Cronbach alpha (subscales A = 0.90; B = 0.76, and C = 0.85). The preliminary analyses of the factorial validation did not confirm the original structure of the scale. For subscales A and B, a three-factor solution was supported by the analyses and explained 61% of the total variance. For subscale C, a four-factor solution was extracted and explained 87% of the total variance. The three subscales showed excellent item homogeneity. The factorial validation results support a new structure for the GEM scale regrouping the items in two sub-scales under different factors. The reorganization of the walking items into representative factors will allow a better understanding and interpretation of the scale.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".