Measuring social participation: reliability of the LIFE-H in older adults with disabilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Much more attention should be paid to instruments documenting social participation as this area is increasingly considered a pivotal outcome of a successful rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to document the reliability of a participation measure, the Assessment of Life Habits (LIFE-H), in older adults with functional limitations. METHODS: Eighty-four individuals with physical disabilities living in three different environments were assessed twice with the LIFE-H, an instrument that documents the quality of social participation by assessing a person's performance in daily activities and social roles (life habits). RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) computed for intrarater reliability exceeded 0.75 for seven out of the 10 life habits categories. For interrater reliability, the total score and daily activities subscore are highly reliable (ICC </=0.89), and the social roles subscore is moderately reliable (ICC = 0.64). 'Personal care' is the category with the highest ICC, and for five other categories ICCs are moderate to high (< 0.60). CONCLUSION: LIFE-H is a valuable addition to instruments that mostly emphasize the concepts of function or functional independence. It is particularly meaningful to evaluate the participation of older adults in significant social role domains such as recreation and community life. It may be considered among the instruments having the best fit with the ICF definition of participation (the person's involvement in a life situation) and a majority of its related domains.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it