Activity limitation, coping efficacy and self-perceived physical independence in people with disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examines whether the relationships between activity limitations and independence are mediated by coping efficacy. METHOD: Data come from a cross-sectional survey of 286 adults, aged 55 or older, with osteoarthritis (OA) and/or osteoporosis (OP). Physical independence was assessed by asking to what extent respondents' OA/OP had affected their independence on a 5-point scale from 'not at all' to 'a great deal'. Activity limitations were examined in three domains: personal care, community mobility, and household activity. A coping efficacy scale was derived from three items scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Structural equation modelling was used to test the model. RESULTS: Activity limitation in household activities was directly associated with perceptions of independence, with a statistically significant standardized path coefficients of -0.32. The effect of activity limitation in personal care was partially mediated by coping efficacy with a direct effect of -0.41 which was partially offset by coping efficacy to give a net effect of -0.308. The effect of community mobility on independence was completely mediated through coping efficacy with significant standardized path coefficients of -0.85 (community mobility to coping efficacy) and -0.14 (coping efficacy to independence). The overall model's goodness of fit was excellent (R =0.59, ch-square/df=1.4, CFI=0.97, and NNFI=0.97). CONCLUSION: Activity limitation had a detrimental effect on the level of self-perceived independence. Coping efficacy showed a significant mediating effect between activity limitation and self-perceived independence for the domains of personal care and community mobility, but not household tasks. This study suggests that how activity limitation affects perceptions of independence varies across activity limitation domains, and indicates the importance of incorporating activity limitation domains in future studies.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".