The Phone-FITT: A Brief Physical Activity Interview for Older Adults
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
The purpose of this study was to develop a brief physical activity interview for older adults (Phone-FITT) and evaluate its test-retest reliability and validity. Summary scores were derived for household, recreational, and total PA. Reliability was evaluated in a convenience sample from a fall-prevention study (N = 43, 79.4 +/- 2.9 years, 51% male), and validity, in a random sample of individuals in older adult exercise programs (N = 48, 77.4 +/- 4.7 years, 25% male). Mean time to complete the Phone-FITT was 10 min for participants sampled from exercise programs. Evaluation of test-retest reliability indicated substantial to almost perfect agreement for all scores, with intraclass correlation coefficients (95% confidence intervals) ranging from .74 (.58-.85) to .88 (.8-.94). For validity, Spearman's rho correlations of Phone-FITT scores with accelerometer counts ranged from .29 (.01-.53) to .57 (.34-.73). Correlations of Phone-FITT recreational scores with age and seconds to complete a self-paced step test ranged from -.29 (-.53 to -.01) to -.45 (-.68 to -.14). This study contributes preliminary evidence of the reliability and validity of the Phone-FITT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it