Reliability of the Hierarchical Assessment of Balance and Mobility in Frail Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study the test-retest and interrater reliability of the Hierarchical Assessment of Balance and Mobility (HABAM) in frail older adults. DESIGN: Convenience sample of 167 frail older adults seen as part of routine care by an academic geriatrician at a tertiary care teaching hospital. SETTING: Inpatient medical and geriatric wards, geriatric ambulatory care clinic, emergency department, home visits. PARTICIPANTS: The interrater reliability sample consisted of 98 inpatients and 69 outpatients. The test-retest reliability sample tracked 63 of the inpatients over the first 2 days of their hospital stay. MEASUREMENTS: Mobility and balance were assessed using the HABAM. Frailty was assessed using a frailty index based on a standardized Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. Reliability was assessed using Pearson correlations and the intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The interrater reliability of the HABAM was 0.92 and ranged from 0.88 to 0.96 across settings for the various components (balance, transfers, mobility). Test-retest reliability was 0.91 (range 0.85-0.92). CONCLUSION: The HABAM appears to be a reliable means of assessing mobility and balance in frail older adults.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".