Validity and Reliability of the Short Physical Performance Battery in Two Diverse Older Adult Populations in Quebec and Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the validity and reliability of the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) in adults 65 to 74 years old, capable in all basic activities of daily living (ADL), in Quebec and Brazil. METHODS: Participants were recruited in St. Bruno (Quebec) by local advertisements (n = 60) and in Santa Cruz (Brazil) by random sampling (n = 64). The SPPB includes tests of gait, balance, and lower-limb strength. Disability status was categorized as intact mobility, limited mobility, and difficulty in any of ADL. RESULTS: There was a graded decrease in mean SPPB scores with increasing limitation of lower limbs, disability, and poor health. Using the test-retest reliability the authors evaluated the intraclass correlation coefficient, which was high in both samples: .89 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.93) in St. Bruno and .83 in Santa Cruz (95% CI: 0.73, 0.89). DISCUSSION: This study provides evidence for the validity and reliability of SPPB in diverse populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".