Relationship between Self-Report and Performance Measures of Function: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The authors conducted a systematic review of studies examining correlations between assessments of function obtained using self-report and those obtained using performance-based measures for community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: Articles for this review were identified using electronic searching in MEDLINE, CINHAL, and AGELINE and hand-searching techniques. Two reviewers selected the studies that met the inclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed the methodological quality of the data. RESULTS: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria for review. Correlations between self-report and performance ranged from -0.72 to 0.60. Sixty per cent of the studies compared self-report instruments measuring disability with performance measures addressing functional limitations. In studies that assessed the same functional tasks and functional limitations using the two methods, the correlation varied between 0.60 and 0.86. CONCLUSION: When the construct measured by the two methods was the same, the correlations were moderate to large and, therefore, measurement of functional limitations by self-report or performance probably reflected a similar assessment of function.
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 | 0.018 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".