Spinal Cord Injury Functional Ambulation Profile: A Preliminary Look at Responsiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Spinal Cord Injury Functional Ambulation Profile (SCI-FAP) is a valid, reliable measure of walking skill (eg, walking while negotiating obstacles, doors, and stairs). OBJECTIVE: The responsiveness of the SCI-FAP was assessed at least 7 months after spinal cord injury (SCI) and compared with that of the 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT) and the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT). DESIGN: A secondary analysis of data collected during a randomized, single-blind, crossover trial was performed. METHODS: Participants had incomplete SCI and could walk at least 5 m without manual assistance. After 3 or 4 baseline assessments, participants completed 2 months of precision training (stepping over obstacles and onto targets on the ground) and 2 months of endurance training (treadmill training with body weight support, if needed). Walking function was assessed with the SCI-FAP, 10MWT, and 6MWT. Internal responsiveness was evaluated through change scores and standardized response means (SRMs). External responsiveness was gauged by correlating change scores on the SCI-FAP, 10MWT, and 6MWT. The minimal detectable change was calculated from the standard error of measurement from the baseline assessments. RESULTS: The SCI-FAP scores improved with both interventions. The magnitude of change was greater for participants whose pretraining self-selected speed was less than 0.5 m/s. The SCI-FAP had moderate SRMs. The 10MWT (fastest speed) and 6MWT had the largest SRMs after precision training and endurance training, respectively. The minimal detectable change in the SCI-FAP was 96 points. LIMITATIONS: The convenience sample was small and all participants could ambulate independently (with devices); therefore, the generalizability of the findings is limited. CONCLUSIONS: The SCI-FAP was responsive to changes in walking ability in participants who had incomplete SCI and walked at slow speeds, but overall the 10MWT and 6MWT were more responsive.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".