Validating the wheelchair outcome measure for residents in long-term care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the retest reliability and construct validity of the self-report and proxy versions of the wheelchair outcome measure (WhOM) among residents in long-term care. METHOD: The WhOM was administered to 55 wheelchair users living in residential care (38 self-respondents and 17 proxy respondents). Retest data were collected to estimate reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for each of the tool scores (Importance, Satisfaction and Importance × Satisfaction). For construct validity testing, Spearman's correlation coefficients were used to assess whether WhOM scores were correlated with scores from the Late Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLDI) and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). RESULTS: The ICCs for the WhOM scores were between 0.68 and 0.84. Moderate correlations were found between the self-respondents and proxy respondents groups with Importance × Satisfaction and LLDI (r = 0.46-0.50). No other significant correlations were found. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence for the reliability and validity of the WhOM for adults in residential care, but further testing is warranted to ensure it can facilitate prescription of the right device at the right time for residents in these settings. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Clients who reside in long-term care (LTC) institutions represent a population who have unique needs because of the varied types of activities in which they participate. This study provides support for use of the WhOM on an individual basis among self-responding residents. The study provides some support and use of the WhOM with groups of residents who require proxy respondents. Additional studies with a larger sample size are needed to further explore the psychometrics of the measure.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".