Construct validity of the late life function and disability instrument for adults with chronic conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the validity of the late life function and disability instrument (LLFDI) when applied to adults aged 44-65 years with chronic conditions. DESIGN: We applied a convergent cross-sectional construct validity design to examine the association between the LLFDI subscales and the medical outcomes study (MOS) 36-Item Health Survey Physical Component Score (SF36 PCS), MOS Physical Functioning scale (PF10), 2-minute walk distance (2MWD) and 8-foot walk test (8FWT). PARTICIPANTS: Our sample consisted of 174 community-dwelling adults age 45-65 years with one or more chronic conditions. SETTING: Participants were enrolled at a multidisciplinary family health practice. RESULTS: The LLFDI function correlated strongly with the PF10 (r = 0.84) and moderately with the 2MWD (r = 0.53) and 8FWT (r = -0.48). The LLFDI disability limitation correlated moderately with the SF36 PCS, 2MWD and 8FWT (r = 0.67, 0.45, -0.32, respectively). The LLFDI disability frequency correlated moderately with the SF36 PCS, 2MWD and 8FWT (r = 0.44, 0.33, -0.31). Ninety-five percent confidence intervals on all correlation coefficients excluded zero. CONCLUSION: Cross-sectional convergent validity of the LLFDI was supported when applied to adults 45-65 years of age with chronic conditions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".