Validity of the assessment of life habits in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the construct validity of a participation scale, the Assessment of Life Habits, with older adults having functional limitations. More specifically, the study aimed to verify the ability of the Assessment of Life Habits to discriminate between clienteles in 3 living environments, and to compare participation scores to functional independence scores obtained with the Functional Autonomy Measurement System (Système de mesure de l'autonomie fonctionnelle). DESIGN: Participants were evaluated once with the Assessment of Life Habits and the Functional Autonomy Measurement System. SUBJECTS: Eighty-seven older adults (mean age 78.0 years (8.2)) living in 3 types of environment: own home, private nursing home or long-term care centre. RESULTS: Results suggest that the Assessment of Life Habits scores discriminate between different levels of participation according to the living environments of the participants. The Assessment of Life Habits measures some similar aspects to the Functional Autonomy Measurement System scale but also additional concepts not included in the Functional Autonomy Measurement System. CONCLUSION: This study supports the validity of the Assessment of Life Habits as a participation measure. It suggests the importance of going beyond disability measures to evaluate the overall functioning of older adults correctly.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".