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 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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".