Intertrial and test-retest reliabilities of Timed Bridge tests among frail older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the reliability of three versions of the Timed Bridge test (TB test) using the generalizability theory. A convenience sample of 30 frail older adults, from 65 to 94 years of age, performed three different TB Tests: 1) hold test (TB-Static); 2) five-repetitions dynamic test (TB-5rep); and 3) 60-second dynamic test (TB-60s). The tests were repeated twice on two occasions separated by a 48-hour interval. For each trial, the height of the bridge, the time of execution or the number of repetitions, the pain, and perceived effort were recorded. The intertrial and test-retest reliability for bridge heights were excellent. For the duration and the number of repetitions, a good intertrial reliability was found (0.83 <Phi< 0.94; SEMs 11.1 s, 2.9 s, and 4.2 rep), and the test-retest reliability was good for the TB-60 s and moderate for TB-Static and for the TB-5rep. The different tests were generally well tolerated by the subjects. The level of exertion perceived by the participants was light for the TB-5rep and moderate for the TB-Static and TB-60 s. The TB tests were simple to execute, showed good clinical applicability, and provided reliable measurements in a geriatric population.
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 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".