Use of the LIFE-H in stroke rehabilitation: A structured review of its psychometric properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a structured review of the psychometric properties specific to the stroke population of the Assessment of Life Habits (LIFE-H). This tool measures quality of social participation, an important but under-evaluated aspect of stroke recovery. METHOD: A structured review of publications at MEDLINE; Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library using the following terms: LIFE-H, life habits, psychometric properties, measurement properties, reliability, repeatability, validity, responsiveness, appropriateness, ceiling effects, and floor effects. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified specific to stroke. Test-retest reliability was excellent (Intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs] ranging from 0.80 to 0.95). Inter-rater reliability ranged from adequate to excellent (r = 0.64-0.91) as well as agreement between responses of clients with stroke and their proxies (ICC ranging from 0.73 to 0.82). Convergent validity was adequate to excellent (r = 0.57-0.91) between the LIFE-H and two measures of functional independence. Two studies, one using patients and one using caregivers, suggest the LIFE-H is able to detect change over time. CONCLUSIONS: The LIFE-H is a psychometrically sound measure of quality of social participation for use in post-stroke assessment and is responsive to change.
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 | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".