Use of Rasch Analysis to Evaluate and Refine the Community Balance and Mobility Scale for Use in Ambulatory Community-Dwelling Adults Following Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M) is increasingly used to evaluate walking balance following stroke. OBJECTIVE: This study applied Rasch analysis to evaluate and refine the CB&M for use in ambulatory community-dwelling adults following stroke. METHODS: The CB&M content was linked to task demands and motor skill classifications. Rasch analysis was used to evaluate internal construct validity (structural validity) and refine the CB&M for use with ambulatory community-dwelling adults following stroke. The CB&M data were collected at 3 time points: at discharge from inpatient rehabilitation and at 6 and 12 months postdischarge (N=238). Rasch analysis evaluated scale dimensionality, item and person fit, item response bias, scoring hierarchy, and targeting. Disordered scoring hierarchy was resolved by collapsing scoring categories. Highly correlated and "misfitting" items were removed. Sensitivity to change was evaluated with standardized response means (SRMs) and one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: The CB&M was primarily linked to closed body transport task demands. Significant item-trait interaction, disordered scoring hierarchies, and multidimensionality were found. Scoring categories were collapsed in 15/19 items, and 5 misfitting items were removed. The resulting stroke-specific 14-item unidimensional CB&M (CB&MStroke) fit Rasch model expectations, with no item response bias, acceptable targeting (13% floor effects and 0% ceiling effects), and moderate-to-strong sensitivity to change at 6 months postdischarge (SRM=0.63; 95% confidence interval=-1.523, -0.142) and 12 months postdischarge (SRM=0.73; 95% confidence interval=-2.318, -0.760). LIMITATIONS: Findings are limited to a modest-sized sample of individuals with mild-to-moderate balance impairment following stroke. CONCLUSIONS: The CB&MStroke shows promise as a clinical scale for measuring change in walking balance in ambulatory community-dwelling adults poststroke. Future studies are recommended in a larger sample to validate and further refine the scale for use in this clinical 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 | 0.026 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".