MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338368045 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20150423

Use of Rasch Analysis to Evaluate and Refine the Community Balance and Mobility Scale for Use in Ambulatory Community-Dwelling Adults Following Stroke

2016· article· en· W2338368045 on OpenAlexaff
K. J. Miller, Courtney L. Pollock, Brenda Brouwer, S. Jayne Garland

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRasch modelPolytomous Rasch modelAmbulatoryPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationCeiling effectPsychologyStroke (engine)Construct validityBalance (ability)Item response theoryPsychometricsMedicineClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207