Training older adults with low vision to use a computer tablet: A feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The purpose of this feasibility study was to investigate the potential use of a computer tablet as a low vision device to facilitate performance of and satisfaction with daily activities for older adults with low vision. Method A repeated measures design was used to measure outcomes. Four older adult women with low vision completed 10 weekly sessions of group training in tablet use. The feasibility of this research method and intervention was examined by evaluating recruitment capability, data collection procedures, outcome measures, intervention procedures, resources, and preliminary responses to intervention. Results The four participants were all women, with a mean age of 74.25 years (68–81). Visual acuity ranged from 20/160 to 20/4000. Mean change in performance and satisfaction on the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure were 3.45 and 3.65, respectively. Daily tablet use increased from 15 minutes at pretest to 3 hours at posttest to 4.5 hours at follow-up. Conclusion Group training in computer tablet use for older adults with low vision shows promise to improve performance and satisfaction in a variety of daily activities. With appropriate resources, the research method is feasible for a larger study examining this community-based intervention for older adults with low vision.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".