MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411310571 · doi:10.1177/0031512516653388

The Psychometric Properties of a Modified Sit-to-Stand Test With Use of the Upper Extremities in Institutionalized Older Adults

2016· article· en· W2411310571 on OpenAlexaff
Mélanie Le Berre, David Apap, Jade Babcock, Sarah Bray, Esther Gareau, Kathleen Chassé, Nicole Lévesque, Shawn M. Robbins

Bibliographic record

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsSte. Anne's HospitalCentre de réadaptation Lethbridge-Layton-MackayCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)PsychologyPsychometricsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationClinical psychologyPhysical therapyGerontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current sit-to-stand protocols do not permit use of upper extremities, limiting the protocols' utility for institutionalized older adults with diminished physical function. The objective of this study was to modify a 30-s sit-to-stand protocol to allow for arm use and to examine test-retest reliability and convergent validity; 54 institutionalized older adult men (age = 91 ± 3 year) performed the 30-s sit-to-stand twice within a span of 3 to 7 days. Results suggest good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = .84) and convergent validity with the Timed Up and Go Test (r = -.62). This modified 30-s sit-to-stand can be used to assess physical function performance in institutionalized older adults and will ensure that individuals with lower physical function capacity can complete the test, thus eliminating the floor effect demonstrated with other sit-to-stand protocols.

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)0.000
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 score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptual and Motor SkillsSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207