Interrater and intrarater reliability of the wheelchair skills test version 4.2 for power wheelchair users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to estimate the interrater and intrarater reliability of the Wheelchair Skills Test (WST) Version 4.2 for powered wheelchairs operated by adult users. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cohort study with a convenience sample of occupational therapists (n = 10). For the main outcome measure, participants viewed and scored eight videos of adult power wheelchair users completing the 30 skills of the WST Version 4.2 on two occasions, a minimum of two weeks apart. Using these scores, we calculated intraclass correlation coefficients to estimate interrater and intrarater reliability. RESULTS: The interrater reliability intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.940 (95%CI 0.862-0.985). Intrarater reliability intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.923 to 0.998. CONCLUSIONS: The WST Version 4.2 has excellent interrater and intrarater reliability and is a reliable tool for use in clinical and research practice to evaluate a power wheelchair user's skill capacity. Implications for Rehabilitation The Wheelchair Skills Test for Powered Wheelchair Users (WST-P 4.2) is a useful addition to the clinical tools available for clinicians who assess and train for powered wheelchair use. The WST-P 4.2 has excellent reliability and potential for clinical use as a pre-post measure of powered wheelchair skills. Clinicians using the WST-P 4.2 should attempt to maintain consistent scoring procedures, particularly for those skills that may require subjective assessment of skill safety.
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 | 0.028 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".