Psychometric properties of the NOMO 1.0 tested among adult powered-mobility users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Nordic Mobility Related Outcome Evaluation of Assistive Device Intervention (NOMO 1.0) instrument evaluates the effectiveness of mobility devices in assessing mobility-related participation, captured by three scales (Need for Assistance, Frequency, and Ease/Difficulty) and one index (Participation Repertoire). PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate a range of psychometric properties of the NOMO 1.0 in a sample of adult powered mobility device (PMD) users. METHOD: Data collected from PMD users ( N = 248) in Denmark, Finland, and Norway as part of a larger study were analyzed using state-of-the-art statistical methods. FINDINGS: The acceptability and applicability of the NOMO 1.0 items were generally within recommended values. Some floor/ceiling effects were found and the reliability was acceptable for only the Frequency scale. The factor analysis identified one component for the Need for Assistance scale and six components of the Frequency scale. IMPLICATIONS: The NOMO 1.0 should be used for research purposes and not for clinical practice. Better reliability should be established for the Need for Assistance and Ease/Difficulty scales prior to further psychometric testing to establish the validity of the NOMO 1.0.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".