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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".