Measurement properties of the Wheelchair Skills Test for scooters among experienced users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the score distribution, reliability, and validity of the objective Wheelchair Skills Test (WST) for scooter users. METHOD: A study using a test-retest design was conducted with 20 people who had mobility limitations that prevented them from ambulating more than one city block without a mobility aid, and who had owned a scooter for ≥3 months. Objective scooter skills, confidence, and physical accessibility were measured at both time points, while anxiety, depression, visual attention and task switching, functional independence, and visual acuity were measured only at baseline. RESULTS: The mean total WST scores at Time 1 and Time 2 were 86.3% and 87.5%. The WST ICC was 0.889. The WST had a SEM of 2.50 and a Cronbach's alpha of 0.74. The total WST scores were significantly correlated with total subjective WST-Q scores (r = 0.547, p = 0.013), scooter confidence (r = 0.466, p = 0.038), and were affected by gender (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: The WST for scooters has good test-retest reliability and generally varies as anticipated with other measures. Although further study is needed, the WST for scooters appears to have promise for use in research and clinical practice. Implications for Rehabilitation It is important to understand the measurement properties of the tools we use in rehabilitation so the results can be interpreted correctly. As scooter use increases, better measurement of skills is required.
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 | 0.002 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".