THE SHORT VERSION OF THE ACTIVITIES-SPECIFIC BALANCE CONFIDENCE SCALE FOR OLDER ADULTS WITH DIABETES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (ABC-6) is advantageous in busy clinical or research settings as it can be administered in significantly less time than the original 16-item ABC scale (ABC-16). The purpose of this study was to examine the convergent, discriminant and concurrent validity of the ABC-6 in older adults with diabetes mellitus (DM) with and without diagnosed diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). Thirty older adults (aged ≥65) were age- and sex-matched in 3-groups: 10 with DM (DM-group), 10 with diagnosed DPN (DPN-group), and 10 without DM (noDM-group). Balance confidence was quantified with the ABC-16 which includes the six items of the ABC-6. Potential correlates were evaluated in physical and psychological domains. Our results indicated the ABC-6 and ABC-16 balance confidence scores were strongly correlated (r=0.969, p<0.001; convergent validity). The ABC-6 revealed significant differences in balance confidence between the noDM- and DM-groups (p<0.001; discriminant validity) whereas the ABC-16 did not (p>0.05). The ABC-6 was moderately but significantly correlated with physical activity level (r=0.528, p=0.017), mobility (r=-0.520, p=0.027), balance (r=0.633, p=0.003) and depressive symptoms (r=-0.515, p=0.020) in the DM study-groups (concurrent validity). In conclusion, the ABC-6 and ABC-16 had excellent convergent validity and both ABC-scales had similar concurrent validity. However, the ABC-6 was more sensitive to detect subtle differences in balance confidence in older adults with diabetes without diagnosed DPN than the ABC-16. Overall the ABC-6 is a valid assessment tool that may provide a means for early detection of balance and mobility-related declines in older adults with DM without diagnosed DPN.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".