Comparison between self-reported and observed locomotion ability scores in patients with stroke: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate (i) the validity of self-reported scores of locomotion ability in stroke survivors using the ABILOCO-Benin questionnaire, and (ii) the congruence between online Rasch analysis of the ABILOCO-Benin raw scores and a conversion table set along with the questionnaire development. Thirty-five adult poststroke patients [mean age: 52 (SD: 10) years, 60% men] recruited from the rehabilitation department of National University Hospital of Cotonou (Benin), self-reported their locomotion ability, filling out the ABILOCO-Benin questionnaire [self-reported scores (SRS)]. Afterwards, a physical therapist observed and rated the patients' locomotion ability, while they performed each of the 15 items of the questionnaire [performance-based scores (PBS)]. Both raw SRS and PBS were then converted to linear measures using (i) an online Rasch analysis method and (ii) an ordinal-to-interval transformation table. Analyses showed high correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.74, P<0.001) and nonsignificant difference (P=0.778) between SRS and PBS. Linear measures from online Rasch and a conversion table also exhibited high correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.92; P<0.001). However, the difference between online analysis and the conversion table was significant (P=0.022). In conclusion, self-report is a valid method to administer ABILOCO-Benin in stroke patients. The conversion table offers a valid opportunity for quick transfer of raw scores to linear measures. However, the accuracy of linear measures from the conversion table may be slightly affected by missing responses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".