Reliability, convergent validity and applicability of the Assistive Technology Outcome Profile for Mobility for middle‐aged and older power wheelchair users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The Assistive Technology Outcome Profile for Mobility (ATOP/M) was designed to isolate the impact of mobility assistive technology on perceived difficulty with activity and participation. The study objectives were to examine its measurement properties (test-retest reliability and convergent validity) and applicability for middle-aged and older power wheelchair (PWC) users. METHODS: Four ATOP/M subscales were administered using computer adaptive testing (activity with mobility device, activity without mobility device, participation with mobility device, participation without mobility device). Test-retest reliability (4-wk interval), convergent validity (a priori hypothesis testing of correlations with participation (Late-life Disability Instrument) and mobility (Life-space Assessment)) and applicability (respondent burden, distributions) were examined with 116 PWC users between 50 and 85 years of age presenting with a variety of diagnoses. RESULTS: When using powered mobility, perceived difficulty with activity and participation scores were similar to the general population of mobility devices users (T-score range 46.3-53.7), while activity and participation were significantly lower without mobility devices (T-score range 35.3-39.4). Test-retest reliability intra-class coefficients of the four subscales ranged between 0.82 and 0.91, and convergent validity was supported by moderate correlations (r = 0.35-0.47). Respondent burden was higher for the without devices subscales and none of the subscales had significant floor/ceiling effects. CONCLUSION: Our results provide support for reliability and convergent validity of the ATOP/M for PWC users. Specific strategies were recommended to optimise applicability with this population such as administration guidelines for reframing the without device scale and timing of data collection.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".