Functional mobility assessment is reliable and correlated with satisfaction, independence and skills
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobility is essential for activities of daily living and therapists should give priority to evaluate its effects in their client’s performance. We aimed to ascertain the intra- and inter-rater reliability of Functional Mobility Assessment (FMA) and to identify correlations among satisfaction, independence, and skills in 44 users of manual wheelchairs and three users of powered wheelchairs. We analyzed the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of the FMA in a sample of 47 wheelchair users using the Cronbach’s Alpha. For correlations with FMA were used the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology, Functional Independence Measure, and Wheelchair Skills Test Questionnaire (manual and powered forms). The test-retest reliability showed good internal consistency (α > 0.9). Associations between functional independence, wheelchair skills, and functional mobility were significant (p < .05). The Brazilian version of the FMA is reliable for use among wheelchair users, and its correlation with other measurements suggests cohesion among assessments related to mobility devices.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it