MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092120389 · doi:10.5014/ajot.2020.039354

Psychometric Evaluation of an <i>ICF</i> -Based Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Assessment With Older Adults With Cognitive Decline

2020· article· en· W3092120389 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
I‐Ching Chuang, Wen‐Chuin Hsu, Chia-Ling Chen, Yih‐Ru Wu, Hui-Yan Chiau, Ching‐Yi Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivities of daily livingCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthPsychologyGerontologyDigit symbol substitution testIntervention (counseling)Scale (ratio)Cognitive skillIndependent livingPhysical therapyClinical psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineCognitive impairmentRehabilitationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Identifying cognitive or physical limitations that contribute to difficulties in instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) is critical for adequate intervention with community-dwelling older adults with cognitive decline. OBJECTIVE: To establish the validity and responsiveness of an IADL scale based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (the ICF-IADL) with respect to both cognitive and physical limitations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Multiple community care and senior centers. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-two older adults. INTERVENTION: Combination of physical exercise and cognitive training. MEASURES: Five criterion measures-Lawton IADL Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSS), Word Lists Test (WLT), and Timed Up and Go Test (TUG). RESULTS: The ICF-IADL's three summary scales-Disability Index (DI), Cognitive Disability Index (CDI), and Physical Disability Index (PDI)-had good concurrent validity with the Lawton IADL Scale. The DI and CDI had moderate to good associations with the MoCA. The DI's and CDI's predictive validity for scores on the Lawton IADL Scale, MoCA, and TUG was moderate to good and that of the PDI was fair. Responsiveness was large for the DI, moderate for the CDI, and small for the PDI. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The ICF-IADL can be used to measure disability in IADLs related to cognitive and physical limitations. The DI and CDI were better than the PDI in predicting outcomes in general cognitive function and dynamic balance and were more responsive to change after intervention than the PDI. WHAT THIS ARTICLE ADDS: The ICF-IADL addresses both cognitive and physical limitations and can be a valid assessment of IADLs. Occupational therapists can use it to determine difficulties in IADLs and causes of those difficulties, guide treatment planning, and monitor intervention effectiveness with community-dwelling older adults with cognitive decline.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207