Test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the Adapted Short QUestionnaire to ASsess Health-enhancing physical activity (Adapted-SQUASH) in adults with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study determined the test–retest reliability and concurrent validity of the Adapted Short QUestionnaire to ASsess Health-enhancing physical activity (Adapted-SQUASH) in adults with disabilities. Before filling in the Adapted-SQUASH twice with a recall period of 2 weeks, participants wore the Actiheart activity monitor up to 1 week. For the test–retest reliability (N = 68), Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were 0.67 (p < 0.001) for the total activity score (min x intensity/week) and 0.76 (p < 0.001) for the total minutes of activity (min/week). For the concurrent validity (N = 58), the Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.40 (p = 0.002) between the total activity score of the first administration of the Adapted-SQUASH and activity energy expenditure from the Actiheart (kcals kg−1 min−1). The ICC was 0.22 (p = 0.027) between the total minutes of activity assessed with the first administration of the Adapted-SQUASH and Actiheart. The Adapted-SQUASH is an acceptable measure to assess self-reported physical activity in large populations of adults with disabilities but is not applicable at the individual level due to wide limits of agreement. Self-reported physical activity assessed with the Adapted-SQUASH does not accurately represent physical activity assessed with the Actiheart in adults with disabilities, as indicated with a systematic bias between both instruments in the Bland–Altman analysis.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".