Pragmatic Evaluation of Older Adults’ Physical Activity in Scale-Up Studies: Is the Single-Item Measure a Reasonable Option?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Convergent validity and responsiveness to change of the single-item physical activity measure were assessed in adults aged 60 years and older, at baseline (n = 205) and 6 months (n = 177) of a health promotion program, Choose to Move. Spearman correlations were used to examine associations between physical activity as measured by the single-item measure and the Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS) questionnaire at baseline and for 6-month change in all participants and for sex and age (60-74 years, and ≥75 years) subgroups. Effect size assessed responsiveness to change in physical activity for both tools. Baseline physical activity by the single-item measure correlated moderately with physical activity by the CHAMPS questionnaire in all participants and subgroups. Correlations were weaker for change in physical activity. Effect size for physical activity change was larger for the single-item measure than for the CHAMPS questionnaire. The single-item measure is a valid, pragmatic tool for use in intervention and scale-up studies with older adults.
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 | 0.456 | 0.595 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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 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".