Validity of measures for life space mobility and physical activity in older adults with lower-limb amputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults with lower-limb amputations (LLAs) often experience lack of confidence and poor balance, which limits their mobility. There are few validated measures for assessing these outcomes in the LLA population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the validity of the Life Space Assessment (LSA) and the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) for older adults with LLA. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analyses of cross-sectional data. METHODS: Sixty-eight older adults with LLA across Canada were recruited to complete the LSA and the PASE. Validity was assessed via correlations with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC), Four-Square Step Test (FSST), and Two-Minute Walk Test (2-MWT). RESULTS: As hypothesized, the LSA was positively correlated with the ABC (ρ = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.17, 0.62]) and 2-MWT (r = 0.49, 95% CI [0.27, 0.70]) and negatively correlated with FSST (ρ = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.56, -0.10]). The PASE was positively correlated with the ABC (ρ = 0.34, 95% CI [0.10, 0.56]) and 2-MWT (ρ = 0.32, 95% CI [0.05, 0.52]), and negatively correlated with FSST (ρ = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.53, -0.07]). CONCLUSIONS: The LSA has validity in measuring life space mobility. The PASE captures the physical activity with weaker support of validity in older adults with LLA. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The LSA and PASE are quick low-cost tools for clinicians to assess mobility-related functional health and physical activity, respectively, in older adults with LLA. However, the PASE may contain activities that are not common among older adults with LLA.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".