The L Test of Functional Mobility: Measurement Properties of a Modified Version of the Timed “Up & Go” Test Designed for People With Lower-Limb Amputations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Purpose. Walk tests provide essential outcome information when assessing ambulation of individuals with lower-limb amputation and a prosthetic device. Existing tests have limitations such as ceiling effects or insufficient challenge. The objective of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of data for a clinical measure of basic mobility, the L Test of Functional Mobility (L Test). Subjects. For this methodological study, 93 people with unilateral amputations (74% transtibial, 26% transfemoral; 78% male, 22% female; mean age=55.9 years) were consecutively recruited from an outpatient clinic. Twenty-seven subjects returned for retesting. Methods. To assess concurrent validity, subjects completed the L Test, Timed “Up & Go” Test (TUG), 10-Meter Walk Test, and 2-Minute Walk Test, followed by the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale, Frenchay Activities Index (FAI), and mobility subscale of the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ-MS). Amputation cause and level, walking aid use, automatic stepping, and age variables were used to assess discriminant validity. Results. Intraclass correlation coefficients were .96 for interrater reliability and .97 for intrarater reliability, and minimal bias existed upon retesting. The magnitude of concurrent validity correlations (r) was very high between the L Test data and data for other walk tests and fair to moderate between the L Test data and data for self-report measures. The L Test discriminated between all groups as hypothesized. Discussion and Conclusion. The L Test is a 20-m test of basic mobility skills that includes 2 transfers and 4 turns. It demonstrated excellent measurement properties in this study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".