Adaptation to Spanish and Validity by Wearable Sensors of the Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No Spanish-language tool exists to assess physical activity in people with spinal cord injuries. This work aimed to provide a valid Spanish version of the Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with Spinal Cord Injury (PARA-SCI). It was conducted in three phases. First, translation and cross-cultural adaptation. Second, a reliability assessment through inter-rater reliability (n = 25) and test – retest reliability (n = 50). Third, validity assessment, comparing PARA-SCI-Spanish and wearable sensors (n = 13), as well as analyzing PARA-SCI-Spanish results between known groups (n = 235). Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.36 to 0.95. The correlations between the wearable sensors and the PARA-SCI-Spanish were r = 0.67, p = .005 (moderate to vigorous physical activity) and r = 0.62, p = .01 (total activity). The known-groups analyses demonstrated differences in accord with previous research and not differing according to the interview mode. The PARA-SCI-Spanish was a reliable and valid tool in telephone and face-to-face interviews.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".