Wheelchair Skills Test in simulated versus community settings: a mixed-methods crossover study of experienced motorized mobility scooter users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Wheelchair Skills Test (WST) is commonly conducted in a simulated setting. Although the WST can be done in the community setting, its usefulness in this setting has not been systematically evaluated. The purpose of this study was to compare the WST in the simulated versus community settings, and to explore participants' perceptions of performing in each environment. METHODS: For this mixed-methods study, we studied 20 motorized mobility scooter users who had used their devices for ≥ 3 months. Each participant completed the WST Version 4.3 twice in random order - once in a simulated setting and once in their community within a two-week period. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after completion of the WST in both environments. A self-report version of the WST (WST-Q) was also completed that measured perceived capacity, frequency of skill performance, and confidence. RESULTS: = 0.190). Community-setting WST scores were moderately correlated with WST-Q confidence scores. Simulated-setting scores were moderately correlated with WST-Q frequency scores. Although most participants preferred performing the WST in their communities due to convenience and familiarity, they perceived the simulated setting to be reflective of their community settings. CONCLUSION: Despite challenges, community-based testing may provide a better reflection of everyday performance for scooter users than testing in a simulated environment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".