Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Ottawa Sitting Scale in patients with acute stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To investigate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Ottawa Sitting Scale (OSS-T) in patients with acute stroke.Materials and methods The Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS) were used to determine the validity of the OSS-T. The OSS-T was re-applied by the same rater after an interval of 7 days to determine the reliability. To test inter-rater reliability, the evaluation was repeated by a second rater 1 day after the first evaluation. Reliability was quantified using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and validity was assessed by correlating the OSS-T scores with the results of the other measures.Results The ICC of the total OSS-T score for inter-rater reliability was 0.996 and for intra-rater reliability, it was 0.951. The Cronbach’s α coefficient used to determine internal consistency was 0.980, which indicates excellent reliability. A strong positive correlation was found between OSS-T and TIS (rho = 0.861, p < 0.001), and between OSS-T and BBS (rho = 0.875, p < 0.001). An evident 2-factor structure was shown by the results of the factor analysis.Conclusions The results of this study indicated that the OSS-T has strong measurement properties, making it a valid and reliable tool for research and clinical practice in patients with acute stroke.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONIndependent sitting function is an important indicator of functional recovery and discharge from hospital.Unlike other sitting balance tools, the Ottawa Sitting Scale can even categorize patients with low balance reserve by applying all the items with and without foot support.The Turkish version of the Ottawa Sitting Scale is a valid and reliable tool to evaluate sitting balance in patients with acute stroke.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".