MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388016009 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afad124

Measures of perceived mobility ability in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review of psychometric properties

2023· review· en· W4388016009 on OpenAlexaff
Marla Beauchamp, Qiukui Hao, Ayse Kuspinar, Keitaro Makino, Mina Nouredanesh, Yunli Zhao, Christopher Mikton, Jotheeswaran Amuthavalli Thiyagarajan, Theresa Diaz, Parminder Raina

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster University
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)MedicineGerontologyScale (ratio)Quality of life (healthcare)Convergent validityClinical psychologySystematic reviewPsychometricsMEDLINEInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesise the psychometric properties of measures of perceived mobility ability and related frameworks used to define and operationalise mobility in community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: We registered the review protocol with PROSPERO (CRD42022306689) and included studies that examined the psychometric properties of perceived mobility measures in community-dwelling older adults. Five databases were searched to identify potentially relevant primary studies. We qualitatively summarised psychometric property estimates and related operational frameworks. We conducted risk of bias and overall quality assessments, and meta-analyses when at least three studies were included for a particular outcome. The synthesised results were compared against the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments criteria for good measurement properties. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies and 17 measures were included in the review. The Late-Life Function and Disability Index: function component (LLFDI-FC), lower extremity functional scale (LEFS), Mobility Assessment Tool (MAT)-short form (MAT-SF) or MAT-Walking, and Perceived Driving Abilities (PDA) Scale were identified with three or more eligible studies. Most measures showed sufficient test-retest reliability (moderate or high), while the PDA scale showed insufficient reliability (low). Most measures had sufficient or inconsistent convergent validity (low or moderate) or known-groups validity (low or very low), but their predictive validity and responsiveness were insufficient or inconsistent (low or very low). Few studies used a conceptual model. CONCLUSION: The LLFDI-FC, LEFS, PDA and MAT-SF/Walking can be used in community-dwelling older adults by considering the summarised psychometric properties. No available comprehensive mobility measure was identified that covered all mobility domains.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.139
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.139
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.010
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.213
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207