Assessing the measurement properties of life-space mobility measures in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preserving and enhancing mobility is an important part of healthy ageing. Life-space mobility is a construct that captures actual mobility within the home and the community. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesise the measurement properties and interpretability of scores produced by life-space mobility measures in community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: This systematic review followed Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). Multiple databases were searched to identify potentially relevant articles. Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality was conducted by two independent reviewers. When possible, results were quantitatively pooled for each measurement property. If studies could not be combined quantitatively, then findings were summarised qualitatively using means and percentage of confirmed hypothesis. Synthesised results were assessed against the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties. RESULTS: A total of 21 full text articles were included in the review. The University of Alabama at Birmingham Study of Aging Life-Space Assessment (LSA) was the most evaluated life-space mobility measure. The LSA demonstrated content validity, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.80-0.92), reliability [intra-class correlation value 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.80, 0.94)] and convergent validity with measures of physical function in community-dwelling older adults. CONCLUSION: This systematic review summarised the measurement properties of life-space mobility measures in community-dwelling older adults following COSMIN guidelines. The LSA has been translated into multiple languages and has sufficient measurement properties for assessing life-space mobility among community-dwelling older adults.
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 | 0.033 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".