Brief instrument for direct complex functionality assessment: a new ecological tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Direct Assessment of Functional Status (DAFS) is the only instrument validated in Brazil that assesses functionality directly with the patient. However, this clinical tool takes a long time to be administered. This limits its use in hospitals and outpatient clinics that require brief assessment instruments. Additionally, we need to count with a direct assessment because the number of older adults living alone is increasing and we thus lack reliable informants. Objective: This study aimed to present the development and content validity evidence of a direct complex functionality test for older adults, the Brief Instrument for Direct Functionality Assessment (BIDFA). Method: A total sample of 30 older adults and eight expert judges took part in the study stages. The BIDFA construction stages were: (1) literature review of functionality instruments; (2) development of seven ecological tasks to evaluate the performance of daily complex activities with the older adults; (3) content analysis by eight expert judges; (4) pilot study with 30 older adults; (5) the ecological analysis of items; (6) focus group analysis; and (7) final version of the BIDFA. Results: The BIDFA had evidence of content validity with an agreement index of 96.5%. The final version of BIDFA was left with six domains of complex functionality divided into semantic memory and time orientation; shopping skills; executive attention, math and finance skills; organization; planning and procedural memory; and problem-solving. The complex functionality score by BIDFA ranges from 0 to 100 points. Conclusion: The BIDFA was found to have good content validity by the expert judges and by the ecological analysis of the items by the older adults. The new instrument is expected to help assess the functional status of older adults, in an abbreviated context including complex functionality demands, with a wider range of total and subdomain scores.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".