Reliability and construct validity of the Long Version of Disability Assessment for Dementia (Brazilian Version)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Evaluate the reliability test-retest (intra and inter-examiner) and construct validity of the Long Version of Disability Assessment for Dementia (Brazilian Version - DADL-BR). Methods The DADL-BR was applied to 58 caregivers/family of older adults with dementia. The inter-examiner (n = 30) and intra-examiner (n = 28) reliability was assessed using the kappa test and Pearson’s correlation coefficient, and the internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. The construct validity (n = 48) was performed by comparing DADL-BR with MMSE. Results The results of the intra and inter-examiner demonstrated good reliability (0.72 and 0.74), as well as nearly perfect correlations (0.99) for both inter- and intra-examiner reliability. The internal consistency was excellent (0.87) and the results demonstrated a good correlation (0.74) between DADL-BR and MMSE in construct validity analysis. Conclusions DADL-BR can be considered reliable instrument and with good construct validity, considering internal consistency and test-retest reliability and may be constitute a useful instrument for assessing the occupational performance profile of older adults with dementia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".