Test–retest reliability and agreement of remote home-based functional capacity self-administered assessments in community-dwelling, socially isolated older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the test-retest reliability and agreement of home-based functional capacity self-administered assessments in socially isolated older adults. Methods: Fourteen community-dwelling older adults (eight females, 67.9 ± 7.7 years) volunteered for this study. Before testing, participants were screened online for eligibility and received instructional videos explaining test set-up and execution. Participants underwent the 30-second sit-to-standing test, gait speed tests at the usual pace, and timed-up-and-go tests administered 4 weeks apart. For the 30-second sit-to-standing protocol, participants were instructed to repeatedly sit and stand from a chair (with a height of ∼ 43 cm and without armrests) for 30 s, with the number of repetitions recorded. In the gait speed test protocol, participants were instructed to walk at their usual and comfortable pace, with the time taken recorded (seconds). In the timed-up-and-go, participants stood up from a chair, walked as fast as possible for 3 m, circled a marked point, and returned to the chair to sit down, completing the test, with the score recorded (seconds). A trained researcher conducted the scoring virtually via synchronous video. Results: 30-second sit-to-standing, gait speed test, and timed-up-and-go showed excellent mean coefficient of variation values (2.0-4.9), small standard error of measurement (0.08-1.27), excellent intraclass coefficient (0.97-0.99), very strong correlations (0.97-0.99) and good agreement between the two days of testing. Conclusion: Self-administered functional capacity tests performed by older adults at home were reliable with good agreement. Healthcare professionals and older adults should take advantage of simple remote self-administered assessments performed at home to evaluate older adults' health status.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".