Updating the <i>Montreal walking exoskeleton satisfaction and perspectives questionnaire</i> (MWESP-Q) following a 16-week walking program with the use of a wearable robotic exoskeleton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity as one of the major lifestyle-related health determinants is partially addressed by the Montreal Walking Exoskeleton Satisfaction and Perspectives-Questionnaire (MWESP-Q). OBJECTIVE: To document satisfaction of people with chronic spinal cord injury after the completion of a 10 to 16 weeks of the wearable robotic exoskeleton-assisted walking program, with the MWESP-Q updated to a context of health promotion. METHODS: Following a walking program (10–16 weeks), wheelchair users with chronic SCI completed the MWESP-Q online. Modification of the original questionnaire was conducted with 4 experts to ensure its content validity with a human framework to promote physical activity for health. RESULTS: Ten wheelchair users completed the questionnaire (men [Formula: see text] 6; 45.8 [Formula: see text] 13.4 years, SCI duration: 10.1 [Formula: see text] 5.8 years). Participants strongly agreed to be satisfied with the overall program; agreed to be satisfied towards exoskeleton, motivation to engage in physical activity, learnability and program attributes; rated “medium effort” for physical and cognitive exertion during training; reported light improvements for health benefit domain, but light to moderate improvements for general endurance (mean 5.5 /7, SD 1.4) and psychological well-being (mean 5.7 /7, SD 1.3). CONCLUSIONS: The updated MWESP-Q is now better equipped to measure physical and cognitive efforts in physical activity and changes in body and organic systems and in capabilities (health promotion). The updated MWESP-Q has 54 statements (14 additional statements and 1 deleted) organized around seven domains. The original measure was replaced by three 7-point Likert scales, one regarding agreement level (40 statements), level of effort (12 statements), and level of change (2 statements).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".