Wheeled mobility use outcomes: a systematic review protocol of measurement properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Numerous tools have been developed to measure constructs related to wheelchair use. Currently, no toolkit comprehensively details assessments of wheeled mobility device use based on the quality of their measurement properties. The current review aims to systematically identify high-quality assessment tools that measure different aspects of wheeled mobility use. OBJECTIVE: The objectives are two-fold: i) to synthesize outcome measures that assess use of wheeled mobility devices, and ii) to evaluate measurement properties of the assessment tools. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The populations of interest are manual wheelchair users, power wheelchair users, and scooter users of any age, diagnosis, or setting. Instruments of any type will be included. METHOD: The JBI methodology for systematic reviews of measurement properties will guide this review. A search strategy will be developed to search the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), PsycTests (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The article selection process, data extraction, and quality appraisal will be performed by 2 independent reviewers, with a third reviewer being consulted to achieve consensus. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed through the Consensus Standards for the Selection of Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias tool and the COSMIN Checklist. The quality of the pooled evidence and individual measurement properties will be graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the COSMIN Criteria for Good Measurement Properties recommendations. Measurement properties of each instrument will be described, with the goal of developing a toolkit that identifies appropriate assessment tools for wheeled mobility use outcomes. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD4202276169.
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 | 0.009 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".