MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399265574 · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2024.105048

Acceptability, Reliability, and Validity of Virtually Administered Gait Speed Tests

2024· article· en· W4399265574 on OpenAlexafffund
Ava Mehdipour, Stéphanie Saunders, Julie C. Reid, Cassandra D’Amore, Julie Richardson, Marla Beauchamp, Ayse Kuspinar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineReliability (semiconductor)GaitIntra-rater reliabilityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationValidityPreferred walking speedPredictive validityConvergent validityPhysical therapyPsychometricsClinical psychologyInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the acceptability, reliability (inter- and intrarater), and validity (convergent, known groups, and predictive) of virtually administered gait speed tests for community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study was performed, tracking health outcomes for a year. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The 3-m gait speed test at usual and fast pace was administered to community-dwelling older adults over Zoom. METHOD: To examine acceptability, participants completed questionnaires regarding telehealth usability and experience. Virtual gait speed tests were administered at baseline and 24 to 72 hours later to evaluate reliability. Self-report mobility measures were used to examine convergent and known-groups validity. Participants' health outcomes were tracked for a year to evaluate predictive validity. RESULTS: Sixty participants completed the baseline assessment and 52 completed the second assessment. Participants reported an overall positive experience with the test. Intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability ranged from 0.79 to 0.90. For convergent validity, correlations >0.30 were found predominantly for usual gait speed with self-report mobility measures. Both the usual- and fast-gait speed were able to discriminate between difficulty walking and gait aid use. Usual gait speed was able to predict specialist and family doctor visits and fast gait speed was able to predict rehabilitation specialist visits over 1 year. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our findings demonstrate support for the acceptability, reliability, and validity of virtually administered gait speed tests for community-dwelling older adults. Although future studies are needed to examine the validity of virtual gait speed tests in larger and more diverse samples to improve generalizability of results, clinicians and researchers can virtually administer 3-m gait speed tests with confidence that scores are trustworthy and reflect older adults' mobility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Medical Directors AssociationSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207