Comparing the reliability of physical activity questionnaires in community-dwelling adults with stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Physical activity (PA) is important for people with stroke, but the reliability of PA questionnaires used in this population has been relatively unexplored.Objective To compare the internal consistency, test-retest, and absolute reliability of 3 commonly used PA questionnaires in adults with stroke.Methods Participants reported their PA levels twice, 2–3 days apart, using the Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities (PASIPD), International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), and Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,1) were calculated for test-retest reliability, Cronbach’s alpha (α) for internal consistency, and standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC95) for absolute reliability.Results Twenty-eight people (64.4 years, 50% female, 5.2 years post-stroke) participated. Internal consistency was acceptable for total scores on the IPAQ (α = 0.79) and GPAQ (α = 0.74), but only domain-level scores for the GPAQ (α = 0.71–0.88). In the full sample, test-retest reliability was good for the PASIPD (ICC2,1 = 0.83) but poor for the IPAQ and GPAQ (ICC2,1 <0.50). After excluding participants self-reporting true changes in PA, all questionnaires had good test-retest reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.77–0.88). SEM and MDC95 were lowest for the PASIPD (188.8 and 523.3 MET-minutes/week, respectively).Conclusions In adults with stroke, the IPAQ and GPAQ had adequate total-questionnaire internal consistency, and the GPAQ had acceptable domain-level internal consistency. When true change in PA did not occur, test-retest reliability was good for all questionnaires. We suggest clinicians and rehabilitation scientists can use any of the three questionnaires, but may consider the GPAQ due to acceptable internal consistency and test-retest reliability.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".