DISCORD BETWEEN SELF-REPORT AND PERFORMANCE-BASED ADL MEASURES AMONG PREFRAIL OR FRAIL OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Prefrail and frail older adults face an increased risk of late-life disability. Detecting the decline in activities of daily living is essential to mitigate or reverse the progression of disability in this population. However, self-report and performance-based measures of activities of daily living do not always coincide because the magnitude of decline could be too subtle to detect or be aware of. This study examined the correlation between the two evaluation approaches and compared the characteristics of participants who overestimated with those who underestimated their performance. The baseline data of 71 prefrail or frail, community-living older adults (Mean age = 74 years) from previous clinical trials were analyzed. There was no statistically significant correlation between the self-reported measure in activities of daily living (assessed by the Performance Score of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure) and the performance-based measure (assessed by the Motor Skills Score of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills), rs =.01, p =.94. Approximately half of the participants showed a discrepancy between the two measures. Those who overestimated (n = 12) tended to be older and had poorer physical functioning than those who underestimated (n = 20), all ps <.05. Additionally, those who overestimated were more satisfied with their performance of activities of daily living than those who underestimated it, Z = 35.55, p <.05. Overestimation and underestimation may reflect different coping mechanisms adopted by prefrail and frail older adults in response to functional decline. Research to further investigate these mechanisms is encouraged.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".