MAPPING THE LITERATURE FOR THE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY SCALE FOR THE ELDERLY (PASE): A SCOPING REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) is a commonly used and recommended self-report measure of physical activity in older adults. This scoping review aimed to map the nature and extent to which the PASE has been used in community-dwelling older adults, including the evidence for its psychometric properties. Review eligibility criteria included: i)community-dwelling older adults (60+ years), ii)physical activity integrated into study aims and measured with the PASE, and iii)published in English. Pairs of independent reviewers screened abstracts, full-texts, and extracted data. Where possible, weighted mean PASE scores were calculated for subgroups based on age, sex, and clinical population. Seven electronic databases were searched in January 2023; 4,124 studies were screened, and 232 articles from 35 countries were included. Most studies were completed in high-income countries (86.4%) and North America (49.57%). A variety of clinical conditions were included (n=21), the most common populations being osteoarthritis (n=13), Parkinson’s disease (n=11), and cognitive impairment (n=7). Psychometric properties for ten versions of the PASE were reported. All versions demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability. Evidence for construct validity reported moderate correlations with self-reported physical activity and fair to moderate correlations with accelerometry-derived activity. Pooled means were reported in graphs and forest plots by age, sex, and clinical populations. The PASE was widely used across geographical locations and culturally adapted to several populations. Some psychometric properties have been evaluated; however, further research is required to examine responsiveness and predictive validity. The weighted mean PASE scores presented can improve interpretability of scores in similar populations.
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 | 0.024 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.052 | 0.042 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".