Engagement in meaningful activities survey: Portuguese version for middle-age and older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participation in daily activities has been associated with positive health effects and well-being. Several studies have highlighted the importance of focusing on the personal meaningfulness of such participation and less on the extent and frequency of activities. The Engagement in Meaningful Activities Survey (EMAS) is a widely used instrument to assess such meaningfulness. This study aims to explore the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity of the Portuguese version of the EMAS and to contribute to the international discussion about the dimensions of this scale. The sample comprised 203 middle aged and older adults (mean age 73.96 years, SD = 9.42 years), most of whom were women (70.9%). Data collection included the translated and adapted Portuguese version of the EMAS and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). The EMAS’s internal consistency was α = .91. The exploratory factorial analysis revealed the unifactorial structure of the scale. Test-retest (r = 0.67) and criterion validity (r = 0.36) presented appropriate values. These data show that the Portuguese version of the EMAS represents a reliable and valid measure to capture the subjective qualities of meaningful activity participation. This scale can be of particular use in defining interests and planning interventions targeting middle age and older adults as well as for assessing the impact of interventions that focus on activity participation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".