Data_Sheet_2_The VITAAL Stepping Exergame Prototype for Older Adults With Major Neurocognitive Disorder: A Usability Study.docx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Purpose: This study investigates the usability of a stepping exergame in older adults with major neurocognitive disorder (MNCD) residing in a long-term care facility.</p><p>Materials and Methods: A mixed methods study was conducted. Participants played exergames for 30 min on one try-out session. During the exergames, the think aloud method was used, and field notes were taken by the facilitator. Following the exergames, participants completed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and a semi-structured in-depth interview about usability including their personal experiences. Audio files were transcribed and a thematic content analysis of the think aloud data, field notes and interviews were performed using NVivo 12.</p><p>Results: Twenty-two participants with MNCD were included [mean age = 84.3 ± 5.5 (70–95) years; 81.8% women; Short Physical Performance Battery score = 7.5 ± 3.2 (1–12), Montreal Cognitive Assessment score = 11.9 ± 4.4 (2–19)]. System usability was rated “ok to good” with a mean SUS score of 57.8 (SD = 12.3) with scores ranging from 37.5 to 90.0. Five main themes emerged from the thematic content analysis: (1) perceived user friendliness and acceptability of the exergames; (2) interactional experience; (3) motivational factors; (4) training modalities; and (5) risks. There were no adverse events nor dropouts.</p><p>Conclusion: Participants evaluated the usability of the exergames positively. The results indicate that the stepping exergame is usable in older adults with MNCD.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.103 | 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 teacher head, 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".