Measurement properties of gait speed tests in community-dwelling older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gait speed tests are one of the most commonly used measures of mobility for community- dwelling older adults. However, their measurement properties should be carefully examined before clinical decisions are made from scores. The aim of this doctoral dissertation was to evaluate the measurement properties of gait speed tests in community-dwelling older adults. The following studies were conducted to address this aim: 1) a systematic review to summarize the measurement properties of usual and fast gait speed tests in community-dwelling older adults, 2) a secondary data analysis examining the validity and responsiveness of a gait speed test in a large, Canadian sample of community-dwelling older adults, and 3) a prospective cohort study evaluating the measurement properties of virtually administered gait speed tests in community-dwelling older adults. Findings demonstrated evidence for the reliability of gait speed tests when administered under different protocols (e.g., in-person and virtually, and usual and fast pace), their construct validity with respect to evaluating locomotor capacity, and their responsiveness in relation to measures of locomotor capacity when performed at usual pace. Findings also highlighted the need for further testing of gait speed tests with higher quality studies. In conclusion, given the current evidence, gait speed tests can be used to monitor and compare community-dwelling older adults’ mobility.
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 | 0.051 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".