/'v //'f Cictontdluxk'til.SV'r/c/v of America Feasibility and Measurement Properties of the Functional Reach and the Timed Up and Go Tests in the Canadian Study of Health and Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Physical performance measures may offer advantages over self-report in the functional assessment of older people. Estimates of the feasibility, reliabili ty, and construct validity of these measures in large, heterogeneous samples are necessary to establish their importance relative to traditional measures of function. Methods. Analysis of clinical data from Phase 2 of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging, a nation-wide representative survey of elderly people in Canada (A' = 2305). Results. Both physical performance measures proved infeasible in many subjects (29.3 % for the Timed Up and Go |TUG], 35.9 % for the Functional Reach (FR|). Cognitive impairment was the most important determinant of inability to complete the tests. For those able to complete the tests, cognitively unimpaired subjects could reach farther (median 29 cm) and complete the TUG in less time (median 12 seconds (than those cognitively impaired (25 cm for FR, 15 seconds for the TUG). Test-retest reliability between the screening and clinical administrations of the TUG was.56 for all participants (intra-class correlations),.50 tor the cognitively unimpaired, and.56 for the cognitively impaired. Construct validity was substantial, and correlations between performance measures and self-report activities of daily l iv ing (ADL) measures ranged from.40 to.70. Compared with a global clinical measure of frailty, correlations were more modest (.38 to.60). Conclusions. The FR and the TUG were not feasible tools in this study. The TUG showed poor test-retest reliabili ty. Our data support the observation that subsequent studies of measurement instruments typically reveal lower performance than the-original reports.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.641 | 0.333 |
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".