Utility software - Wikipedia

Utility Tool | Pirate PC - Part 2

Utility Tool | Pirate PC - Part 2

Interrater reliability and clinical utility of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART) in an inpatient rehabilitation setting. Utility software is software designed to help analyze, configure, optimize or maintain a computer. It is used to support the computer infrastructure - in. U.T. Disk (rl is the most sophisticated and versatile disk utility tool available today. Here are some of the features: 0 Two ways to restore deleted data.

Confirm. All: Utility Tool | Pirate PC - Part 2

ATOMIC MODEL (MODEL ATOM)
Utility Tool | Pirate PC - Part 2
1ST FAX EXTRACTOR V6.03 CRACK SERIAL KEYGEN
Utility Tool | Pirate PC - Part 2

Utility Tool | Pirate PC - Part 2 - have thought

Evaluation of the internal construct validity of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART) using Rasch analysis

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Published:

BMC Health Services Researchvolume 14, Article number: 543 (2014) Cite this article

  • 3119 Accesses

  • 6 Citations

  • Metrics details

Abstract

Background

The Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART) is a 43-item, clinician-administered assessment, designed to identify patients’ unmet needs (participation restrictions) in activities of daily living (ADL) required for community life. This information is important for identifying problems that need addressing to enable, for example, discharge from inpatient settings to community living. The objective of this study was to evaluate internal construct validity of the PC-PART using Rasch methods.

Methods

Fit to the Rasch model was evaluated for 41 PC-PART items, assessing threshold ordering, overall model fit, individual item fit, person fit, internal consistency, Differential Item Functioning (DIF), targeting of items and dimensionality. Data used in this research were taken from admission data from a randomised controlled trial conducted at two publically funded inpatient rehabilitation units in Melbourne, Australia, with 996 participants (63% women; mean age 74 years) and with various impairment types.

Results

PC-PART items assessed as one scale, and original PC-PART domains evaluated as separate scales, demonstrated poor fit to the Rasch model. Adequate fit to the Rasch model was achieved in two newly formed PC-PART scales: Self-Care (16 items) and Domestic Life (14 items). Both scales were unidimensional, had acceptable internal consistency (PSI =0.85, 0.76, respectively) and well-targeted items.

Conclusions

Rasch analysis did not support conventional summation of all PC-PART item scores to create a total score. However, internal construct validity of the newly formed PC-PART scales, Self-Care and Domestic Life, was supported. Their Rasch-derived scores provided interval-level measurement enabling summation of scores to form a total score on each scale. These scales may assist clinicians, managers and researchers in rehabilitation settings to assess and measure changes in ADL participation restrictions relevant to community living.

Trial registration

Data used in this research were gathered during a registered randomised controlled trial: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000973213. Ethics committee approval was gained for secondary analysis of data for this study.

Peer Review reports

Background

Participation is described in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a person’s involvement in a life situation. Participation restrictions are described as problems a person may have in their involvement in a life situation [1]. Activities are described as execution of tasks or actions by a person. Activity limitations are difficulties a person may have in executing activities [1]. Much has been said about the ICF’s lack of clarity in these definitions and the difficulties operationalizing these concepts [2]-[5]. To date, there is no consensus about the definition of the concept of participation (restriction), nor the measurement of participation (restriction) [4].

There is division amongst researchers as to whether Self Care and Domestic Life tasks classified within the ICF belong to the activity or to the participation construct [2],[6]. Such allocations have generally been made according to content of the categories within these domains. The distinction between measurement of constructs that are more closely aligned to activity (limitation) versus participation (restriction) may depend not only on the content of the items within an instrument, but also on the metric used in the measure [3]. Measures eliciting information about an individual’s ability, level of difficulty, level of dependence in performing tasks, without inclusion of the modifying effects of the environment in the metric, are more closely aligned to the measurement of activity (limitation). Measures eliciting information about actual performance of, and satisfaction with, tasks in environments where they occur, and which include in the metric, influences of the environment and health condition on performance and satisfaction, are more closely aligned to the measurement of participation (restriction) [3].

The Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART) records the transaction between the person, their health condition and environmental factors operating in the person’s living situation, resulting in measurement of the person’s met and unmet ADL needs in their living situation (life situation). It is important to measure both met and unmet ADL needs in order to understand the nature and extent of problems people experience accomplishing both self care and domestic life activities of daily living required for community life, and their involvement in community living as a citizen. Unmet ADL needs, as measured by the PC-PART, are aligned to the construct of participation restriction and are therefore named ADL participation restrictions.

The PC-PART is divided into 43 items across seven domains: Clothing; Hygiene; Nutrition; Mobility; Safety; Residence; and Supports. It is a clinician-administered assessment and uses a structured interview format to gather information and item responses from the person and if necessary, key informant(s). Item responses are: OK by self (patient manages activity alone with or without aids and appliances in the living environment), OK with help (patient manages activity with help from others, and this help is available in the living environment), or Not OK (patient does not manage the activity in the living environment despite their own efforts, use of aids and appliances and help from available support from others). Both OK by self and OK with help are scored 0, and Not OK is scored 1, forming a dichotomy. Each Not OK represents an ADL participation restriction and provides a target for intervention. The final domain, supports, consists of two questions addressing the adequacy and stability of available supports, with responses OK and Not OK. Conventional overall scoring of the PC-PART involves summation of Not OK responses to produce a total score, producing ordinal data.

There is an important and clinically relevant distinction between the PC-PART and other ADL measures. Commonly used ADL instruments in Australia, such as the FIM [7] and Barthel Index (BI) [8] measure a person’s capabilities and their individual level of independence/dependence in self care activities of daily living and mobility. These are therefore measures of activity (limitations). While this is clinically important information to gather, such ADL measures stop short of measuring actual accomplishment of activities of daily living in the person’s living environment. This is because they do not incorporate into the measurement, the availability and stability of specifically needed assistance to the person in their living environment. This latter information is clinically relevant. For example, for discharge planning, it is the aim of health services to address people’s ADL needs required for community living before returning people to live in the community. The PC-PART was designed to achieve this.

There are other ADL measures that specifically address supports, resources or assistance (environmental barriers and facilitators) as part of their responses and scoring, including the Assessment of Living Skills and Resources-Revised 2 (ALSAR-R2) [9], Assessment of Life Habits (LIFE-H) [10], Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique (CHART) [11] and the Functional Autonomy Measurement System (SMAF) [12]. However, the ALSAR-R2, LIFE-H and CHART cover broader areas of functioning than the PC-PART (such as education, work and leisure) and therefore have application in different environments from the PC-PART. The SMAF was developed for the measurement of care needs in older adults in order to allocate community services or chronic care beds [12]. It was not developed for use with younger people. While the SMAF covers essential self care and domestic life activities of daily living, it differs from the PC-PART in that it also includes items focused on body functions (e.g. vision, speaking, hearing, memory). Each instrument described above varies in the way it incorporates the availability and the need for supports, resources or assistance into the instrument’s scoring. The PC-PART is the only instrument we are aware of that specifically targets the transaction between the person, the activity and the available supports in the person’s living environment to record participation restrictions in those activities of daily living required for community life.

The PC-PART has demonstrated content validity [13] and good inter-rater reliability for grouped data [14]-[16], but its internal validity has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation [15]. Whether it is valid to sum PC-PART item scores has not been tested. For clinicians, health-service managers and researchers to have confidence in any measurement instrument, and the scores derived from it, evidence of internal and external validity of the instrument is required. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to evaluate the internal construct validity of the PC-PART to address this gap in the tool’s validation, and to refine the instrument, if necessary, using Rasch methods [17].

Methods

Design

This was an instrument validation study. Methods based in Item Response Theory have increasingly been used to evaluate psychometric properties of health measures, and have been applied to both personal and instrumental ADL instruments [18]-[22]. The Rasch model is a one-parameter model within the Item Response Theory framework [23],[24]. It involves formal rigorous psychometric testing of a scale against a mathematical measurement model by testing the scale’s fit to the Rasch model [17],[25],[26]. The model asserts that scale item scores can only be appropriately summed to provide a total score if the scale is unidimensional. If items satisfy expectations of the Rasch model, the analysis enables transformation of the scale’s ordinal raw scores to interval-level measurement [26],[27]. Methods based in Classical Test Theory (CTT), such as Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis, were not appropriate for this study because PC-PART items violate assumptions that scale items have interval-level properties [24].

Participants

This study involved secondary analysis of data from 996 adult inpatient rehabilitation participants in Melbourne, Australia, enrolled in a trial of standard versus augmented therapy (ACTRN12609000973213) [28]. The PC-PART was administered as an outcome measure at admission to, and at discharge from the inpatient rehabilitation unit. Participants were included in the trial if they were aged 18 years or older, were admitted for rehabilitation to one of two government-funded hospital facilities and consented to participate in the trial. Patients were excluded if they were admitted for geriatric evaluation and management, or if they were already enrolled in another intervention trial. The rehabilitation setting provided therapeutic intervention and multi-disciplinary management.

Participants’ admission PC-PART data were used in this study. The PC-PART was administered by an occupational therapist blinded to group allocation. The occupational therapist completed PC-PART assessments using a combination of patient interview, key informant interview and task observation. The occupational therapist assessor was provided with standardized education in the use of the PC-PART prior to commencement of data collection. This consisted of a one-hour training session with an occupational therapist experienced in use of the PC-PART. In addition, the PC-PART manual [29] and DVD [30] were made available.

This secondary analysis of trial data was approved by Human Research and Ethics Committees at Eastern Health (E58/0910) and La Trobe University (FHEC10/14).

Data analysis

Rasch modelling procedures consistent with established guidelines were adopted [25]-[27],[31],[32], using RUMM 2030 software [33]. For a 41-item scale, a sample size of 250 for well-targeted items, or 820 for poorly-targeted items, provides 99% confidence that person estimates are definitive [34]. Therefore, the sample of 996 in the current study was adequate.

Analysis methods and criteria applied to tests of fit to the Rasch model included assessment of (1) overall fit to the Rasch model; (2) item response format; (3) individual item fit; (4) individual person fit; (5) Differential Item Functioning (DIF); (6) internal consistency; (7) local dependency among items; (8) dimensionality of the scale, and (9) targeting of items.

In large samples and with scales involving large numbers of items, the chi-square statistic may not be a reliable indicator of fit to the Rasch model. Therefore, in this study, other fit statistics were used. Overall fit to the model was observed using Fit Residual values, with a Fit Residual Standard Deviation value exceeding 1.5 suggesting possible misfit. To assess fit of individual items and persons to the scale, it was expected that the individual item and person Fit Residual values should fall within the range of +/  2.5 [27].

Problems with an item’s response format were indicated by the presence of disordered thresholds. A threshold is the point between two response categories where either response is equally probable. Inconsistent use of item response categories results in disordered thresholds. Presence of disordered thresholds indicated the need to reduce the number of response categories [25],[27].

Differential Item Functioning (DIF) occurs when different groups within the same sample (e.g. men and women) respond differently to an item despite having equal levels of the underlying trait. Both uniform (systematic) and non-uniform (not systematic) DIF by age and sex were examined. Items displaying DIF were evaluated for their clinical importance to the scale versus the potential for improvement of the internal validity of the scale resulting from their removal [27]. The Person Separation Index (PSI) provided an indication of the internal consistency of the scale and the power of the scale to discriminate amongst persons with different levels of the trait. A value of at least 0.7 was considered acceptable [25].

Local dependency between item-pairs was considered to exist when the response to one item was dependent on the response to another item, revealing between-item residual correlations matrix values above 0.2. Item-pairs showing local dependency above 0.2 were examined for potential item-redundancy using clinical judgement. Items were further examined to identify if retaining both items inflated the scale’s PSI value. This was assessed by forming ‘subtests’, joining locally dependent item pairs, to absorb the effect of the dependent items on PSI [25]. If the PSI value then changed by more than +/  0.1, consideration was then given to removal of one of the locally dependent items from the scale.

To test dimensionality of the scales, items with strongest positive and negative loadings from the first component of the Principal Components Analysis of the standardised residuals were used in a series of independent t-tests to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the individual person location scores between the two sets of items. If fewer than 5% of the t-tests showed statistically significant differences, or the lower bound value of the associated 95% confidence interval was 5% or lower, then the scale was considered unidimensional [26],[31],[35].

Targeting of items in the scale was checked with a person-item map to evaluate if there were sufficient items to measure the full extent of clinically relevant ADL participation restrictions among persons, without ceiling effects [25],[27]. Floor effects were not considered relevant in this evaluation, as clinical teams are more concerned about addressing the presence of ADL participation restrictions, rather than the absence of participation restrictions prior to discharge from the hospital setting.

Rasch analysis was conducted in three stages on 41 PC-PART items listed in Table 1, column 1. The two Supports items were excluded from all analyses as they were considered to be global items, measuring a different construct to the remaining PC-PART items. During Stage one of the analysis, the 41 items were analysed as one scale, consistent with the recommended scoring protocol. The alternative three-category item response options (0 = OK by self, 1 = OK with help and 2 = Not OK) were also evaluated to determine if they were appropriate for use, instead of the existing two-category item response options (0 = OK by self, 0 = OK with help and 1 = Not OK). In Stage two of the analysis, fit to the Rasch model was evaluated for the six original PC-PART domains (Clothing, Hygiene, Nutrition, Mobility, Safety and Residence) using the two and three-category response options just described.

Full size table

Stage three of the analysis involved forming alternative PC-PART item groupings using the ICF as the theoretical framework a-priori to further analysis. PC-PART items were linked to ICF categories using Cieza’s linking rules [36],[37]. Most items aligned to either the Self-Care or Domestic Life chapter of the ICF activities and participation component [1]. Items that aligned to other ICF chapters, such as mobility, were assigned to either the Self-Care or Domestic Life item group based on the activity context of the mobility item. Self-Care items corresponded to personal ADL activities, for example, bathing, toileting, dressing and eating. Domestic Life items corresponded to broader instrumental ADL activities needed for community living, for example, shopping, transportation, laundry and food preparation. The newly formed Self-Care and Domestic Life item groups were then evaluated for their fit to the Rasch model.

Results

Participants

Participants’ mean (SD) age was 73.9 (12.8) years, with a minimum of 22 years and a maximum of 102 years and 631 (63%) were women. A total of 581 (58%) participants were admitted with an orthopaedic impairment, 203 (20%) with neurological impairment and 212 (21%) with other disabling impairments. Prior to admission, 94% of participants had been living in their own homes, while 3% lived in ‘low-level’ residential care facilities. These admission data are typical of Australian inpatient rehabilitation settings [38]. Complete admission PC-PART data were available for 958 (96%) of the 996 participants.

Table 2 displays results from the three-staged analysis.

Full size table

Stage 1. One scale containing 41 PC-PART items

During stage 1(a) of the analysis, when assessed using the three response categories (0,1,2), 27 of the 41 PC-PART items showed disordered thresholds, suggesting the need to collapse the response categories to form a dichotomous scale (0,0,1).

In stage 1(b) of the analysis using the dichotomous scale, there was evidence of overall item misfit, with the overall item fit residual standard deviation (SD) being 2.14 (≥1.5), and the presence of three misfitting items. There were 11 misfitting persons. Internal consistency of the scale was high (PSI = 0.91). There was evidence of uniform DIF by age (three items) and sex (four items) and non-uniform DIF by sex (one item). Local item dependency was observed for 39 item-pairs. The scale was not unidimensional, with the lower bound 95% CI of the proportion of significant t-tests (5.7%) being above the critical value of 5%.

Attempts were made to refine the scale to achieve unidimensionality and fit of the scale to the Rasch model in stage 1(c) of the analysis. With removal of six misfitting items, the overall item fit residual standard deviation (SD) was reduced to 1.8. While there were no misfitting items and PSI was acceptable (0.88), there was evidence of uniform DIF by age (two items) and sex (one item) and there were five item-pairs with local dependency. Additionally, the scale was not unidimensional, with the lower bound 95%CI value on the proportion of significant t-tests being 6.1%. A decision was made to move to Stage 2 of the analysis.

Stage 2. Original PC-PART domains

Rasch analysis of six original PC-PART domains using the three response categories (0,1,2) revealed disordered thresholds for all six domains. Therefore, the response categories were collapsed to the original dichotomous responses (0,0,1) and the Rasch analysis was repeated. While four domains had sufficient items to test dimensionality and appeared to be unidimensional, overall fit to the Rasch model was poor. All six domains showed inflated item fit residual SDs (range 1.99 to 4.23). Item misfit was detected in three of the six domains. PSI values in all domains were below the critical value of 0.7. Uniform DIF by age was present for Hygiene (one item), Mobility (two items), and Safety (one item), and by sex for Clothing (one item) and Nutrition (one item). Non-uniform DIF by age was present for Nutrition (one item) and by sex for Hygiene (two items) and Residence (one item). There was local item response dependency for Clothing (one item-pair), Hygiene (one item-pair) and Mobility (two item-pairs). Fit to the Rasch model deteriorated further through attempts to refine the original domain scales by deleting misfitting items. Therefore the decision was made to move to Stage 3 of the analysis.

Stage 3. PC-PART items separated into ‘Self-Care’ and ‘Domestic Life’ scales

Stage 3(a). Rasch analysis was conducted on the proposed Self-Care (23 items) and Domestic Life (18 items) scales using the dichotomous item response categories (0,0,1). The 23 Self-Care items showed evidence of misfit (Item Fit Resid. SD =2.33), with three misfitting items and two misfitting persons. The PSI was acceptable (PSI = 0.87). Only uniform DIF was present for one item by age and one item by sex. Local item response dependency was present for 11 item pairs. The scale failed the test for unidimensionality. Analysis of the 18 Domestic Life items revealed overall misfit (Item Fit Resid. SD =2.48), with two misfitting items and no misfitting persons. PSI was acceptable (PSI = 0.79). Uniform DIF was present for one item by age and two items by sex. There was evidence of local item response dependency for seven item-pairs. The scale failed the test for unidimensionality.

Stage 3(b). Refinement of the Self-Care scale involved deletion of seven misfitting or redundant items. Although the resultant Self-Care scale containing 16 items showed slightly elevated overall item fit residual statistics (Item Fit Resid. SD =1.87), there was no individual item misfit and no misfitting persons. The PSI (0.85) was acceptable. There was no evidence of DIF by age or sex. There was no local item response dependency and the scale was shown to be unidimensional. The 16 Self-Care scale items in the refined scale are shown in Table 1, column 2a. Refinement of the Domestic Life scale involved deletion of four items and creation of one subtest between items showing local dependency. The refined scale, containing 14 items, had no misfitting items or persons. The PSI (0.76) was acceptable. There was uniform DIF by sex for items ‘laundry’ and ‘meal preparation’, with women scoring higher than men; and by age for the item `avoiding alcohol/substance abuse’, with younger patients showing higher scores than older patients. There was no local item dependency. The scale was shown to be unidimensional with the lower bound 95%CI of the percentage of significant t-tests being 4.8%. The 14 Domestic Life scale items on the refined scale are shown in Table 1, column 2b.

Item-location maps for the refined Self-Care and Domestic Life scales (Figures 1 and 2) suggested items were well targeted, demonstrating sufficient item spread across the full range of person location scores on both scales, without ceiling effects. Higher scores on the Self-Care and Domestic Life scales indicated higher (worse) levels of Self-Care and Domestic Life ADL participation restriction.

Item map for the PC-PARTSelf Carescale. Location values for persons are on the left (o =6 Persons). Relative difficulty of items is displayed on the right. Items at higher location scores represent activities that are Not OK for relatively few people; only people with higher levels of ADL participation restriction are rated ‘Not OK’ on these items. These are ‘easier’ items for most people to manage. Items at lower location scores represent activities that are Not OK for relatively many people; people with lower levels of ADL participation restriction are rated NOT OK on these items. These are ‘harder’ items for most people to manage.

Full size image

Item map for the PC-PARTDomestic Lifescale. Location values for persons are on the left (o =7 Persons). Relative difficulty of items are displayed on the right. Items at higher location scores represent activities that are Not OK for relatively few people; only people with higher levels of ADL participation restriction are rated Not OK on these items. These are ‘easier’ items for most people to manage. Items at lower location scores represent activities that are Not OK for relatively many people; people with lower levels of ADL participation restriction are rated NOT OK on these items. These are ‘harder’ items for most people to manage.

Full size image

Combined self-care and domestic life scales

Dimensionality testing was completed including all 30 items from the resultant Self-Care and Domestic Life scales in one analysis. This scale failed the test for unidimensionality, with the 95% CI for the percentage of significant t-tests ranging from 5.8% to 8.6%. Therefore summation of Self-Care and Domestic Life scale scores to form a total PC-PART score was not supported.

Conversion scores

Adjusted conversion scores were computed from the Rasch-derived logit scores on the refined Self-Care and Domestic Life scales, using a 0 to 100 scale, with higher scores indicating higher levels of participation restriction. This enabled conversion of raw ordinal scores from the scales to interval level measurement. For practical purposes, a converted score is dependent on all items in the scales being answered. The mean Self-Care admission converted score was 42.0 (N = 958; SD = 22.3; Range 0,100) and the mean Domestic Life admission converted score was 38.5 (N = 957; SD =20.4; Range 0,100). These scores represented between 6/7 and 4/5 ADL participation restrictions (raw scores) on the scales, respectively.

Discussion

Rigorous psychometric analysis was used to examine the internal construct validity of the PC-PART in order to enhance empirical development of the tool [15]. Rasch analysis demonstrated that it is inappropriate to sum all items in the original PC-PART item set to produce a total score, and that the six original PC-PART domains did not form psychometrically sound scales. Use of Rasch methods generated evidence supporting the internal construct validity of the newly formed PC-PART Self-Care (16 items) and Domestic Life (14 items) scales as measures of Self Care and Domestic Life ADL participation restriction. These were shown to be unidimensional scales. The total raw scores on each scale may be matched to corresponding Rasch-derived conversion scores on a 0 to 100 scale, for use as interval-level measurement (conversion scores available from the corresponding author).

Frequently used and researched self care and domestic life ADL measures [7],[8],[39] typically measure patients’ level of dependence (i.e. activity limitations). One shortcoming of this approach is that decisions about whether patients are ready for discharge from inpatient settings depends not only on what patients can or cannot do for themselves, but how they will complete self care and domestic life ADL in their real living environment with the supports that are available; in other words whether or not there will be unmet self-care and domestic life ADL needs (participation restrictions) [40],[41]. The PC-PART Self-Care and Domestic Life scales address this limitation through the measurement of ADL participation restrictions. These scales may be used alongside existing measures of ADL in/dependence, to enable more complete and useful measurement of patients’ ADL functioning for community life. Such measurement of ADL functioning may enable existing barriers to patients’ discharge to community living to be identified and addressed [41],[42]. In this way, the PC-PART scales may assist decision-making by health care team, consistent with the original purpose of the PC-PART [13],[29].

The PC-PART Self-Care and Domestic Life scales may have potential to aid health care system management. The patterns and the extent of ADL participation restrictions experienced by specific patient populations, as well as the extent of care required by family, friends and neighbours in providing support to those who need it, is an inadequately described phenomenon [43],[44]. The PC-PART scales may enable identification and documentation of unmet ADL needs that arise from inadequate and/or unstable supply of both formal and informal supports intended to enable people to accomplish essential self-care and domestic life activities in their community living environments. Support with self-care activities (e.g. toileting, showering, and dressing) and domestic life activities (e.g. shopping, cooking, transport, and household tasks) is commonly provided by a combination of both formal and informal supports including family, neighbours, friends and paid or volunteer services [45]. Use of the PC-PART scales may assist clinicians, managers and researchers to quantify the extent of informal supports that help people accomplish their essential activities of daily living. The involvement of patients and their key informants in the PC-PART assessment may enable identification of the types of supports and resources most needed in communities by specific patient groups, as well as identification of existing service gaps. Recent literature highlights the importance of involving patients and carers in identifying the types of supports that would be of greatest assistance to them in easing carer strain [43]-[46].

The PC-PART scales provide interval level measurement, which may be used to measure the magnitude of change in patients’ levels of ADL participation restriction. This may make it possible to investigate the efficiency of clinical interventions and community services that seek to reduce ADL participation restrictions. This may be of significance for outcome-based payment systems. In Australia, the most recent payment system incorporates measurement of functioning across a limited number of domains, focusing on measuring activity limitations, and this may not be adequate for complex rehabilitation [41]. Madden et al. reported there is a need for an ICF-linked standardised measure within case-mix systems, and that including information about broad aspects of functioning increases the proportion of the variance explained in health care costs [41]. The PC-PART may be an appropriate measure for this purpose.

One of the strengths of this study was the use of Rasch analysis to provide a detailed analysis of not only the PC-PART items, but also the item response categories [24],[25]. Analysis of the PC-PART’s item response categories supported use of the dichotomous response categories of the PC-PART items. These response categories are consistent with the overall purpose of the instrument, which is to identify and document the presence of ADL participation restrictions in activities of daily living required for community life.

The presence of uniform DIF by age in the Domestic Life scale for ‘avoiding alcohol/substance overuse’ and by sex for ‘managing laundry’ and ‘meal preparation’ suggested influences on scores associated with age and sex, respectively. While it is usual to delete items that demonstrate DIF, these items were retained because they were deemed to be clinically relevant to the scale and the observed DIF could be clinically explained. Further validation of the scales would provide additional evidence about the appropriateness of retaining these items.

An inter-rater reliability study of the PC-PART conducted in the same rehabilitation centres, using the same therapists to collect PC-PART data, with an independent sample of patients, showed a high level of inter-rater agreement, with an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.91 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.93) for grouped PC-PART data [16]. Hence, it is unlikely that potential measurement error during data collection influenced the results of this present study.

Of the original PC-PART items, 13 showed misfit during the Rasch scale refinement process, and were excluded from the newly formed PC-PART Self Care and Domestic Life scales. However, it is still possible that some of these items may be clinically relevant as part of an assessment of ADL participation restrictions for community living. Some of the excluded items may not have had health consequences if left unmanaged, or they may have addressed different constructs to ADL participation restriction, or the aspect of ADL participation restriction covered by the item was already addressed by another item. Some items may have contained ambiguous phrasing resulting in misinterpretation by therapists.

Further investigation of the measurement properties of the PC-PART Self-Care and Domestic Life scales, including their convergent and divergent validity, longitudinal validity and criterion validity, would guide judgement regarding their utility. Specifically, investigation concerning possible cut-point scores on the PC-PART Self-Care and Domestic Life scales to indicate the critical value for inpatient care versus community living (including supported living), would provide clinically relevant information.

Conclusions

This study generated evidence supporting the internal construct validity of the PC-PART Self-Care and Domestic Life scales as valid, unidimensional scales for inpatients receiving rehabilitation, allowing summation of scores on each scale. Rasch-derived conversion scores enable interval-level measurement, appropriate for parametric analyses of grouped data. The scales may be useful to clinical practice, clinical research and to health care system managers. Further validation research of the scales to confirm their utility is recommended.

Authors’ contributions

SD designed the study, completed the data entry, performed all statistical analyses, wrote, edited and formatted the manuscript for submission. CI assisted in design of the study, provided consultation and supervision on data analyses and contributed to the editing of the manuscript. MDS assisted in design of the study, provided consultation and supervision on data analyses and contributed to the editing of the manuscript. NT provided the study data, assisted in design of the study and contributed to the editing of the manuscript. JP provided training in Rasch analysis, statistical consultation on the data analysis and assisted with editing of the methods and results of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

SD is a PhD candidate at the School of Allied Health, Australian Catholic University. CI is Professor and Head of the School of Allied Health, Australian Catholic University. MDS is now a senior policy advisor at VICRoads, having been an academic at La Trobe University for 25 years. SD, CI and MDS are qualified occupational therapists, registered to practice in Australia. NT is Professor of Allied Health at Eastern Health/La Trobe University and is a registered physiotherapist. JP is a psychologist, with expertise in Rasch methods. She is Associate Professor in the Rural Health Academic Centre at the University of Melbourne.

Abbreviations

Activities of Daily Living

Differential Item Functioning

International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

Personal Care-Participation Assessment and Resource Tool

Person Separation Index

Randomised Controlled Trial

References

  1. 1.

    The International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF). 2001, WHO, Geneva

  2. 2.

    Whiteneck G, Dijkers MP: Difficult to measure constructs: conceptual and methodological issues concerning participation and environmental factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009, 90 (11 Suppl): S22-S35. 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.06.009.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  3. 3.

    Dijkers MP: Issues in the conceptualization and measurement of participation: an overview. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010, 91 (9 Suppl): S5-S16. 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.036.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  4. 4.

    Heinemann AW, Tulsky D, Dijkers M, Brown M, Magasi S, Gordon W, DeMark H: Issues in participation measurement in research and clinical applications. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010, 91 (9 Suppl): S72-S76. 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.11.031.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  5. 5.

    Badley EM: Enhancing the conceptual clarity of the activity and participation components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Soc Sci Med. 2008, 66 (11): 2335-2345. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.026.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  6. 6.

    Dalemans R, De Witte L, Wade D, Van den Heuvel W: A description of social participation in working-age persons with aphasia: a review of the literature. Aphasiology. 2008, 22 (10): 1071-1091. 10.1080/02687030701632179.

    Article Google Scholar

  7. 7.

    Granger CV, Hamilton BB: UDS report. the uniform data system for medical rehabilitation report of first admissions for 1990. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1992, 71 (2): 108-113. 10.1097/00002060-199204000-00009.

    CASArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  8. 8.

    Mahoney F, Barthel D: Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Maryland State Med J. 1965, 14: 62.

    Google Scholar

  9. 9.

    Clemson L, Bundy A, Unsworth C, Singh MF: Validation of the modified assessment of living skills and resources, an IADL measure for older people. Disabil Rehabil. 2009, 31 (5): 359-369. 10.1080/09638280802105881.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  10. 10.

    Fougeyrollas P, Noreau L, Bergeron H, Cloutier R, Dion SA, St-Michel G: Social consequences of long term impairments and disabilities: conceptual approach and assessment of handicap. Int J Rehabil Res. 1998, 21 (2): 127-141. 10.1097/00004356-199806000-00002.

    CASArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  11. 11.

    Whiteneck GG, Charlifue SW, Gerhart KA, Overholser JD, Richardson GN: Quantifying handicap: a new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992, 73 (6): 519-526.

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  12. 12.

    Hébert R, Carrier R, Bilodeau A: The Functional Autonomy Measurement System (SMAF): description and validation of an instrument for the measurement of handicaps. Age Ageing. 1988, 17 (5): 293-302. 10.1093/ageing/17.5.293.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  13. 13.

    Vertesi A, Darzins P, Lowe S, McEvoy E, Edwards M: Development of the Handicap Assessment and Resource Tool (HART). Can J Occup Ther. 2000, 67 (2): 120-127. 10.1177/000841740006700305.

    CASArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  14. 14.

    Turner C, Fricke J, Darzins P: Interrater reliability of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART) in a rehabilitation setting. Aust Occup Ther J. 2009, 56 (2): 132-139. 10.1111/j.1440-1630.2008.00750.x.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  15. 15.

    Darzins S, Imms C, Di Stefano M: Measurement properties of the personal care participation assessment and resource tool: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2013, 35 (4): 265-281. 10.3109/09638288.2012.690819.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  16. 16.

    Radia-George C, Imms C, Taylor N: The inter-rater reliability and clinical utility of the Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool (PC-PART) in an inpatient rehabilitation setting. Am J Occup Ther. 2014, 68 (3): 334-343. 10.5014/ajot.2014.009878.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  17. 17.

    Rasch G: Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. 1960, Nielson and Lydiche, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar

  18. 18.

    Nilsson AL, Tennant A: Past and present issues in Rasch analysis: the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) revisited. J Rehabil Med. 2011, 43: 884-891.

    Article Google Scholar

  19. 19.

    Das Nair R, Moreton B, Lincoln N: Rasch analysis of the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale. J Rehabil Med. 2011, 43: 944-950.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  20. 20.

    de Morton NA, Keating JL, Davidson M: Rasch analysis of the Barthel Index in the assessment of hospitalized older patients after admission for an acute medical condition. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008, 89 (4): 641-647. 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.10.021.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  21. 21.

    Finlayson M, Mallinson T, Barbosa V: Activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) items were stable over time in a longitudinal study on aging. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 338-349. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.008.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  22. 22.

    Coster WJ, Haley SM, Andres PL, Ludlow LH, Bond TLY, Ni P-S: Refining the conceptual basis for rehabilitation outcome measurement: personal care and instrumental activities domain. Med Care. 2004, 42 (1 Suppl): I62-I72.

    PubMed Google Scholar

  23. 23.

    Tennant A, McKenna S, Hagell P: Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value Health. 2004, 7 (Supplement 1): S22-S26. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.7s106.x.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  24. 24.

    Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 2008, Oxford University Press, New York

    Book Google Scholar

  25. 25.

    Tennant A, Conaghan P: The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper?. Arthritis Rheum. 2007, 57 (8): 1358-1362. 10.1002/art.23108.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  26. 26.

    Hagquist C, Bruce M, Gustavsson P: Using the Rasch model in nursing research: an introduction and illustrative example. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009, 46: 380-393. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.10.007.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  27. 27.

    Pallant J, Tennant A: An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: an example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Br J Clin Psychol. 2007, 46: 1-18. 10.1348/014466506X96931.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  28. 28.

    Taylor NF, Brusco NK, Watts JJ, Shields N, Peiris C, Sullivan N, Kennedy G, Teo CK, Farley A, Lockwood K, Radia-George C: A study protocol of a randomised controlled trial incorporating a health economic analysis to investigate if additional allied health services for rehabilitation reduce length of stay without compromising patient outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010, 10: 308-10.1186/1472-6963-10-308.

    CASArticlePubMedPubMed Central Google Scholar

  29. 29.

    Darzins P: PC-PART: Personal Care Participation Assessment and Resource Tool user's manual. 2004, PART Group, Partgroup@bigpond.com, Melbourne

    Google Scholar

  30. 30.

    Francis J: How to use the PC-PART to guide in-patient rehabilitation. 2004, The PART Group, PARTgroup@bigpond.com, Australia

    Google Scholar

  31. 31.

    Smith E: Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal components analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas. 2002, 3: 205-231.

    PubMed Google Scholar

  32. 32.

    Bland JM, Altman DG: Multiple significane tests: the Bonferroni method. Br Med J. 1995, 310: 170-10.1136/bmj.310.6973.170.

    CASArticle Google Scholar

  33. 33.

    Andrich D, Sheridan G, Luo G: RUMM 2030. 2012, RUMM Laboratory, Perth

    Google Scholar

  34. 34.

    Linacre JM: Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement Trans. 1994, 7: 28.

    Google Scholar

  35. 35.

    Tennant A, Pallant J: Unidimensionality matters! (A tale of two Smiths?). Rasch Meas Trans. 2006, 20 (1): 1048-1051.

    Google Scholar

  36. 36.

    Cieza A, Brockow T, Ewert T, Amman E, Kollerits B, Chatterji S, Ustün TB, Stucki G: Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rehabil Med. 2002, 34 (5): 205-210. 10.1080/165019702760279189.

    ArticlePubMed Google Scholar

  37. 37.
Источник: [https://torrent-igruha.org/3551-portal.html]

Utility software

Software type

Utility software is software designed to help analyze, configure, optimize or maintain a computer.[1] It is used to support the computer infrastructure - in contrast to application software, which is aimed at directly performing tasks that benefit ordinary users. However, utilities often form part of the application systems. For example, a batch job may run user-written code to update a database and may then include a step that runs a utility to back up the database, or a job may run a utility to compress a disk before copying files.

Although a basic set of utility programs is usually distributed with an operating system (OS), and this first party utility software is often considered part of the operating system, users often install replacements or additional utilities.[2][3] Those utilities may provide additional facilities to carry out tasks that are beyond the capabilities of the operating system.

Many utilities that might affect the entire computer system require the user to have elevated privileges, while others that operate only on the user's data do not.[4]

System utilities[edit]

Storage device management utilities[edit]

  • Backup software makes copies of all information stored on a disk and restores either the entire disk (aka Disk cloning) in an event of disk failure or selected files that are accidentally deleted or corrupted. Undeletion utilities are sometimes more convenient.
  • Disk checkers scan an operating hard drive and check for logical (filesystem) or physical errors.
  • Disk compression utilities transparently compress/uncompress the contents of a disk, increasing the capacity of the disk.
  • Disk defragmenters detect computer files whose contents are scattered across several locations on the hard disk and collect the fragments into one contiguous area.
  • Disk formatters prepare a data storage device such as a hard disk, solid-state drive, floppy disk or USB flash drive for initial use. These are often used to permanently erase an entire device.
  • Disk partition editors divide an individual drive into multiple logical drives, each with its own file system which can be mounted by the operating system and treated as an individual drive.
  • Disk space analyzers provide a visualization of disk space usage by getting the size for each folder (including sub folders) and files in folder or drive. showing the distribution of the used space.
  • Tape initializers write a label to a magnetic tape or other magnetic medium. Initializers for DECtape formatted the tape into blocks.

File management utilities[edit]

  • Archivers output a stream or a single file when provided with a directory or a set of files. Archive suites may include compression and encryption capabilities. Some archive utilities have a separate un-archive utility for the reverse operation. One nearly universal type of archive file format is the zip file.
  • Cryptographic utilities encrypt and decrypt streams and files.
  • Data compression utilities output a shorter stream or a smaller file when provided with a stream or file.
  • Data conversion utilities transform data from a source file to some other format, such as from a text file to a PDF document.
  • Data recovery utilities are used to rescue good data from corrupted files.
  • Data synchronization utilities establish consistency among data from a source to a target data storage and vice versa. There are several branches of this type of utility:
    • File synchronization utilities maintain consistency between two sources. They may be used to create redundancy or backup copies but are also used to help users carry their digital music, photos and video in their mobile devices.
    • Revision control utilities can recreate a coherent structure where multiple users simultaneously modify the same file.
  • Disk cleaners find files that are unnecessary to computer operation, or take up considerable amounts of space.
  • File comparison utilities provide a standalone capability to detect differences between files.
  • File managers provide a convenient method of performing routine data management, email recovery and management tasks, such as deleting, renaming, cataloging, uncataloging, moving, copying, merging, setting write protection status, setting file access permissions, generating and modifying folders and data sets.

Miscellaneous utilities[edit]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Источник: [https://torrent-igruha.org/3551-portal.html]

Huge List of Computer Stress Test Software [Rugged Computing]

Update 05/14/2020: Check out our comprehensive blog post on MIL-STD-810 temperature testing procedures and Mil-Spec temperature ranges to learn more about how we subject our rugged computers to environmental stressors.

In this blog you'll find a relentless list of computer stress test software (FREE & PAID) which benchmarks and/or diagnoses different components of a rugged computer system.

As a bonus, I've also listed popular hardware monitoring tools that you can use to diagnose any computer related issues.

A lot of these tools are used by professionals in the rugged computer industry to help identify issues with computer systems. So I thought to share them with you - all in one place.

For your convenience, I've distinguished stress test software from hardware monitoring tools with two asterisks(*) next to the name.

Computer Stress Test Software Banner

What types of stress test software are we talking about?

  • CPU Stress Test Software
  • GPU Stress Test Software
  • RAM Stability Tests
  • HDD/SSD Utility Software
  • Computer Temperature Tests
  • Network Diagnostics Tools
  • Computer Monitor Tests
  • Computer System Benchmarks

Note: Some of the tools listed are able to test more than one component of your computer system.

Without further ado - I present the Complete List of Computer Stress Test Software for 2019. Starting with...

 

CPU Stress Test Software

CPU Stress Test Software

PassMark - BurnInTest™** (FREE & PAID)

If you want stress test software of a computer's subsystems tested simultaneously, this is the tool for you. Not only is it for testing but also troubleshooting and diagnostics. It saves you a lot of time by being able to run multiple tests at the same time. The UI is user friendly and comes with bunch of other useful features at the paid level.

powerMAX** (FREE)

In short, it is a CPU and GPU burn-in test. It can test the CPU or GPU individually or both at the same time. It does not provide stability or performance scores, therefore don't consider it a benchmark tool. It is a powerful tool and does, however, reveal the weaknesses of some of the computer's components. Be careful though, it may cause irreversible damage to your computer, so proceed with caution and use at your own risk.

Intel® Processor Diagnostic Tool (FREE)

Although meant for anyone with an Intel® CPU, this tool, developed by Intel® is a diagnostic check that verifies the CPUs operating frequency, tests numerous features on the processor, and performs a CPU stress test. It is compatible with multiprocessor systems and requires Win7 or later to run.

Prime95** (FREE)

Better known as a load testing tool than a CPU benchmark, but a simple and easy-to-use application that lets you locate Mersenne Prime numbers designed for overclockers. A very good tool to test performance and stability of a processor and RAM at max stress. It is often considered a 'standard' for benchmarking or stress testing a computer.

 

GPU Stress Test Software

GPU Stress Test Software

GPU-Z (FREE)

Designed to provide video card and graphics processor information. It displays specs of the GPU and its memory, displays temperature, core frequency, memory frequency, GPU load and fan speeds. Supports both AMD, NVIDIA, and Intel® cards and allows for multi-GPU support. View real-time monitoring of GPU stats/data and log to Excel or CSV file capability.

MSI Afterburner (FREE)

Most recognized and widely used graphics card overclocking utility with full control over your graphics card. Comes standard with customization capability, benchmarking, and video recording. A robust GPU overclocking and monitoring tool that enables you to find the perfect balance between performance and temperature.

Heaven Benchmark** (FREE & PAID)

Performance and stability testing for your computer. It can test the video card, power supply, cooling system and allows to check your computer system in stock and overclocking modes. Provides quite accurate results due to 100% GPU-bound benchmarking. Powered by the UNIGINE 1 Engine.

Valley Benchmark** (FREE & PAID)

With 64 000 000 square meters of extremely beautiful terrain powered by UNIGINE 1 Engine and user-controlled dynamic weather you are able to view GPU temperature and clock monitoring. It provides multi-monitor support and the entire valley may be explored in fly-by or hike-through modes. Video of the terrain is available in the link above.

FurMark** (FREE)

For the Windows platform only, it's a lightweight yet intensive GPU stress test. It uses rendering algorithms to measure the performance of the graphics card. It is often to referred as the GPU burner. It does require an OpenGL 2.0 compliant graphics card. Comes with benchmark or stability/burn-in test mode (which is for overclockers).

 

RAM Stability Tests

RAM Stability Tests

Resource Monitor (FREE)

This comes free with Windows Vista and later versions of Windows. It can show you what's wrong with your computer and why. CPU use, memory use, program issues, and more. The above link is a great tutorial on how to utilize this tool within Windows for your benefit.

Windows Memory Diagnostic (FREE)

Helps you identify and diagnose problems with memory. Comes equipped on Windows 7, 8, and 10. This tool has even advanced features that let you choose if you'd like to run a basic, standard, or extended test and how many times you would like to repeat the test. Useful tool to run since it's most likely on your OS already.

MemTest86** (FREE & PAID)

The original memory testing program for x86 computers. It boots from a USB or CD and tests the RAM in your computer for faults using complex algorithms and test patterns. This software has a rich history, over 20 years of test algorithms and improvements. It is the go-to tool for testing your memory.

MemTest64 (FREE)

TechPowerUp Memtest64 is a free lightweight, standalone utility that lets you check your system memory for problems at the hardware-level. It has a graphical interface, and can be run from within Windows.

 

HDD & SSD Utility Software

HDD/SSD Utility Software

CrystalDiskMark (FREE)

Everything you need to know about the performance of your hard disk - even how likely it's to stop performing in the near future using self-monitoring, analysis, and reporting technology (SMART) protocol. Quite straightforward to use and gives you a heads-up when your disk begins to fail.

WinDirStat (FREE)

A disk usage and cleanup tool for various versions of Windows. On the homepage (linked above) there's also a program for Linux users. It's available in 12 languages. Very simple tool but seems to be used among certain users.

HDD Regenerator (FREE & PAID)

This program seems to be one of a lot of debate. Some say it works and others claim it doesn't work as expected. It does provide speedy hard drive problem detection and reads your bad sectors on the HDD surface and if it finds them, it repairs them. This is where most of the users that label it a 'decent' software find their gripes. Worth a shot to try for free and see if you like it or not to warrant a purchase.

Smartmontools (FREE)

Contains two utility programs to control and monitor storage systems using the SMART protocol. Both utilities will offer you disk degradation and failure warnings. It supports ATA/ATAPI/SATA-3 to SATA-8 disks and SCSI disks and tape devices. It will run on most Operating Systems.

Hard Disk Sentinel (FREE & PAID)

Multi OS and covers both SSD & HDD monitoring and analysis. In short, it finds - tests - diagnoses - repairs - reports on - and displays health, performance degradation and failures. No need to use separate tools, it's an all-in-one type software.

SSD Life (FREE)

This SSD software focuses more on reliability rather than stress testing. It analyzes how you use your solid state drives and uses algorithms to calculate the estimated lifetime. This is a nice tool to have for quick analysis and reporting of your SSDs.

 

Computer Temperature Tests

Computer Temperature Tests

HWMonitor (FREE & PAID)

Quite a popular hardware monitoring program that reads your computer system's health sensors such as voltages, temps, and fan speed. Uses SMART protocol and handles the most common sensor chips and video card GPU temp.

Core Temp (FREE)

Very simple yet very popular. Monitor your CPU temps and get other vital information like CPU Model, Platform, Frequency, CPUID, TDP, and per core temperature readings. When it comes to monitor and control, this is one of my personal favorites.

Real Temp (FREE)

Designed for Intel® single, dual, and quad core i7 CPUs - it monitors CPU temps. You can also control the TJ Max - safe max operating core temp - and see the distance to the set maximum. It will also display your Thermal Status to let you know if each core is operating at a stable thermal output.

SpeedFan (FREE)

The best way I can describe this little yet powerful tool is to list what the actual website states, which is true to its core: "If you need a tool that can change your computer's fan speeds, read the temperatures of your motherboard and your hard disk, read voltages and fan speeds and check the status of your hard disk using S.M.A.R.T. or SCSI attributes, then you came to the right place." The website is quite difficult to navigate through, but make sure to click the hyperlink that says "SpeedFan 4.52" to download.

 

Open Hardware Monitor (FREE)

To see temps, volts, fan speeds, load and clock speeds of your computer for free - this is the tool for you. Very easy to install and even easier to use. It reminds me of an old-school utility tool from XP times but it just makes sense. Everything you need to know on one screen.

 

WiFi Debugging Tools

WiFi Debugging

TCPDump (FREE)

A powerful command-line packet analyzer; and libpcap, a portable C/C++ library for network traffic capture.

For main features and commands, take a look at this cheat sheet.

iPerf (FREE)

iPerf3 is a tool for active measurements of the maximum achievable bandwidth on IP networks. It supports tuning of various parameters related to timing, buffers and protocols (TCP, UDP, SCTP with IPv4 and IPv6). For each test it reports the bandwidth, loss, and other parameters. This is a new implementation that shares no code with the original iPerf and also is not backwards compatible. iPerf was orginally developed by NLANR/DAST. iPerf3 is principally developed by ESnet / Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. It is released under a three-clause BSD license.

Eye P.A. (FREE & PAID)

Eye P.A. is a rapid 802.11ac packet capture and analytics solution that makes WiFi traffic visible for quick analysis and diagnosis. At a glance, you can find and fix packet loss, monitor channel capacity, minimize congestion, and shed light on network configuration and security issues.

Chanalyzer + WiSpy (FREE & PAID)

WiFi is no longer a luxury. Your users depend on WiFi for business, education, healthcare, and entertainment. But delivering reliable WiFi in complex network environments can be difficult. That’s why we built Chanalyzer Essential – a bundle that includes Wi-Spy DBx, Chanalyzer + Report Builder, and Device Finder 2.4 GHz Directional Antenna.

Solarwinds (FREE & PAID)

A leader in Network Management Software and Monitoring Tools. The software suite gives you the power to monitor and manage your network. Multiple products to choose from. Make sure to check them out and see which product works for you.

 

Network Diagnostics Tools

Network Diagnostics Tools

Wireshark (FREE)

World's foremost and widely-used network protocol analyzer. See what's happening on your network at a microscopic level and is also the standard across many commercial and non-profit enterprises, government agencies, and educational institutions.

Angry IP Scanner (FREE)

A fast IP address and port scanner. It scans IP addresses in any range as well as any of their ports. It works by sending a ping to each IP address and then, as an option, resolves its host name, determined MAC address, scans ports, etc.

Measurement Lab - NDT (Network Diagnostic Tool) (FREE)

For the novice and network researcher, this tool provides a sophisticated speed and diagnostic test. Upload and download speeds and the problems that are limiting your speeds. You can use this tool to provide info to your network admin to help them understand what is going on. They will love you for it!

Acunetix Online (FREE & PAID)

I truly like this software since it tells you if your website is secure as well as your network. You can easily try the software online, download the demo, or pay for the full version. It uses some of the most advanced SQL injections and XSS black box scanning tech. It automatically crawls your website and performs black box and grey box hacking techniques to identify vulnerabilities. Many uses for this powerful tool.

SolarWinds WAN Killer (FREE & PAID)

This entire website has goodies that can help the every day engineer boast a powerful tool set. This specific tool stress tests your network to measure performance and to proactively test network and load balancing.

Paessler PRTG Network Monitor (FREE & PAID)

This is your one tool to measure your IT infrastructure. From bandwidth to traffic to uptime, and even packet sniffing. You can view your entire network at a glance, although at a price, it is such a nice tool to have in your arsenal since it's easy to use, the UI is beautiful, and again, everything under one roof.

 

Computer Monitor Tests

Computer Monitor Tests

PassMark Monitor Test (FREE & PAID)

PassMark MonitorTest™ is a tool that allows users to investigate the quality and performance of their computer monitor or LCD flat panel screens. It does so by generating test patterns on the screen at a variety of different resolutions and color depths to test for the optimal visual performance.

EIZO Monitor Test (FREE)

Quickly and easily (online) assess your monitor's image quality. Up to 13 tests to check how uniform the image display is across the entire monitor. It can even check your monitor's defective pixels. I like it because it's really easy to use and there's nothing to it.

JScreenFix (FREE)

This handy-dandy tool fixes most screens (both for LCD and OLED). There's nothing to install, it's all HTML5 and JavaScript in your browser. If it finds a stuck pixel, you drag the pixel fixel over the stuck pixel and done!

 

Computer System Benchmarks

Computer System Benchmarks

CINEBENCH** (FREE)

Based on the award-winning animation software Cinema 4D - it is the perfect tool to compare CPU and graphics performance across various systems and platforms. The test uses your computer's CPU power to render a 3D scene - this scene stresses all available CPU cores - it can measure systems up to 256 processor threads! The result is displayed in points - the higher the number, the faster your CPU.

3DMark** (PAID)

Dubbed as the 'one benchmark for all your hardware' - it includes everything you need to benchmark your computer AND mobile devices. A lot of new updates are added and you can even choose which tests you would like to download. All the hardware monitoring is at your fingertips and you can even apply custom settings where you explore your system's performance limits.

CPU-Z (FREE)

One of the popular pieces of software that monitors some of your computer system's main devices. Processor name and number, codename, process, package, cache levels, mainboard and chipset, memory, real-time measurement, and more. Make sure to check out a few YouTube videos for a glance at how this tool works and if it's for you.

Performance Monitor in Win10 (FREE)

Again, another tool that comes free with Windows 10. It analyzes your computer's performance and can give you insight into what is going on and what needs your attention to get everything back up to normal.

Reliability Monitor (FREE)

Another free Windows tool that tracks the history of your computer. Any time a program fails or acts up, or you get the infamous blue screen of death - it is logged into the Reliability Monitor. Take a look to learn what your system has been up to and learn how you can improve it.

PCMark 10** (FREE & PAID)

A stress test software that uses a set of comprehensive tests to determine PC benchmarks. Very easy to use and install without complex configs upfront. I really like the scoring feature that is uses to compare computer systems.

HeavyLoad** (FREE)

For the everyday PC, workstation, and server. Push your computer system to the limits with this free stress test software. One of the more popular choices to let you know if your machine is going to perform reliably even under heavy stress.

HWiNFO64 (FREE)

Hardware analytics with monitoring and reporting for Windows and DOS. Whether you're looking for a quick overview or in-depth analytics of all hardware components, HWiNFO64's got you covered. Provides accurate monitoring of all system components for actual status and failure predictions.

Aida64** (FREE & PAID)

Targeting business customers and individual enthusiasts alike, this quite robust computer system info, diagnostics, and benchmarking software packs a powerful punch. It may describe itself as a diagnostics tool but it does offer some nice stress testing features as well where it allows the user to put different components to the test.

Super PI (FREE)

It is used to calculate pi to a specific number of digits. You may be wondering why this tool is here to begin with then, but a lot of computer enthusiasts use this tool to overclock their computer by setting the number to many digits in order to measure how fast a CPU can calculate.

Speccy (FREE & PAID)

If you're familiar with CCleaner, you're most likely familiar with Speccy. It really does have all the info you need, from OS, CPU and RAM to your motherboard and even graphics and storage. The real-time temp monitor is one of my favorites, and while you're at it, download CCleaner too, to clean, speed up and optimize your PC.

SiSoftware Sandra Lite** (FREE & PAID)

Your everyday diagnostic and stress test software. It's quite popular among computer techies since you can use it for overclock performance measurements. You can even disable hyperthreading to use only physical cores/modules or disable multi-core to use only sockets/packages. Either way, quite a nifty tool for diagnostics and as a stress test software piece.

WinAudit (FREE)

Used by IT experts and professionals alike, it's an open source software that resonates across multiple computing fields. It spits out comprehensive reports on a computer systems' configuration, hardware, and software.

RWEverything** (FREE)

Hardware Engineers, Firmware (BIOS) Engineers, driver developers, QA Engineers, Test Engineers, Diagnostic Engineers and so many more LISTEN UP! This utility can access almost all the computer hardware on your machine. Beware - it offers no warranty and you have sole responsibility for any damages caused to the system since it will let you modify hardware settings.

Novabench** (FREE & PAID)

This is one of my personal favorites, and it's free. It takes minutes to test your computer's performance, it shows scores & stands openly so you can compare your computer to the rest of the world, and now even offers a GPU compute & graphics test. It comes with CPU, GPU, Memory, Disk read & write speed and the Pro version comes with a few other bonuses.

PassMark - PerformanceTest** (FREE & PAID)

Another great stress test software by PassMark - it let's you know if your computer is performing at its best. You can measure the effectiveness of the changes/upgrades you make to the system and you can even compare your performance based on independent measurements to help you in your purchasing decisions.

UXD - QuickCAST Server** (PAID)

Although paid only, this stress test tool is for those who need to test multiple computers at the same time - Macs included. It allows you to customize scripts based on your needs. Attack multiple computers on the bench and keep moving through burn-ins and benchmarks like a pro.

 

Line with arrow down

Help us to help you

There you have it, an extensive list of widely used computer stress test software and hardware monitoring tools available on the internet today.

Are you using a computer stress test software that isn't on this list? Personal experience (good or bad) with any tools listed? Do you have other suggestions?

Leave a comment below! We'd love your input.

#technology #tech #techtrends #engineering #technews #stresstests #computerbenchmarks

Источник: [https://torrent-igruha.org/3551-portal.html]

Take a snapshot to copy words or images from all or part of your PC screen. Use Snipping Tool to make changes or notes, then save, and share.

Capture any of the following types of snips:

Free-form snip

Draw a free-form shape around an object.

Rectangular snip

Drag the cursor around an object to form a rectangle.

Window snip

Select a window, such as a dialog box, that you want to capture.

Full-screen snip

Capture the entire screen.

When you capture a snip, it's automatically copied to the Snipping Tool window where you make changes, save, and share. 

Open Snipping Tool

For Windows 10

  • Select the Start, enter snipping tool, then select Snipping Tool from the results.

  • Press Windows logo key Shift S.

For Windows 8.1 or Windows RT 8.1

Swipe in from the right edge of the screen, select Search, enter snipping tool in the search box, and then select Snipping Tool from the list of results.

For Windows 7

Select Start, then enter snipping tool in the search box, and then select Snipping Tool from the list of results.

Work with your screenshots

With your Snipping Tool open, select one of the following to create and work with your screenshots.

In Snipping Tool, select Mode. In earlier versions of Windows, select the arrow next to the New button. Next, when you choose the kind of snip you want, you’ll see the whole screen change slightly to gray. Then, choosing from anything currently displayed on the screen, select the area of your screen that you want to capture.

Snipping Tool mode options

  1. After you open Snipping Tool, open the menu that you want to capture. For Windows 7, press the Esc key before opening the menu.

  2. Press Ctrl + PrtScn keys. The entire screen changes to gray including the open menu.

  3. Select Mode, or in earlier versions of Windows, select the arrow next to the New button. Select the kind of snip you want, and then select the area of the screen capture that you want to capture.

After you capture a snip, you can write or draw on or around it by selecting the Pen or Highlighter buttons. Select Eraser to remove the lines you've drawn.

  1. After you capture a snip, select the Save Snip button.

  2. In the Save As box, type a file name, location, and type, and then select Save.

When you capture a snip from a browser window and save it as an HTML file, the URL appears below the snip. To prevent the URL from appearing:

  1. In the Snipping Tool, select the Options button.

  2. In theSnipping Tools Options box, clear the Include URL below snips (HTML only) check box, then select OK.

After you capture a snip, select the arrow next to the Send Snip button, and then select an option from the list.  

Press these keys

To do this

Alt + M

Choose a snipping mode.

Alt + N

Create a new snip in the same mode as the last one.

Shift + arrow keys

Move the cursor to select from different types of snips.

Alt + D

Delay capture by 1-5 seconds

Ctrl + C

Copy the snip to clipboard

Ctrl +

Save the snip

With your capture open in Snipping Tool, select Edit > Edit with Paint 3D to use features for sizing, color, text, and many other enhancements.

In the folder where you’ve saved your snip, right click on the snip. Select Print from the options and make choices for how you want to print your image.

In the search box on the taskbar, type snipping tool. You’ll see the Snipping Tool app and a list of actions you can take. Select Pin to taskbar.

First, identify the menu or other components you want to capture. In Snipping Tool, select Delay and then select, for example, 5 seconds. Select Mode to start the 5-second countdown. Within 5 seconds, open a menu or otherwise compose your image. At 5 seconds, when you see the screen turn gray, use the mouse to draw around the area you want. 

Источник: [https://torrent-igruha.org/3551-portal.html]

Download Windows 10

If you downloaded an ISO file for Windows 10, the file is saved locally at the location you selected. If you have a third-party DVD burning program installed on your computer that you prefer to use for creating the installation DVD, that program might open by going to the location where the file is saved and double-clicking the ISO file, or right-click the ISO file, select Open with and choose your preferred DVD burning software.

If you want to use the Windows Disk Image Burner to create an installation DVD, go to the location where the ISO file is saved. Right-click the ISO file and select Properties. On the General tab, click Change and select Windows Explorer for the program you would like to use to open ISO files and select Apply. Then right-click the ISO file and select Burn disc image.

If you want to install Windows 10 directly from the ISO file without using a DVD or flash drive, you can do so by mounting the ISO file. This will perform an upgrade of your current operating system to Windows 10.

To mount the ISO file:

  1. Go to the location where the ISO file is saved, right-click the ISO file and select Properties.
  2. On the General tab, click Change… and select Windows Explorer for the program you would like to use to open ISO files and select Apply.
  3. Right-click the ISO file and select Mount.
  4. Double-click the ISO file to view the files within. Double-click setup.exe to start Windows 10 setup.
Источник: [https://torrent-igruha.org/3551-portal.html]

10 Best Free System Information Tools

Speccy

What We Like

  • Shows detailed information on lots of components

  • Lets you copy text out of the program

  • Results can be shared via the web and exported to a file

  • Works as a regular and a portable program

What We Don't Like

  • A report can't be made of specific sections of information

  • Hasn't been updated since 2018.

Our Review of Speccy

Piriform, creators of the popular CCleaner, Defraggler, and Recuva programs, also produce Speccy, our favorite free system information tool.

Speccy's layout is nicely designed to provide all the information you need without being overly cluttered.

A summary page gives you brief, but very helpful information on things like the operating system, memory, graphics, and storage devices. A more detailed look at each category is organized in their respective sections.

Our favorite feature is the ability to send system specs from Speccy to a public web page to easily share with others. Exporting to a file, as well as printing, are additional options, making saving a list of all your hardware details really easy.

Speccy works with all versions of Windows from Windows 10 through Windows XP.

Download Speccy

PC Wizard

What We Like

  • Lets you see a summary of everything in one section

  • Provides lots of detail

  • Supports copying and exporting results

What We Don't Like

  • Buttons aren't labeled, which can be confusing

  • It's often slow when scanning the computer

  • Setup tries to install another program

Another free system information tool that shows detail on a huge variety of components is PC Wizard.

It's easy to save a report detailing any or all parts of the program, and you can even copy out single lines of data to the clipboard.

Out of all the system information tools we've used, PC Wizard is certainly the most informative. It includes not only the basic and advanced information on internal and external hardware but also useful operating system details.

PC Wizard can be installed on all versions of Windows, which includes Windows 11, 10, 8, 7, Vista, and XP.

Download PC Wizard

ASTRA32

What We Like

  • Info from every category is summarized on one page

  • Reveals detailed information on computer hardware

  • It can be used without installation

What We Don't Like

  • Functions as a demo program

  • Some information gets truncated

  • Doesn't let you copy text out of the program

  • Shows ads to buy the full program

ASTRA32 is another free system information tool that shows amazing detail on numerous devices and other parts of the system.

There are several categories to separate the information it gathers on hardware, like that of a motherboard, storage, and monitor information. 

A system summary section is perfect for seeing an overview of all the hardware and operating system details. Also, a dedicated section for live monitoring is included to show the temperature and current usage of various hardware components.

ASTRA32 works as a demo program, but it doesn't really mean much because it still provides lots of useful information.

It can be used on Windows 11, 10, 8, 7, Vista, XP, 2000, and Windows Server 2008 and 2003.

Download ASTRA32

HWiNFO

What We Like

  • Easy to use

  • Results are detailed

  • Lets you copy specific results

  • A one-page summary of all the details is available

  • Supports extensions

  • Works in Windows, as a DOS program, and in portable mode

  • Supports alarms

What We Don't Like

  • Missing information found in some similar programs

Our Review of HWiNFO

HWiNFO shows nearly the same details as these other free system information tools, like for the CPU, motherboard, monitor, audio, network, and other components.

A sensor status window is included to monitor the current and average speed/rate of the memory, hard drive, and CPU. HWiNFO can also run a benchmark against these areas.

Report files can be created for some or all of the system components, and you can also set up automatic reporting that sounds an alarm when a sensor exceeds a particular threshold.

Unfortunately, we found that HWiNFO doesn't include as much information as some of the other applications from this list. Though the data it does display is still very helpful.

HWiNFO runs on Windows 10, 8, 7, and older ones, through Windows 95.

Download HWiNFO

Belarc Advisor

What We Like

  • Runs quickly

  • Shows unique information not found in other programs

  • Includes basic information on lots of hardware components

  • The setup file is really small

  • Software information is shown, too

What We Don't Like

  • You have to install the program to your computer

Our Review of Belarc Advisor

Belarc Advisor isn't as detailed as some of these other free system information tools. However, basic information on the operating system, processor, motherboard, memory, drives, bus adapters, display, group policies, and users are shown.

In addition to the above, a unique feature in Belarc Advisor is the ability to list all the security updates Windows is missing. You can also view software licenses, installed hotfixes, program usage frequency, and version numbers for select Microsoft products.

Results of a scan open in a web browser and can be viewed on a single web page.

Belarc Advisor is quick to download and doesn't try to install additional programs during setup, which is always nice.

Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows 11, 10, 8, 7, Vista, and XP are supported.

Download Belarc Advisor

Free PC Audit

What We Like

  • Easy to read and use

  • Completely portable with a small download size

  • Supports making reports

  • Lets you copy text from the program

  • Includes features not found in other programs

What We Don't Like

  • Information on some components aren't included in reports

  • Isn't as detailed as similar tools

Our Review of Free PC Audit

Free PC Audit includes all the features you'd expect to find in any system information utility, including the ability for a report to be saved as a simple text file.

For example, you can see information on all the hardware, like the motherboard, memory, and printers. In addition, Free PC Audit displays the Windows product key and ID, a list of installed software, and all the currently running processes, among many other things.

Free PC Audit is completely portable, making it perfect for a flash drive.

We tested Free PC Audit in Windows 10, 8, and 7, but it should also work fine in Windows 11 and older versions.

Download Free PC Audit

MiTeC System Information X

What We Like

  • Has a tabbed user interface

  • Free for personal and business use

  • Includes very detailed information on lots of components

  • It's portable

  • Supports copying and making reports

What We Don't Like

  • Reports don't include information on some hardware details

MiTeC System Information X is a free system information software program that's licensed for both private and commercial use. The tool is portable, easy to use, and can create a summary report.

Among many other categories, you'll find all the standard details like audio, network, and motherboard, information. More specific information can also be shown, such as drivers and processes.

The tabbed interface makes MiTeC System Information X really easy to navigate through if you're viewing more than one report at once.

MiTeC System Information X can be used with Windows 10, 8, 7, Vista, XP, and 2000, as well as with Windows Server 2019 through 2008.

Download MiTeC System Information X

EVEREST Home Edition

What We Like

  • Lets you favorite components for easier access

  • Condenses everything into several categories

  • It's a portable program

  • Reports can be made of some or all of the data

What We Don't Like

  • The program no longer gets updated

  • It's not as detailed as other similar tool

EVEREST Home Edition is a portable free system information tool that scans very quickly and organizes everything it finds into nine categories, including one for a summary page.

All the standard hardware details are included, like that of the motherboard, network, storage devices, and display, with the ability to create an HTML report of everything.

You can create favorites in EVEREST Home Edition to have instant access to any hardware component from the menu bar.

Unfortunately, EVEREST Home Edition is no longer being developed. This means if it's still not being developed in the future, the new hardware devices that are released will likely not be recognized by the program.

Windows 11, 10, 8, 7, Vista, and XP users can install this program.

Download EVEREST Home Edition

System Information Viewer (SIV)

What We Like

  • Shows detailed information

  • There's a summary page

  • Monitor system resources

  • Reports can be made for all the info or just some of it

  • No need for installation (it's portable)

What We Don't Like

  • Results are hard to read

  • The interface is cluttered

  • Searching doesn't work well

SIV is another free system information tool for Windows that runs as a portable program (i.e., no need to install).

In addition to USB, hard drive, adapter, and basic OS details, SIV also includes a live sensor to show CPU and memory utilization.

The interface is a bit hard to look at—the details are too difficult to read. However, if you have the patience to look closely enough, you'll find all the information you'd expect.

SIV is designed for Windows 10, 8, 7, Vista, XP, and 2000, plus older versions like Windows 98 and 95. It also works with Windows Server 2019 and some older versions.

Download SIV

ESET SysInspector

What We Like

  • Has lots of features that make it unique

  • Results are centered around security

  • It's portable

  • Can make reports about what the program finds

What We Don't Like

  • Isn't built to show as much info as similar tools

ESET SysInspector is dead simple to use because of its search utility and well-organized interface.

Results can be filtered to show information based on a risk level between one and nine. You can find basic information like available memory, system uptime, and the local time. More advanced details include things like environment variables, installed software, hotfixes, and an event log.

This program can also view a list of running processes and current network connections, active and disabled drivers, and a list of important registry entries and system files.

We like ESET SysInspector because it is the only program in this list that is centered around providing detail regarding the security of the computer. However, it doesn't show exhaustive details like the higher rated system information tools in this list.

It should work in 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows 11, 10, 8, 7, Vista, XP, and 2000. Server operating systems are also supported, including Windows Home Server.

Download ESET SysInspector

Thanks for letting us know!

Источник: [https://torrent-igruha.org/3551-portal.html]
Utility Tool | Pirate PC - Part 2

Related Videos

The Ultimate Windows Utility Upgrade

Notice: Undefined variable: z_bot in /sites/arenaqq.us/photos/utility-tool-pirate-pc-part-2.php on line 109

Notice: Undefined variable: z_empty in /sites/arenaqq.us/photos/utility-tool-pirate-pc-part-2.php on line 109

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *