A comparison of intellectual assessments over video conferencing and in‐person for individuals with ID: preliminary data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Video conferencing (VC) technology has great potential to increase accessibility to healthcare services for those living in rural or underserved communities. Previous studies have had some success in validating a small number of psychological tests for VC administration; however, VC has not been investigated for use with persons with intellectual disabilities (ID). A comparison of test results for two well known and widely used assessment instruments was undertaken to establish if scores for VC administration would differ significantly from in-person assessments. METHOD: Nineteen individuals with ID aged 23-63 were assessed once in-person and once over VC using the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) and the Beery-Buktenica Test of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI). RESULTS: Highly similar results were found for test scores. Full-scale IQ on the WASI and standard scores for the VMI were found to be very stable across the two administration conditions, with a mean difference of less than one IQ point/standard score. CONCLUSION: Video conferencing administration does not appear to alter test results significantly for overall score on a brief intelligence test or a test of visual-motor integration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".