MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966470499 · doi:10.1002/dys.366

Identifying students feigning dyslexia: preliminary findings and strategies for detection

2008· article· en· W1966470499 on OpenAlex
Allyson G. Harrison, M. J. Edwards, Kevin C. H. Parker

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDyslexia · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExaggerationDyslexiaPsychologyContext (archaeology)Cognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyReading (process)PsychiatryLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When conducting psychological evaluations, clinicians typically assume that individuals being evaluated are putting forth maximal effort and are not exaggerating or magnifying symptom complaints. Recent research, however, suggests that students undergoing post-secondary-level assessments to document learning difficulties may not always put forth their best effort, and may even be motivated to exaggerate or magnify symptoms. This paper presents evidence indicating that symptom exaggeration in this context is not only possible, but is indistinguishable from valid symptomatology when it occurs. We argue that symptom validity assessment should be included in all higher-education assessments for dyslexia and other specific learning disorders, and suggest some preliminary strategies for detection.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it