MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972879012 · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.20.1.76

Clarifying problems and offering solutions for correlated error when assessing the validity of selected-subtest short forms.

2008· article· en· W1972879012 on OpenAlex

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

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativePsychologyShort FormsVariance (accounting)Test validityScale (ratio)PsychometricsCorrelationMeasure (data warehouse)Incremental validityCriterion validityTest (biology)StatisticsClinical psychologyConstruct validityMathematicsComputer scienceData miningEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The correlation between a short-form (SF) test and its full-scale (FS) counterpart is a mainstay in the evaluation of SF validity. However, in correcting for overlapping error variance in this measure, investigators have overattenuated the validity coefficient through an intuitive misapplication of P. Levy's (1967) formula. The authors of the present article clarify that such corrections should be based on subtest-level versus FS-level data. Additionally, the authors propose a simple, modified equation incorporating FS-level scores that provides liberal and conservative validity measures for comparison across estimation methods, and they demonstrate its use in both a normative (N = 2,450) and clinical psychiatric (N = 216) sample.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.775
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.235 · 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