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 OpenAlexaff
Todd A. Girard, Bruce K. Christensen

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.229
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.567
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2290.567
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological AssessmentSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207