Assessment of subtle cognitive-communication deficits following acquired brain injury: A normative study of the Functional Assessment of Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies (FAVRES)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To present a new measure, the Functional Assessment of Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies (FAVRES), with evidence for its reliability and validity in a normative study. The FAVRES is designed to evaluate the subtle cognitive-communication deficits of individuals with ABI. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The FAVRES consists of four complex, contextually rich, verbal reasoning tasks that simulate everyday situations and require processing of text and discourse. Scoring considers the time, accuracy and justification of reasoning responses. The FAVRES scores of 52 adults with ABI were compared to those of 101 adults without ABI. OUTCOMES: FAVRES scores clearly differentiated the performances of individuals with and without ABI. Individuals with ABI were slower and less accurate in reasoning and presented fewer adequate rationales for their decisions. Inter-rater reliability for scoring was acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The FAVRES provides a reliable, functional and quantifiable measure of the cognitive-communication difficulties of individuals with ABI.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it