Assessment of subtle cognitive-communication deficits following acquired brain injury: A normative study of the Functional Assessment of Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies (FAVRES)
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".