MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984560668 · doi:10.2182/cjot.2011.78.1.4

Factor Structure of the Motor-Free Visual Perception Test-3rd Edition (MVPT-3)

2011· article· en· W1984560668 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ted Brown, Stephen N. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionTest (biology)PsychologyVisual perceptionScale (ratio)Cognitive psychologyAudiologyMedicineCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Motor-Free Visual Perception Test-3rd edition (MVPT-3) is commonly used to assess the visual perceptual functioning of adults. MVPT-3 users need to be knowledgeable about its factor structure and dimensionality. PURPOSE: To investigate the factor structure and dimensionality of the MVPT-3 when used with adults with and without neurological impairment. METHODS: The MVPT-3 scores of 221 participants aged 20+ years (49 with and 172 without neurological impairment) were used to complete a principal components analysis of the MVPT-3 scale. FINDINGS: The MVPT-3 test items loaded upon 11 viable factors, accounting for 58.15% of the test's total variance. IMPLICATIONS: The MVPT-3 exhibited multidimensionality instead of the predicted unidimensionality and therefore may not be an appropriate measure of overall visual perceptual ability in its current format. Consequently, healthcare professionals who use the MVPT-3 to assess the visual perception of their clients should exercise caution when attempting to interpret its results.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.209 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric DysfunctionFrench-language works237,207