MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991511506 · doi:10.1177/0734282913517526

Cognitive Tests in Early Childhood

2014· article· en· W1991511506 on OpenAlexaff
Marian E. Williams, Lara Sando, Tamara Soles

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychoeducational Assessment · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAmerican Psychological Association
KeywordsPsychologyStandardizationCognitionDevelopmental psychologyStandardized testRepresentativeness heuristicTest (biology)Clinical psychologyNonverbal communicationCognitive testCognitive skillIntervention (counseling)Social psychologyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive assessment of young children contributes to high-stakes decisions because results are often used to determine eligibility for early intervention and special education. Previous reviews of cognitive measures for young children highlighted concerns regarding adequacy of standardization samples, steep item gradients, and insufficient floors for young children functioning at lower levels. The present report extends previous reviews by including measures recently published or revised, nonverbal cognitive assessment tools, and issues specific to assessing bilingual or non-English-speaking children. Sixteen tests were reviewed, including all available measures of cognitive functioning for 2- to 4-year-old children normed in the United States. Test characteristics evaluated included (a) representativeness and recency of standardization data, (b) item bias analysis, (c) psychometric characteristics, and (d) appropriateness for assessing young children with developmental delays and non-English-speaking children. Implications are discussed for clinicians, researchers, and test developers.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.404 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychoeducational AssessmentSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207