A Comparison of Alternative Approaches to the Scoring of Clock Drawing, ,
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a number of scoring procedures for clock drawing have emerged in the literature, no systematic comparison of the psychometric properties of various approaches has yet been conducted on a large sample of persons over 64 years of age diagnosed with dementia or deemed cognitively intact. The present study examined the reliability and validity of five scoring approaches (Doyon, Bouchard, Morin, Bourgeois, & Cote, 1991; Shulman, Shedletsky, & Silver, 1986; Tuokko, Hadjistavropoulos, Miller, & Beattie, 1992; Watson, Arfken, & Birge, 1993; Wolf-Klein, Silverstone, Levy, Brod, & Breuer, 1989) among the 493 participants of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging who completed clock drawing and who had a final diagnosis assigned at the conclusion of a comprehensive clinical examination. Inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were highest for the Tuokko et al. method. The Tuokko and Shulman scoring procedures had the highest sensitivities and relatively low specificities. The Wolf-Klein procedure had relatively low sensitivities and high specificities. Estimated areas under receiver operating curves were relatively high for all scoring methods. However, the area under the curve for the Watson procedure was significantly lower than the other procedures. All claims to the utility of clock drawing for differentiating between normal persons over 64 years of age and those with dementia appear validated.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".