Hayling Test - Adult Version: Applicability in the assessment of executive functions in children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childhood neuropsychology is a growing scientific area in Brazil. Regarding cognitive function in infancy, executive function (EF) has been the main focus of several studies because of its importance for and complexity in human cognition and behavior. Executive functions can be considered a set of cognitive processes related to control and integration devoted to the execution of goal-directed behaviors. Research has shown that these abilities begin in infancy and progressively develop until adulthood. Although some studies on EF development in children have already been conducted, our knowledge on this topic is still incipient. Because of the relevant role of age in cognition and EF development, the present study investigated whether differences exist between children aged 6 to 12 years concerning their performance on the Hayling test-adult version, an instrument that assesses the EF components of initiation and inhibition. Pilot data are presented that verify the applicability of this test to children. Significant differences were found between comparable age groups only in three of the seven main Hayling test scores, suggesting that the adult version may not be appropriate for children, and an adaptation of the test for child assessment is necessary. The study may lead to an initial reflection on the development of these components and thus contribute to improvements in the field of child neuropsychology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".