Repeatability indices for the Adams D‐15 test for colour‐normal and colour‐defective adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Adams desaturated D-15 test was administered to individuals with normal colour vision or with congenital red-green colour vision defects to establish the repeatability of the test. METHODS: One hundred subjects with normal colour vision and 64 subjects with defective colour vision participated in the study. Results were analysed from two different sessions to determine the repeatability of the test for different pass/fail criteria. The test was scored using both visual inspection of the score sheet and the modified Colour Difference Vector analysis (CDV) program. RESULTS: For both subject groups, the repeatability was lowest when a perfect arrangement was required for a pass and improved as more errors were allowed. The improvement in repeatability was greatest as the failure criterion changed from 'any mistake' to 'more than two crossings'. The kappa coefficient for the reliability of the defect classification was 0.38 for visual inspection and 0.59 for the CDV analysis. All the protans who failed the test at both sessions were classified correctly. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 98 per cent of the colour-normals and 82 per cent of the colour-defectives would have the same pass/fail outcome on the Adams D-15 test conducted several days apart when the failure criterion was either one or more or two or more crossings. Individuals who make less than four crossings on the Adams D-15 should repeat the test to ensure confidence in the pass/fail result.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".