Word Memory Test failure 23 times higher in mild brain injury than in parents seeking custody: The power of external incentives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Motivation has an important influence on neuropsychological test performances. This study examined effort on the Word Memory Test (WMT) in groups with differing external incentives. RESEARCH DESIGN: 774 adults with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), tested as part of a Workers' Compensation, disability or personal injury claim stood to gain financially by appearing impaired on testing. In contrast, parents ordered by the Court to undergo a parenting assessment were highly motivated to do their best on cognitive tests because their goal was to regain custody of their children. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Consistent with these assumptions, 98.3% of 118 parents seeking child custody passed the WMT effort subtests but in cases of mild TBI the pass rate on the WMT was only 60%. The WMT failure rate in the mild TBI sample was 23 times higher than in the group of parents seeking custody. WMT failure was twice as frequent in the mild TBI group than in those with more severe TBI. WMT failure was also much higher in adults with mild TBI than in children with significant impairment from various clinical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Such differences in failure rates on the WMT effort subtests cannot be explained by differences in cognitive skills but they are explainable by differences in external incentives. The findings support the recommendation that objective tests of effort should be used when evaluating cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".