Screening for Working Memory Deficits in the Classroom
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this 18-month longitudinal study was to explore the psychometric properties of the recently developed Working Memory Rating Scale (WMRS) within a general school population of 524 six- to nine-year-old children (259 boys, 265 girls) and with an examination of sex and time differences. METHOD: Teachers completed the WMRS and children completed objective measures of WM and standardized measures of academic achievement. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analyses indicated a poor fit for the 20 original WMRS items. Post hoc analyses, however, revealed that the factor structure of an alternative five-item short form was strong for both boys and girls and at the two time points, spanning two consecutive academic years. Internal consistency, criterion-related validity, and convergent validity of this alternative five-item WMRS were also excellent. CONCLUSION: The short five-item WMRS may eventually provide teachers with a useful and time-effective method to screen for WM deficits at school.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it