MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025715897 · doi:10.1177/1534508411430319

Generalizability Theory Analysis of CBM Maze Reliability in Third- Through Fifth-Grade Students

2012· article· en· W2025715897 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment for Effective Intervention · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryPsychologyReliability (semiconductor)StatisticsReliability engineeringDevelopmental psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite growing use of CBM Maze in universal screening and research, little information is available regarding the number of CBM Maze probes needed for reliable decisions. The current study extends existing research on the technical adequacy of CBM Maze by investigating the number of probes and assessment durations (1-3 min) needed for reliable relative (e.g., rank-ordering students) and absolute (e.g., comparing a specific score to a cutoff) decisions. Nine CBM Maze probes were administered to 272 students in third through fifth grades. Results suggested that the number of probes needed for reliable relative and absolute decisions varied by grade, with assessments in fifth grade exhibiting the highest reliability (at least two probes needed for both types of decisions). In addition, declining gains in reliability appeared to occur as assessment duration increased. Implications of the findings for universal screening and future research are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.368 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it