COPY AND RECALL PERFORMANCE OF 6–8-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN AFTER STANDARD VS. STEP-BY-STEP ADMINISTRATION OF THE REY-OSTERRIETH COMPLEX FIGURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure (ROCF; Rey 1941; Osterrieth, 1944) is frequently used in the neuropsychological assessment of children and adults. The present study was designed, in part, to examine the impact of providing organizational scaffolding to young children being tested with the ROCF. To this end, 6-, 7-, and 8-year-old children were administered the test either in the standard fashion, or using a format in which the 18 key elements of the figure were introduced sequentially. Participants included 132 children who were randomly assigned to the standard or step-by-step administration groups. Significantly higher accuracy and organization scores for both copy and recall were seen with the step-by-step format than with the standard format, even though children in the step-by-step condition took less time to execute their drawings. Retention of encoded information was not affected by age or testing format. The fact that 6-year-olds in the step-by-step condition performed as well as, or better than, 8-year-olds in the standard condition suggests that the primary problem young children experience with the ROCF lies with organizational strategy formation. Advantages of using the Step-by-step ROCF in clinical practice 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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".