An Examination of the Word Memory Test as a Measure of Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the utility of the Word Memory Test (WMT) as a measure of verbal episodic memory by comparing select WMT subtests to the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT) First and Second Editions (CVLT-II) across two samples. Correlations between the WMT and CVLT/CVLT-II subtests were statistically significant in the expected direction. Effect sizes were examined to assess the degree to which the WMT memory subtests and the CVLT First Edition subtests discriminated between groups of people who would be expected to differ from each other in verbal memory abilities. Comparison groups included cases of mild, moderate, and severe traumatic brain injury, mixed neurological patients, healthy adult controls, and patients with possible early dementia. Once invalid data were removed by studying only those who passed performance validity testing, it was found that the effect sizes between these groups were comparable. The WMT, CVLT, and CVLT-II were found to discriminate to about the same degree between people differing from each other in age, intelligence levels, and gender. Based on these data from a total sample of more than 3,000 cases, it is concluded that select WMT subtests are commensurate with the CVLT subtests as measures of memory within primarily disability-seeking samples.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".