Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The clock-drawing test has achieved widespread clinical use in recent years as a cognitive screening instrument and a significant amount of literature relates to its psychometric properties and clinical utility. This review aims to synthesize the available evidence and assess the value of this screening test according to well-defined criteria. DESIGN: A Medline and Psycho-info literature search of all languages was done from 1983 to 1998 including manual cross-referencing of bibliographies. A brief summary of all original scoring systems is provided as well as a review of replication studies. Psychometric data including correlations with other cognitive tests were recorded. Qualitative aspects of the test are also described. RESULTS: Among published studies, the mean sensitivity (85%) and specificity (85%) of the clock-drawing test are impressive. Correlations with the Mini-Mental State Examination and other cognitive tests was high, generally greater than r = 0.5. High levels of inter-rater and test-re-test reliability and positive predictive value are recorded and despite significant variability in the scoring systems, all report similar psychometric properties. The clock test also shows a sensitivity to cognitive change with good predictive validity. CONCLUSIONS: The clock-drawing test meets defined criteria for a cognitive screening instrument. It taps into a wide range of cognitive abilities including executive functions, is quick and easy to administer and score with excellent acceptability by subjects. Together with informant reports, the clock-drawing test is complementary to the widely used and validated Mini-Mental State Examination and should provide a significant advance in the early detection of dementia and in monitoring cognitive change. A simple scoring system with emphasis on the qualitative aspects of clock-drawing should maximize its utility.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".