On the Sensitivity and Specificity of Nonword Repetition and Sentence Recall to Language and Memory Impairments in Children
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
PURPOSE: The present study examined the utility of 2 measures proposed as markers of specific language impairment (SLI) in identifying specific impairments in language or working memory in school-age children. METHOD: A group of 400 school-age children completed a 5-min screening consisting of nonword repetition and sentence recall. A subset of low (n = 52) and average (n = 38) scorers completed standardized tests of language, short-term and working memory, and nonverbal intelligence. RESULTS: Approximately equal numbers of children were identified with specific impairments in either language or working memory. A group about twice as large had deficits in both language and working memory. Sensitivity of the screening measure for both SLI and specific working memory impairments was 84% or greater, although specificity was closer to 50%. Sentence recall performance below the 10th percentile was associated with sensitivity and specificity values above 80% for SLI. CONCLUSIONS: Developmental deficits may be specific to language or working memory, or include impairments in both areas. Sentence recall is a useful clinical marker of SLI and combined language and working memory impairments.
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 | 0.003 | 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