MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of a WMS-R Malingering Index in a Non-Litigating Clinical Sample

2000· article· en· W2059631735 on OpenAlexaff
Grant L. Iverson, Daniel J. Slick, Michael D. Franzen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalingeringPsychologyWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleIndex (typography)Clinical psychologySample (material)NeuropsychologyPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of a Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised "malingering index" in a large sample of non-litigating individuals from an inpatient substance abuse program. Past research has demonstrated that experimental-malingerers often obtain substantially lower scores on the Attention/Concentration Index than on the General Memory Index. In the present study, only a small percentage of patients showed large General Memory - Attention/Concentration difference scores. These results provide further support for the validity of this difference score as a marker for non-optimal effort.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.381
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Experimental NeuropsychologySame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207