Word Memory Test Performance in Canadian Adolescents With Learning Disabilities: A Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate Word Memory Test (WMT) performances in students with identified learning disabilities (LDs) providing good effort to examine the influence of severe reading or learning problems on WMT performance. Participants were 63 students with LDs aged 11 to 14 years old (M = 12.19 years), who completed psychoeducational assessments as part of a transition program to secondary school. Participants were administered a battery of psychodiagnostic tests including the WMT. Results indicated that 9.5% of students with LD met Criterion A on the WMT (i.e., perform below cut-offs on any of the first three subtests of the WMT), but less than 1% met both criteria necessary for identification of low effort. Failure on the first three subtests of the WMT was associated with word reading at or below the 1st percentile and severely impaired phonetic decoding and phonological awareness skills. These results indicate that the majority of students with a history of LD are capable of passing the WMT, and use of profile analysis reduces the false-positive rate to below 1%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".