Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) short-form validity: A comparison study in pediatric epilepsy
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 purpose of this article was to investigate the accuracy of the WISC-IV short forms in estimating Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) and General Ability Index (GAI) in pediatric epilepsy. METHODS: One hundred and four children with epilepsy completed the WISC-IV as part of a neuropsychological assessment at a tertiary-level children's hospital. The clinical accuracy of eight short forms was assessed in two ways: (a) accuracy within +/- 5 index points of FSIQ and (b) the clinical classification rate according to Wechsler conventions. The sample was further subdivided into low FSIQ (≤ 80) and high FSIQ (> 80). RESULTS: All short forms were significantly correlated with FSIQ. Seven-subtest (Crawford et al. [2010] FSIQ) and 5-subtest (BdSiCdVcLn) short forms yielded the highest clinical accuracy rates (77%-89%). Overall, a 2-subtest (VcMr) short form yielded the lowest clinical classification rates for FSIQ (35%-63%). The short form yielding the most accurate estimate of GAI was VcSiMrBd (73%-84%). CONCLUSIONS: Short forms show promise as useful estimates. The 7-subtest (Crawford et al., 2010) and 5-subtest (BdSiVcLnCd) short forms yielded the most accurate estimates of FSIQ. VcSiMrBd yielded the most accurate estimate of GAI. Clinical recommendations are provided for use of short forms in pediatric epilepsy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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