Validation of the Revised Child Version of the Assessment of Computer Task Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the revised child version of the Assessment of Computer Task Performance. The subjects were 155 children of 5 to 11 years of age who did not have any visual or motor impairment. Children 5 through 9 years of age were administered the revised test, which included some additional tasks. Children 10 and 11 years of age were administered selected tasks from the adult version. A subgroup of 52 children were administered the test for the second time to examine test-retest reliability. Intra-class correlations for the mean time to complete two trials indicated moderate to good test-retest reliability (0.66-0.91). The alpha coefficient for tasks administered to children 5 through 9 years of age (0.85) supports internal consistency. Removal of one task increased the alpha coefficient to 0.79 for tasks administered to children 10 and 11 years of age. Three factors explained 84% of the total variance in scores of children 5-9 years of age and 75% of the variance in scores of children 10 and 11 years of age. The mean time to complete keyboard tasks decreased with age and the mean time to mouse tasks decreased between 5 and 9 years. CONCLUSION: The results provide evidence of test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the revised Assessment of Computer task Performance.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".