MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083497485 · doi:10.1080/13854040490501718

Practice Effect and Test-Retest Reliability of Attentional and Executive Tests in Middle-Aged to Elderly Subjects

2004· article· en· W2083497485 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Clinical Neuropsychologist · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)PsychologyTest (biology)Executive functionsClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a lack of data about the practice effect and test-retest reliability (TRR) on many attentional and executive tests in neuropsychology. In this study, 37 subjects aged 52 to 80 were tested three times with an inter-assessment interval of 14 days. The battery included the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, the Stroop interference test, the Letter-Number Sequencing test, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III (WAIS-III), the Ruff 2 and 7 Selective Attention Test, the Tower of London, the Verbal Fluency test, and simple, choice, and sequential reaction time tests. The results showed that tasks were generally subject to a practice effect, except for those with alternate forms. In all tests, there were a number of scores demonstrating good TRR, but others, although largely used in clinical practice, failed to reach acceptable TRR standards. Usually, time derived scores were associated with the best TRR.

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 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)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.371 · 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