Practice Effect and Test-Retest Reliability of Attentional and Executive Tests in Middle-Aged to Elderly Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".