An Observational Method of Assessing Handedness in Children and Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study was performed to assess the WatHand Cabinet Test (WHCT), a newly developed multidimensional observational test of handedness. Because the test is observational, it is ideal for assessing children, as it does not require a high degree of verbal comprehension on the part of the participants. 548 individuals participated in the present study on a voluntary basis. Individuals of varying ages were examined (including 3 to 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11-year-olds, and 19-to 24-year-olds). Each participant was asked to complete the WHCT, the Annett Pegboard (Annett, 1985 Annett, M. 1985. Left, right, hand, and brain: The right-shift theory., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]), and the Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire (WHQ) (M.P. Bryden, 1977 Bryden, M. P. 1977. Measuring handedness with questionnaires.. Neuropsychologia, 15: 617–624. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Overall, the total score on the WHCT was significantly correlated with both the WHQ, r =.795, p < .01, and the Annett Pegboard, r = .542, p < .01. Sub-scores measuring skilled performance, bimanual performance, and internal consistency were also examined, as well as performance on the three tests as a function of age. Overall, findings indicate that that the WHCT is a valid test of hand preference in both children and adults. Its ease of use, quick administration, and built-in quantitative sub-scores offer a robust alternative method for measuring hand preference.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".