Examining Unusual Digit Span Performance in a Population of Postsecondary Students Assessed for Academic Difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods of identifying poor test-related motivation using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Digit Span subtest are based on identification of performance patterns that are implausible if the test taker is investing full effort. No studies to date, however, have examined the specificity of such measures, particularly when evaluating persons with either known or suspected learning or attention disorders. This study investigated performance of academically challenged students on three measures embedded in the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III, namely, low Digit Span, high Vocabulary-Digit span (Voc-DS), and low Reliable Digit Span scores. Evaluating subjects believed to be investing full effort in testing, it was found that both Digit Span and Reliable Digit Span had high specificity, although both showed relatively lower sensitivity. In contrast, VOC-DS was especially weak in both sensitivity and specificity, with an apparent false positive rate of 28%. Use of VOC-DS is therefore not appropriate for those with a history of learning or attention problems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".