MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112644586 · doi:10.1207/s15324826an0702_7

Internal Consistency and Concurrent Validity of Two Short Forms of the Visual Form Discrimination Test

2000· article· en· W2112644586 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

VenueApplied Neuropsychology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcurrent validityPsychologyReliability (semiconductor)Test (biology)NeuropsychologyInternal consistencyAudiologyCorrelationConsistency (knowledge bases)Clinical psychologyCognitive psychologyStatisticsCognitionPsychometricsPsychiatryArtificial intelligenceMedicineMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and concurrent validity of 2 short forms of the Visual Form Discrimination Test, referred to as first half (FH) and front-back (FB). Participants were a mixed sample of 225 patients seen for neuropsychological evaluations. The mean difference score between both short forms and the full form was less than 1 point. The short-total correlations were .85 and .86 for the FH and FB forms, respectively. A binary clinical decision rule, used to classify patients as normal or impaired, resulted in a 93.3% correct and a 94.7% correct classification rate for the FH and FB forms, respectively. It is concluded that the short form of the test, used in conjunction with a clinical decision rule, results in a very minor loss of accuracy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.278 · 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