Evaluation of the Consonant Vowel Consonant (CVC) Test as an Assessment and Screening Instrument for Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Objective: Traditional word learning tasks have been criticised for being affected by ceiling effects. The Consonant Vowel Consonant (CVC) test is a non-word verbal learning task designed to be more difficult and therefore have a lower risk of ceiling effects.</p><p>Method: The current study examines the psychometric properties of the CVC in 404 middle-aged persons and evaluates it as a screening instrument for mild cognitive impairment by comparing it to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Differences between currently depressed and non-depressed participants were also examined.</p><p>Results: CVC characteristics are similar to traditional verbal memory tasks but with reduced likelihood of a ceiling effect. Using the standard cut-off on the MoCA as an indication of mild cognitive impairment, the CVC performed only moderately well in predicting this. Depressed participants scored significantly lower on the CVC compared with non-depressed individuals.</p><p>Conclusions: The CVC may be similar in psychometric properties to the traditional word learning tests but with a higher ceiling. Scores are lower in depression.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".