Use of the Cloze procedure in the assessment of schizophrenic thought disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present investigation was an attempt to determine the validity of the Cloze Procedure in assessing differences between schizophrenic patients in the relative severity of thought disorganization. For this purpose, samples of schizophrenic speech in response to TAT cards were obtained from twelve male schizophrenic patients who had been rank ordered by two psychiatrists in terms of disordered thought processes. Equal length schizophrenic language samples with every fifth word deleted and replaced by a standard length blank were mimeographed and presented to a group of upper level undergraduate psychology students who were instructed to try to guess the missing words from the context of those that remained. These mutilated language samples constitute the Cloze forms. The scores on the Cloze Procedure represented a rank ordering by the students of the severity of schizophrenic thought disturbance in terms of the number of correctly replaced words in the language samples elicited from each patient. A substantial correlation coefficient ("r" = .82) was found between the rank order on the Cloze Procedure and the rank order obtained in the external criterion measure, that is, the psychiatric ratings. The results of tests for internal consistency and reliability of the Cloze Procedure ("W" = .622) and for the reliability of the Close raters ("R" = .792) were also substantial. A number of advantages and disadvantages of this method of investigation are discussed and contrasted with those of other somewhat similar procedures. Possible applications to psychiatric research are suggested. The results appear to be conclusive within the limitations of the criterion measure employed in this study. More widespread generalizations await further research which is invited in light of the apparently promising findings of this exploratory study.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".