Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of the Test of Everyday Attention (TEA) among Normal Chinese People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Test of Everyday Attention(TEA) in normal Chinese people.Methods 117 normal volunteers(18~65 years old) were screened with the Montreal Cognition Assessment(MoCA),and the normal volunteers were administered to TEA(versions A),Trail Making Test B(TMT-B),Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task(PASAT),Stroop Color-Word Interference Test(SCWT),Continuous Performance Test(CPT).20 normal volunteers were also given version B for test-ing of the test-retest reliability,time interval was 2 weeks between versions A and B.Results There was correlation between versions A and B in the major subtests(r0.700,P0.01) at a two-week interval.The varimax rotation principal-component analysis extracted 4 component factors,namely sustained attention,selective attention,switching attention,and divided attention.The factors included various subtests of TEA and the other laboratory attentional test.Conclusion TEA has good reliability and validity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".