Right and left hand performance on two versions of the grooved pegboard in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
51 right and left-handed children, (4-12 years), completed two versions of the Grooved Pegboard task; the standard pegboard and a pegboard 2.5 times the size of the original. Participants were required to perform two tasks on each pegboard: place the 25 key-shaped pegs in the oriented holes and remove the pegs from the holes. An age group (4-6, 7-9, 10-12 year olds) by pegboard size (standard, large) by task (place, remove) by hand (preferred, non-preferred) repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. Results revealed several significant main effects and interactions, but most interestingly there was a significant four-way interaction. Here, 10-12 year olds showed the typical adult finding (Bryden & Roy, 1999), where the preferred-hand advantage (PHA) was only significant for the place tasks, in both the standard and large Grooved pegboards. In contrast, younger children showed a PHA for both the place and remove tasks, for both pegboards. When the effects of hand preference on performance abilities were examined for 7 to 12 year olds, left-handers showed a significant PHA for only the place task on the standard pegboard, while right-handers showed significant PHAs for both tasks on both pegboards. This PHA for left-handers was evident primarily in the 7-9 year olds, but not in the 10-12 year olds, replicating recent work showing that left-handed adults show no PHA on the standard Grooved Pegboard (McWhirter, et al., 2010).Acknowledgments: NSERC(PJB & EAR)
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".