Comparison of the Computer and Hand Administered Versions of the Brown Location Test (BLT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Brown Location Test (BLT) was developed to remedy some of the problems in existing visual-based memory tests. The hand version has demonstrated good psychometric properties, the ability to provide lateralization information for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy patients, and has normative data. The purpose of this study was to compare the hand administered format to the more recently developed computer administered format. METHODS: We used Generalizability Theory analyses to assess the degree of variability in scores across the hand and computer versions of the test, and across alternate test forms, A and B. We also compared the means and standard deviations for the different versions and forms using paired t-tests, and Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS: There was minimal variability and high levels of score similarity across the various test administration formats and forms. CONCLUSIONS: The high degree of comparability between versions allows one to apply the validity findings and normative data collected using the hand administered version to the computer version of the BLT.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| 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".