Normative Study of the Functional Assessment of Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies (FAVRES) Test in the French-Canadian Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The Functional Assessment of Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies (FAVRES; MacDonald, 2005) test was designed for use by speech-language pathologists to assess verbal reasoning, complex comprehension, discourse, and executive skills during performance on a set of challenging and ecologically valid functional tasks. A recent French version of this test was translated from English; however, it had not undergone standardization. The development of normative data that are linguistically and culturally sensitive to the target population is of importance. The present study aimed to establish normative data for the French version of the FAVRES, a commonly used test with native French-speaking patients with traumatic brain injury in Québec, Canada. Method: The normative sample consisted of 181 healthy French-speaking adults from various regions across the province of Québec. Age and years of education were factored into the normative model. Results: Results indicate that age was significantly associated with performance on time, accuracy, reasoning subskills, and rationale criteria, whereas the level of education was significantly associated with accuracy and rationale. Conclusion: Overall, mean scores on each criterion were relatively lower than in the original English version, which reinforces the importance of using the present normative data when interpreting performance of French speakers who have sustained a traumatic brain injury.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".