CONSTRUCT VALIDITY EVIDENCE FOR THE MEMORY TEST FOR OLDER ADULTS (MTOA:S) WITH A MUCH OLDER SAMPLE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The study purpose was to examine the construct validity of the Memory Test for Older Adults (MTOA:S) Word List and Figure subtests by (a) examining their factor structure, and (b) correlating them with age, education, WMS-III Logical Memory (LM) and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test – Revised (BVMT-R) scores. Methods: The sample consisted of 58 men and women ages 69-99 years (Mdn = 84) recruited through local organizations, seniors ’ buildings, local newspaper, and personal contacts in a rural community. They were administered a mental status exam, depression screen, WAIS-R Vocabulary, MTOA:S Word List and Figure, LM, and BVMT-R. Results: A single factor accounted for learning and memory scores on both MTOA:S subtests. Correlations of the Word List and Figure with age were moderately negative whereas, with years of education, they were low and non-significant. Correlations between the verbal measures (Word List and LM; r =.47 to.72) and between the visuospatial measures (Figure and BVMT-R; r =.60 to.70) were only slightly higher than those between the verbal and visuospatial measures (i.e., Word List and BVMT-R, Figure and LM; r =.41 to.64). Correlations between Word List and Figure showed a similar pattern. Conclusion: These results provide additional evidence to support the construct validity of the MTOA:S. They also suggest, however, that verbal and visuospatial performance may be more highly related in an older sample as compared to the original normative group (ages 55-84 years; Mdn = 69).
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".