Confirmatory factor analysis of the Kaufman assessment battery in a sample of primary school-aged children in rural South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition, measures cognitive processing, includes non-verbal sub-tests, and is increasingly used in low- and middle-income countries. While the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition, has been validated in the United States, a psychometric evaluation has not been conducted in Southern Africa. This study aims to establish the reliability and validity of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition, among a sample of 376 primary school-aged children in rural South Africa (7–11 years). We examined Cronbach’s alpha and conducted a confirmatory factor analysis. The battery showed good reliability (mental processing index [α = .78]), and the originally validated structure of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition, was maintained (χ 2 = 16.30, p = .432). Mean scores were low on the Planning sub-scale. On the Simultaneous sub-scale, the mean score was higher for the supplementary sub-test Block Counting versus the core sub-test Triangles. With translation and the inclusion of supplementary sub-tests, the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition, is an appropriate assessment to use in this context (150/150).
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".