The D-KEFS Trails as performance validity tests.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to examine the potential of the Delis-Kaplan Executive System (D-KEFS) version of the Trail Making Test (TMT) as a performance validity test (PVT). Data were collected from a mixed clinical sample of 157 consecutively referred outpatients (49% male, MAge = 47.1, MEducation = 13.6) undergoing neuropsychological assessment at an academic medical center in the northeastern United States. Sensitivity and specificity of the D-KEFS Trails to psychometrically defined invalid responding was calculated across various cutoffs and criterion PVTs. The D-KEFS Trails produced classification accuracy comparable to the original version of the TMT, hovering around the "Larrabee limit" (.50 sensitivity at .90 specificity). Different cutoffs (age-corrected scaled score ≤5 on Trails 1-3, ≤4 on Trails 4 and ≤8 on Trails 5) were needed to achieve the same classification accuracy across the five trials. Combining multiple cutoffs improved the signal detection performance. The study provides preliminary evidence of the utility of D-KEFS Trails as a PVT. Embedded PVTs are valuable, because they make a multivariate approach to validity assessment feasible. Combining validity indicators is superior to relying on single cutoffs. (PsycINFO Database Record
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 it