Assessment of executive function using the Tinkertoy test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Tinkertoy test (TTT) has often been used to assess executive function. Despite its clinical importance, there are few published normative data for it. Thus, the primary aim of this study was to fill this gap. Moreover, as there exists a sex difference in many cognitive abilities and neuropsychological tests, a secondary aim was to examine whether sex influences TTT performance. We administered the TTT to 25 healthy men and 25 healthy women whose average age was 28 years. Performances were scored based upon Lezak's (1982) original TTT criteria. On average, our participants used 43 pieces to complete their construction (SD=8), with a range of 21-50, and their complexity scores ranged from 7 to 12, with a mean score of 9.68 (SD=1.35). Overall performance did not differ based on sex; yet, when examining individual scoring criteria, we found that men scored significantly higher on the symmetry measure. Efforts towards the development of adequate normative data for the TTT and different tests of executive functioning are crucial to neuropsychologists' and other healthcare providers' ability to reliably diagnose and treat disorders of cognition that affect executive function. The present data go some way towards enhancing the utility of the TTT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".