MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905843226 · doi:10.1177/1073191118818754

Psychometric Properties of the Merrill–Palmer–Revised Scales of Development in Preschool Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder

2018· article· en· W2905843226 on OpenAlexafffund
Erin E. Dempsey, Isabel M. Smith, Helen E. Flanagan, Eric Duku, Michael A. Lawrence, Péter Szatmári, Lonnie Zwaigenbaum, Tracy Vaillancourt, Joanne Volden, Pat Mirenda, Charlotte Waddell, Stelios Georgiades, Mayada Elsabbagh, Wendy J. Ungar, Teresa Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of OttawaUniversity of AlbertaHamilton Health SciencesDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversitySimon Fraser UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
FundersCIHR Skin Research Training Centre
KeywordsPsychologyAutism spectrum disorderDevelopmental psychologyAutismCognitionConcurrent validityTest validityPopulationIntelligence quotientDiscriminant validityCorrelationPsychometricsClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychometrically sound tests of intellectual ability are indispensable for research and assessment of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), yet few tests have been validated for use with this population. The Merrill–Palmer–Revised Scales of Development (M-P-R) is a standardized test of intellectual ability that was validated for use with typically developing preschoolers. The current study’s aim was to investigate the criterion validity of the M-P-R for assessing cognitive skills in preschoolers with ASD ( N = 180). Good concurrent validity was demonstrated, with a large positive correlation between the M-P-R Receptive Language domain and the PLS-4 Auditory Comprehension subscale. The Cognitive domain of the M-P-R showed a medium positive correlation with later WISC-4 scores, showing acceptable predictive validity. Cognitive strengths and weaknesses assessed using the M-P-R mirrored those described for other measures, with most children obtaining higher standard scores on the Cognitive than the Receptive Language domain. An exploratory factor analysis suggested that one factor accounted for the majority of variability in M-P-R domains.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessmentSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207