Test-retest reliability of the Wathand Cabinet Test in children and adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literature surrounding the development of handedness emphasizes consistency, such that young children have weak, inconsistent hand preference tendencies. Furthermore, left-handers demonstrate inconsistent hand preference, where some use their non-preferred hand at least half the time. It has been suggested that hand preference is not solidified until age 6, where consistency improves with age. The WatHand Cabinet Test (WHCT) is an effective observational-based measurement of hand preference. Composed of a small, vertically oriented, two-compartment cabinet with a door covering the top compartment, participants are asked to complete a series of unimanual and bimanual tasks; therefore, several scores can be computed (e.g. skilled, bimanual, consistency and total score). The WHCT is significantly correlated with the Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire (WHQ; r = .795, p < .01) and the Annett Pegboard (AP; r = .542, p < .01) as a valid measure of handedness (Bryden, et al., 2007); however the reliability of this measure has yet to be examined. This study therefore aimed to assess the test-retest reliability of the WHCT. Typically-developing children (n = 92) and adults (n = 20) participated in this study; 94 right- and 18 left-handers. Participants completed the WHQ, AP and WHCT on two separate testing days. Results confirmed consistent hand selection within testing sessions; thus suggesting the WHCT is a consistent and reliable measure of handedness.Acknowledgments: Research Support: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (P.J.B)
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".