Development of Abbreviated Versions of the Word Auditory Recognition and Recall Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate abbreviated versions of the Word Auditory Recognition and Recall Measure (WARRM) as part of an iterative process in the development of a feasible test for potential future clinical use. DESIGN: The three original WARRM (O-WARRM) randomizations were modified by altering the presentation paradigm. Instead of presenting 5 trials per set size with set size increasing from 2 to 6 as in the O-WARRM (n = 100 words), the experimental WARRM (E-WARRM) paradigm consisted of one trial from each of set sizes 2 to 6 to create a "run" (n = 20 words) with each randomization consisting of 5 runs (n = 100 words). A total of 24 younger listeners with normal hearing and 48 older listeners with hearing loss (OHL) were administered 1 randomization of the O-WARRM and 1 different randomization of the E-WARRM. RESULTS: The recognition and recall performances on the O-WARRM and all versions of the E-WARRM (five individual runs and overall) were similar within each listener group, with the younger listeners with normal hearing outperforming the OHL listeners on all measures. Correlation analyses revealed moderate to strong associations between the abbreviated WARRM runs and the O-WARRM for the OHL listener group. Hierarchical regression modeling suggested that run 1 of the E-WARRM was a good predictor of O-WARRM performance and that adding additional runs did not improve the prediction. Taken together, these findings suggest that administering one run from the E-WARRM warrants further examination for clinical use. Additional analyses revealed equivalent scores on all five runs from the three E-WARRM randomizations for both listener groups. CONCLUSIONS: Abbreviated versions of the O-WARRM were developed as part of this study. This was accomplished by modifying the original presentation paradigm and creating 15 unique "runs" among the original 3 randomizations. The resulting 15 runs could be considered 15 unique and abbreviated WARRM lists that have potential, in the future after further studies are conducted to establish important properties, for clinic use. The abbreviated WARRM lists may be useful for quantifying auditory working memory of listeners with hearing loss during the audiologic rehabilitation process.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".