Survey of Spanish Language Neuropsychological Test Use in the Assessment of Hispanic Americans/Latino/as/x
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the Spanish language neuropsychological tests most frequently used in the evaluation of Hispanic Americans/Latino/as/x across eight neuropsychological domains. To compare these with previously surveyed most frequently used English language tests in the US/Canada. To describe the norms used with Spanish language tests. METHOD: An anonymous, uncompensated, 12-min survey was emailed to 169 members of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology, Hispanic Neuropsychological Society, and National Academy of Neuropsychology who self-identified as providing neuropsychological evaluations in Spanish via organizational websites. RESULTS: The response rate was 36%. Respondents were all licensed U.S. psychologists with the majority fluent in Spanish, conducting less than half their evaluations in Spanish. There was an overlap between the versions of the three most frequently used Spanish versus English neuropsychological tests, but it varied by domain with 3/3 similar for visual-spatial/visuoconstructional skills and sensory/motor functioning domains and 2/3 similar for all other domains except memory (0/3). English language norm use predominated within the mood/personality and sensory/motor functioning domains. In all other domains, Spanish language norms collected in the continental US were preferred to those from foreign Spanish-speaking countries. The most frequently used foreign norms were from Mexico. CONCLUSION: Except for the memory domain, there was a sizeable overlap between the three most frequently used Spanish and English language neuropsychological tests in the US. Spanish language tests are primarily interpreted with Spanish norms collected in the continental US except within the mood/personality and sensory/motor functioning domains where English language norms predominate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".