Validation of the International Reading Speed Texts in a Sample of Older (60+) Canadian Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: On average, older adults (60+) with normal vision read the International Reading Speed Texts (IReST) 37.8 words per minute slower than the standardized values provided by the IReST manufacturer. When assessing reading speed in older adults, clinicians should bear in mind that the IReST norms do not account for these age-related differences. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to validate the IReST in an English-speaking Canadian sample of older adults (60+). METHODS: Canadian English-speaking older adults (n = 25) read all 10 IReST aloud using the same protocol from the original IReST validation study. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the older adult sample and the published IReST values for each text (mean difference, -37.84; 95% confidence interval, -41.34 to -34.34). CONCLUSIONS: Reading speeds of older (60+) Canadian adults fell outside of the standardized values of the English language IReST. Researchers/clinicians who wish to assess older adults' reading speed using the IReST ought to take this discrepancy into account.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".