MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243327643 · doi:10.1016/s0887-6177(01)00135-4

Verbal Paired Associates tests limits on validity and reliability

2002· article· en· W4243327643 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bob Uttl

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeHenry M. Jackson Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleCeiling effectNormativeTest (biology)Wechsler Memory ScaleDevelopmental psychologyAudiologyCognitive psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Verbal Paired Associates (VPA) subtest from the Wechsler Memory Scale-III (WMS-III) is one of the most widely used instruments for assessing explicit episodic memory performance. The normative data for the VPA subtest in the WMS-III manual show clear evidence of performance ceiling effects that limit the usefulness of this instrument. For this reason, we developed a new 15-item VPA test and we report normative data obtained from a partially stratified sample of 351 healthy adults between 18 and 91 years of age. Only a small fraction of participants obtained perfect scores on our new Paired Associates test. The results show the expected large age-related decline in memory acquisition, indexed by performance on the first study test trial, together with a much smaller age effect on learning across trials. The results also show that performance on the Paired Associates test is related to education, verbal IQ, and to a lesser extent, participants’ sex. We provide various equations for precise predictions of Paired Associates test performance.

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)0.108
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.327
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1080.327
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Clinical NeuropsychologySame topicCognitive Functions and MemoryFrench-language works237,207