MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292362258 · doi:10.1080/02687038.2022.2107166

Measuring Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies in German Speaking People with Cognitive-Communication Disorders: Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Pilot Testing of the FAVRES-DE

2022· article· en· W4292362258 on OpenAlex
Jana Quinting, Prisca Stenneken, Anne Mahlke, Carola de Beer, Katharina Hogrefe, Katja Hußmann, Annette Baumgaertner, Sheila MacDonald, Kristina Jonas

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAphasiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyGermanCognitionNormativeAcquired brain injuryExecutive functionsCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyRehabilitationPsychiatryLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Cognitive communication disorders (CCDs) are a hallmark of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Difficulties may be relatively subtle, becoming especially evident in complex communication situations which place a higher cognitive demand on the person affected. To date, no standardised, ecologically valid assessment tool for detecting these subtle CCDs exists for German. The Functional Assessment of Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies (FAVRES; (MacDonald, 2005)), available in English and Canadian-French, is designed to detect subtle CCDs after acquired brain-injury (ABI) using real-life scenarios.Aims This study aims to translate and adapt the FAVRES into German as well as to gather reference data on the performance of neurologically healthy adults. Furthermore, the study conducts a first evaluation of age- and education-specific performance trends and interrater-reliability. Results are compared with the normative data of the original English version and the French-Canadian translation. In addition, an exploratory multiple case analysis of the feasibility of the FAVRES-DE and its capability to detect subtle CCDs on a sample of four adults with TBI is conducted.Methods & Procedures The original version of the FAVRES was translated and adapted based on the ITC-Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (2016). The resulting German version, the FAVRES-DE, was completed by 60 neurologically healthy adults (32 women) and four adults with chronic CCD after TBI (≥ 6 months post onset) in a pilot cross-sectional study.Results The FAVRES-DE was feasible with all participants. Age and education had significant influence on the performance of the neurologically healthy group, whose results were comparable to the original version and to the French-Canadian normative study, but analyses revealed differences in several subscores. Two of the four participants with TBI exhibited a significantly lower performance than the control group. Analyses of interrater-reliability revealed a high level of agreement between three independent raters.Discussion The FAVRES-DE seems to be a sensitive measure to identify CCDs after TBI. The challenges of detecting subtle CCDs are exemplified by one of the TBI cases. Further validation and psychometric testing of the FAVRES-DE on a representative dataset is warranted.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.253 · 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