Three verbal fluency tasks: Normative data and convergent validity in Argentines over 50 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Verbal fluency tasks are frequently used in neuropsychological assessment, standing out for their easy application and good sensitivity to early cognitive impairment. However, in Argentina, the availability of updated norms is limited, especially for the action fluency variant. There is also little evidence of validity. Objectives: The aim of this study was to obtain Argentine norms for three verbal fluency tasks and to analyze their convergent validity. Methods: Using a nonprobability sampling method, 303 Argentines from a nonclinical population (age mean=66.8, 50-91 years) were recruited to participate in this study. Those with medical conditions that could compromise neuropsychological performance were excluded. Three verbal fluency tasks (i.e., phonological, semantic, and action), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test, and the Digit Span-WAIS III test were administered. Correlations and multiple regressions were subsequently performed. Results: Education and age significantly explained 11.8% of the variance in phonological fluency, 15.8% of the variance in semantic fluency, and 20.2% of the variance in action fluency. Hence, the normative data varied according to educational level and age group, with normal performance limit values between 9 and 14 for phonological fluency, 11 and 18 for semantic fluency, and 8 and 17 for action fluency. Positive correlations were obtained between all verbal fluency tasks, as well as between the MoCA test and the Digit Span test. Conclusions: This study supports the applicability of three verbal fluency tasks in an Argentine context by providing age- and education-corrected norms and acceptable evidence of convergent validity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".