Measuring memory: A survey of neuropsychological practice amongst New Zealand psychologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to explore patterns of memory assessment in neuropsychological practice within New Zealand (NZ), to compare it to that previously described in Europe, North America and Australia, and to consider the implications for neuropsychology training in NZ. 80 NZ-registered psychologists completed an online survey asking them how frequently they utilized 50 commonly used tests of memory. Participants were also asked about their main areas of specialty, work context and demographic information. Whilst participants appeared, broadly, to utilize a similar set of 'core' tests to their colleagues in Europe, Australia and North America, there were a number of tests and test domains that were rarely utilized by NZ psychologists, in contrast to overseas samples. Furthermore, several of the tests in common usage have been shown to have significant validity issues for use with an NZ population. Overall, this study suggests that most NZ psychologists employ a similar approach to memory assessment, typically relying upon a small number of well-known tests. This appears to contrast with a greater variability of practice shown in studies of European, North American and Australian psychologists and raises several interesting questions for the future development of neuropsychology in NZ.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".