In-Person and In-Home Teleneuropsychological Assessments With Youth With Neurodevelopmental Disorders: What’s the Difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychoeducational assessments provide clinicians with the foundation for diagnostic determinations and meaningful recommendations for youth with neurodevelopmental disorders. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the field shifted from seeing clients face-to-face (FTF) to conducting evaluations virtually via teleneuropsychology (TNP) in the client’s own home. The current study sought to determine the equivalence of cognitive and achievement scores obtained in the context of FTF versus TNP testing. Nineteen youth with diverse neurodevelopmental disorders completed the Woodcock Johnson-Fourth Edition (WJ-IV). Results suggest generally equivalent results, with the caveat that scores from measures of Fluid Reasoning and Auditory Processing were significantly different across testing modalities. Environmental factors, characteristics of the clients, administration challenges, technical considerations, and practice effects may have contributed to differences in scores. These findings have implications for assessment standardization, case conceptualization, and implementation of recommendations in the school setting when psychoeducational assessments are conducted virtually.
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 | 0.012 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".