Investigation of the Psychometric Properties of the Proverbs Scale for the Assessment of Abstraction Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In our country, there is a need for culture-specific scales to evaluate the cognitive skills of individuals such as abstraction and reasoning. In this study, it was aimed to develop the Proverbs Scale, which is used to evaluate the abstraction skills of individuals, and to examine its psychometric properties in healthy volunteers. The Standardized Mini-Mental Test, Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale, Kitchen Picture Test, WAIS-R Comprehension and Similarities subscales and the Proverbs Scale were applied to 122 healthy volunteers, 56% (n=68) of whom were men and between the ages of 23-83 (x̅age = 49.26, SD = 14.73). In the exploratory factor analysis of the Proverbs Scale, a multiple factor structure was obtained. It was determined that the Proverbs Scale scores were positively correlated with the WAIS-R Comprehension and Similarity subscales and the Kitchen Picture Test's Judgment subscale, which are used to measure abstraction and reasoning skills. The internal consistency of the scale was moderate (Cronbach alpha=.76), and the inter-rater reliability was high (r=.98). The results of this study indicate that the 15-item Proverbs Scale is a valid and reliable tool for evaluating abstraction skills.
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".