Psychometrics and diagnostics of the Italian version of the Alternate Verbal Fluency Battery (AVFB) in non-demented Parkinson’s disease patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Verbal fluency (VF) tasks are known as suitable for detecting cognitive impairment (CI) in Parkinson's disease (PD). This study thus aimed to evaluate the psychometrics and diagnostics of the Alternate Verbal Fluency Battery (AVFB) by Costa et al. (2014) in an Italian cohort of non-demented PD patients, as well as to derive disease-specific cut-offs for it. METHODS: N = 192 non-demented PD patients were screened with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and underwent the AVFB-which includes phonemic, semantic and alternate VF tests (PVF; SVF; AVF), as well as a Composite Shifting Index (CSI) reflecting the "cost" of shifting from a single- to a double-cued VF task. Construct validity and diagnostics were assessed for each AVFB measure against the MoCA. Internal reliability and factorial validity were also tested. RESULTS: The MoCA proved to be strongly associated with PVF, SVF and AVF scores, whilst moderately with the CSI. The AVFB was internally consistent and underpinned by a single component; however, an improvement in both internal reliability and fit to its factorial structure was observed when dropping the CSI. Demographically adjusted scores on PVF, SVF and AVF tests were diagnostically sound in detecting MoCA-defined cognitive impairment, whilst this was not true for the CSI. Disease-specific cut-offs for PVF, SVF and AVF tests were derived. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, PVF, SVF and AVF tests are reliable, valid and diagnostically sound instruments to detect cognitive impairment in non-demented PD patients and are therefore recommended for use in clinical practice and research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".