Development and administration of the flexible adapted cognitive test battery for schizophrenia (FACTS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Age and educational eligibility criteria for administration of the most widely used cognitive battery for schizophrenia typically exclude 20 % of individuals with schizophrenia in high-income countries and 25-50 % in middle- and low-income countries. Methods: individuals with schizophrenia, regardless of age or education. To evaluate the utility and validity of the nine tests in the FACTS, two process measures are assessed during the administration of each test: 'test comprehension' and 'test completion' (successful or unsuccessful). The FACTS was administered to 495 community-dwelling individuals with schizophrenia and 308 healthy controls, including 473 (58.9 %) older or undereducated individuals typically excluded from studies of cognition in schizophrenia. Inter-rater reliability of the test comprehension and completion measures was assessed. Findings: Older, undereducated participants successfully completed 82 % (3499/4257) of the administered tests. The mean weighted Kappa value for the nine test comprehension measures was 0.90 (range: 0.82-0.96), and the mean unweighted Kappa for the 20 test and subtest completion measures was 0.94 (range: 0.85-1.00). Interpretation: individuals with schizophrenia, regardless of age or education. The development of the FACTS, which can be successfully administered to most older, undereducated individuals with schizophrenia, provides a model for doing this. Funding: This study was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grants MH108385-R01 and MH127631-R01.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".