Diagnostic Study of the Sensitivity of the Population Screening Method for Cognitive Functions in Primary School Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Learning difficulties are a common problem in primary school, affecting up to 30–40% of students. They are often associated with mild cognitive impairments, but existing methods for diagnosing them are time-consuming and not suitable for large-scale surveys. This creates a need for quick and accessible screening tools to identify at-risk children in a timely manner. The aim of the study is to conduct a psychometric validation of the developed screening method for assessing cognitive functions in primary school-aged children by comparing its results with generally accepted psychodiagnostic tools. Methods. A one-time observational prospective study involved 102 children aged 7 to 8 years and 11 months. The study used a developed screening method to assess auditory-verbal memory, verbal-logical thinking, constructive praxis, analytical-synthetic abilities for understanding the plot, and voluntary attention. To assess the construct validity, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), the A.R. Luria neuropsychological examination, and the Tuloz – Pieron test were used. The relationship between the indicators was assessed using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Results. Statistically significant correlations were established between the indicators of all subtests of the screening methodology and similar indicators of validating instruments. In particular, the results of the “Auditory — speech memory” subtest correlated with the indicators of the “10 words” test and the state of phonemic hearing; the “Kohs Block Design” subtest showed high consistency with the classical version of the Wexler test (P = 0.736, P < 0.0001); “Story pictures” — with the performance of the task “Interpretation of plot pictures” (P = 0.587, P < 0.0001); the effectiveness of the Dot cancellation test is associated with the stability of the Toulouse – Pieron attention (P = 0.556, P < 0.0001). Conclusion. The developed screening method demonstrated sufficient construct validity. This tool can be recommended for screening assessment of cognitive functions in order to identify children of primary school age from the risk group for the development of learning difficulties for their subsequent in-depth diagnostics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".