First validation of the Computerized Cognitive Test Battery (CCTB) on the Short Cognitive Performance Test (SKT) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in terms of convergent and divergent validity in individuals aged 60 years and older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Validity is considered to be the primary quality criterion of a test instrument. This work aims to conduct a first validation study in terms of convergent and divergent validity on the test parameters of the Computerized Cognitive Test Battery (CCTB), which measures memory, concentration in connection with processing speed and logical reasoning in 8 subtests. Methods: The investigation was carried out in the form of a cross-sectional study. The Short Cognitive Performance Test (SKT) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were used as validation instruments. The main hypothesis was that the individual tests of the CCTB, depending on their conceptual focus, show moderate to strong correlation with the SKT score, its subtests, and the MoCA score. A total of 51 subjects participated in the study, 24 of whom came into contact with the CCTB for the first time, while the remaining 27 had already been able to learn how to use the CCTB within a randomized-controlled trial on cognitive training programs. Bivariate correlation analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses on convergent and divergent validity. Additionally, correlation coefficients and exploratory factor analysis were used for exploratory analyses. Results: Most correlations of the CCTB tests showed a moderate to strong positive correlation with the test parameters for convergent validity. With regard to divergent validity, the hypotheses were for the most part be confirmed. The explorative factor analysis revealed a two-factorial structure of the CCTB subtests with the dimensions memory and information processing speed. Conclusion: The results support the convergent validity of the CCTB compared with SKT and MoCA.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".