Montreal-Toulouse language evaluation battery - brief version: psychometric studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to seek psychometric evidence of validity and reliability for the MTL-BR Brief Battery and to verify the sensitivity and specificity, and to present the cut-off points for this instrument tasks. Construct validity was verified by convergent validity, with 46 (30 neurologically healthy adults and 16 with aphasia). For criterion validity, the Holm-Bonferroni method was used, presenting a total of 110 participants (73 neurologically healthy adults and 37 with aphasia). Regarding reliability, this was evaluated by the inter-rater agreement, through the analysis of Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, with a sample of 30 participants with aphasia. For the test-retest reliability study, the sample consisted of 15 participants with aphasia, and the analysis was performed by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient. For internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha was used, containing a sample of 37 participants with aphasia. To verify the diagnostic accuracy of the instrument, sensitivity and specificity were used using the ROC curve, from a sample of 223 participants (192 neurologically healthy adults and 31 with aphasia). The present study showed satisfactory psychometric evidence related to criterion and construct validity, inter-rater reliability, test-retest and internal consistency, as well as sensitivity and specificity, and cutoff point for the MTL-BR Brief Battery.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".