Language of administration in neuropsychological assessments: a study with Lithuanian bilinguals /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis investigates bilinguals' cognitive test performance when tested in their preferred language versus their second language. Previous studies have described bilinguals' performance tendencies when tested in their preferred language compared to their native language and patterns of performance in different cognitive domains. This study compared Lithuanian bilinguals' performance in general cognitive abilities, spatial skills and verbal memory tests when assessed in Lithuanian and English. In addition, the relationship between general cognitive performance and level of English proficiency was analyzed for those tested in their non-preferred language. The study involved 38 volunteer participants, randomly assigned to be tested in either English or Lithuanian, with 22 tested in English and 16 tested in Lithuanian. A between-groups study design was employed to avoid practice effects. Similarity between groups was determined in years of education, age group, and the language of their higher education coursework. General cognitive abilities were measured using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) total score. Spatial memory skills were assessed using the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test (BVMT), and verbal memory was examined with the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT). Results showed no significant effect of language of administration on participants' general cognitive abilities. Additionally, although there was a slight tendency for those tested in Lithuanian to perform better in verbal memory, participants' scores on spatial and verbal memory did not differ significantly between groups. Lastly, no significant correlation was found between the level of English proficiency and performance in cognitive abilities. This study has implications for future research, including the role of anxiety on bilinguals' test performance and a comparison between Lithuanian monolinguals and bilinguals.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".