ArticleAssessment2014
Development of abbreviated eight-item form of the Penn Verbal Reasoning Test.
Article in Assessment, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations between pragmatic language and Theory of Mind in individuals with a history of autism and those who have lost the autism diagnosis.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Multiview Diffusion Map Improves Prediction of Fluid Intelligence With Two Paradigms of fMRI Analysis.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2021Article
- Neurocognitive Predictors of Treatment Outcomes in Cognitive Processing Therapy for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: Study Protocol.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The ability to reason with language is a highly valued cognitive capacity that correlates with IQ measures and is sensitive to damage in language areas. The Penn Verbal Reasoning Test (PVRT) is a 29-item computerized test for measuring abstract analogical reasoning abilities using language. The full test can take over half an hour to administer, which limits its applicability in large-scale studies. We previously described a procedure for abbreviating a clinical rating scale and a modified procedure for reducing tests with a large number of items. Here we describe the application of the modified method to reducing the number of items in the PVRT to a parsimonious subset of items that accurately predicts the total score. As in our previous reduction studies, a split sample is used for model fitting and validation, with cross-validation to verify results. We find that an 8-item scale predicts the total 29-item score well, achieving a correlation of .9145 for the reduced form for the model fitting sample and .8952 for the validation sample. The results indicate that a drastically abbreviated version, which cuts administration time by more than 70%, can be safely administered as a predictor of PVRT performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.