ArticlePsychological assessment2015
Item response theory analyses of the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT).
Article in Psychological assessment, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- A highly sensitive famous face recognition paradigm for prosopagnosia screening.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- The blur paradox: Better recognition at a distance.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Exploring the development of face recognition across childhood via logistic mixed-effects modelling of the standardised Cambridge Face Memory Test.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Measuring visual ability in linguistically diverse populations.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Measuring object recognition ability: Reliability, validity, and the aggregate z-score approach.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Recent Advances in Neuropsychological Test Interpretation for Clinical Practice.Neuropsychology review · 2024Review
- Cross-cultural Diagnostic Validity of the Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) in a Sample of Older Adults.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2024Article
- Face identification proficiency test designed using item response theory.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Sex and menstrual cycle influence human spatial navigation strategies and performance.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Visual object recognition ability is not related to experience with visual arts.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Face recognition improvements in adults and children with face recognition difficulties.Brain communications · 2022Article
- Components of Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index in Iranian adult population: an item response theory model.Sleep medicine: X · 2021Article
- Article
- Face individual identity recognition: a potential endophenotype in autism.Molecular autism · 2020Article
- Mental Help Seeking Attitudes Scale (MHSAS): Development, reliability, validity, and comparison with the ATSPPH-SF and IASMHS-PO.Journal of counseling psychology · 2018Article
- Individual differences in visual science: What can be learned and what is good experimental practice?Vision research · 2017Article
- Individual differences in perceptual abilities in medical imaging: the Vanderbilt Chest Radiograph Test.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2017Article
- Gender differences in recognition of toy faces suggest a contribution of experience.Vision research · 2016Article
- Measuring nonvisual knowledge about object categories: The Semantic Vanderbilt Expertise Test.Behavior research methods · 2016Article
- Differential item functioning analysis of the Vanderbilt Expertise Test for cars.Journal of vision · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We evaluated the psychometric properties of the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT; Duchaine & Nakayama, 2006). First, we assessed the dimensionality of the test with a bifactor exploratory factor analysis (EFA). This EFA analysis revealed a general factor and 3 specific factors clustered by targets of CFMT. However, the 3 specific factors appeared to be minor factors that can be ignored. Second, we fit a unidimensional item response model. This item response model showed that the CFMT items could discriminate individuals at different ability levels and covered a wide range of the ability continuum. We found the CFMT to be particularly precise for a wide range of ability levels. Third, we implemented item response theory (IRT) differential item functioning (DIF) analyses for each gender group and 2 age groups (age ≤ 20 vs. age > 21). This DIF analysis suggested little evidence of consequential differential functioning on the CFMT for these groups, supporting the use of the test to compare older to younger, or male to female, individuals. Fourth, we tested for a gender difference on the latent facial recognition ability with an explanatory item response model. We found a significant but small gender difference on the latent ability for face recognition, which was higher for women than men by 0.184, at age mean 23.2, controlling for linear and quadratic age effects. Finally, we discuss the practical considerations of the use of total scores versus IRT scale scores in applications of the CFMT.
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.