ArticleAssessment2020
Validating Online Measures of Cognitive Ability in Genes for Good, a Genetic Study of Health and Behavior.
Article in Assessment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Social Shapes Test as a Self-Administered, Online Measure of Social Intelligence: Two Studies with Typically Developing Adults and Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2024Article
- Considerations, Caveats, and Suggestions for the Use of Polygenic Scores for Social and Behavioral Traits.Behavior genetics · 2024Review
- Educational attainment polygenic score predicts inhibitory control and academic skills in early and middle childhood.Genes, brain, and behavior · 2021Article
- Polygenic Scores for Cognitive Abilities and Their Association with Different Aspects of General Intelligence-A Deep Phenotyping Approach.Molecular neurobiology · 2021Article
- Genes for Good: Engaging the Public in Genetics Research via Social Media.American journal of human genetics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic association studies routinely require many thousands of participants to achieve sufficient power, yet accumulation of large well-assessed samples is costly. We describe here an effort to efficiently measure cognitive ability and personality in an online genetic study, Genes for Good. We report on the first 21,550 participants with relevant phenotypic data, 7,458 of whom have been genotyped genome-wide. Measures of crystallized and fluid intelligence reflected a two-dimensional latent ability space, with items demonstrating adequate item-level characteristics. The Big Five Inventory questionnaire revealed the expected five-factor model of personality. Cognitive measures predicted educational attainment over and above personality characteristics, as expected. We found that a genome-wide polygenic score of educational attainment predicted educational level, accounting for 4%, 4%, and 2.7% of the variance in educational attainment, verbal reasoning, and spatial reasoning, respectively. In summary, the online cognitive measures in Genes for Good appear to perform adequately and demonstrate expected associations with personality, education, and an education-based polygenic score. Results indicate that online cognitive assessment is one avenue to accumulate large samples of individuals for genetic research of cognitive ability.
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.