SynthesisNeuropsychology review2020
Reconsidering the RBANS Factor Structure: a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analytic Factor Analysis.
Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS) and substance use disorders: a systematic review.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2025Pooled it
- What is the optimum thiamine dose to treat or prevent Wernicke's encephalopathy or Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome? Results of a randomized controlled trial.Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research · 2022Trial
- Evaluating differences in latent means across studies: Extending meta-analytic confirmatory factor analysis with the analysis of means.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- NGF-β and BDNF levels are altered in male patients with chronic schizophrenia: effects on clinical symptoms.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Investigating the Latent Structure of Executive Function in the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System Using Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory.Assessment · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary aim was to perform a systematic literature review and extract data necessary for a meta-analytic factor analysis of the RBANS. Secondary aims were to examine the potential validity and utility of the resulting factor structure. Literature was identified through a review of PsycINFO, PubMed, MEDLINE, Academic Search Complete, Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection, CINAHL Complete, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, and SocINDEX. A two-stage meta-analytic structural equation modeling method was implemented to pool correlation matrices from primary studies and perform confirmatory factor analyses. Following model selection, factor scores were computed for two datasets and subjected to correlation and diagnostic accuracy analyses. A pooled correlation matrix was computed from 24 sample correlation matrices (N = 5299). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the theoretical five-factor model produced the best fit but only when error terms between Story Memory and Story Recall as well as between Figure Copy and Figure Recall were included. Regression-based factor scores showed mixed relationships with the manual-defined indices, and the overall diagnostic accuracy of the factor scores was adequate in both samples examined (AUC = 0.71 and 0.87). The five-factor model was an unexpected result given the failure of multiple previous studies to find support for that model. The five-factor model demonstrates several areas of potential improvement, including better representation of the factors by the indicators. The factor scores implied by this model also require further validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32691281What 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.