Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32691281›Full record

SynthesisNeuropsychology review2020

Reconsidering the RBANS Factor Structure: a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analytic Factor Analysis.

William Goette

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

William GoetteDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, USA. William.Goette@UTSouthwestern.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2909-1068

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Factor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMemoryMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsFactor analysisMeta-analysisRBANSValidity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.