ArticleCognitive neuropsychiatry2021
When CAT is not an option: complementary methods of test abbreviation for neurocognitive batteries.
Article in Cognitive neuropsychiatry, 2021. 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.
- Using psychometric and focus groups methods to assess patients' attitudes regarding the role of dental providers and vaccinations for COVID-19 and HPV.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Validation of the cognitive section of the Penn computerized adaptive test for neurocognitive and clinical psychopathology assessment (CAT-CCNB).Brain and cognition · 2024Article
- Construction of a computerized adaptive test (CAT-CCNB) for efficient neurocognitive and clinical psychopathology assessment.Journal of neuroscience methods · 2023Article
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
introductionThere is an obvious need for efficient measurement of neuropsychiatric phenomena. A proven method-computerized adaptive testing (CAT)-is not feasible for all tests, necessitating alternatives for increasing test efficiency.
methodsWe combined/compared two methods for abbreviating rapid tests using two tests unamenable to CAT (a Continuous Performance Test [CPT] and n-back test [NBACK]). N=9,498 (mean age 14.2 years; 52% female) were administered the tests, and abbreviation was accomplished using methods answering two questions: what happens to measurement error as items are removed, and what happens to correlations with validity criteria as items are removed. The first was investigated using quasi-CAT simulation, while the second was investigated using bootstrapped confidence intervals around full-form-short-form comparisons.
resultsResults for the two methods overlapped, suggesting that the CPT could be abbreviated to 57% of original and NBACK could be abbreviated to 87% of original with the max-acceptable loss of precision and min-acceptable relationships with validity criteria.
conclusionsThis method combination shows promise for use in other test types, and the divergent results for the CPT/NBACK demonstrate the methods' abilities to detect when a test should not be shortened. The methods should be used in combination because they emphasize complementary measurement qualities: precision/validity..
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.