ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2021
Limited Shared Variance among Measures of Cognitive Performance Used in Nutrition Research: The Need to Prioritize Construct Validity and Biological Mechanisms in Choice of Measures.
Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe literature on correlates of nutrition has seen an increase in studies focused on functional consequences at the levels of neural, perceptual, and cognitive functioning. A range of measurement methodologies have been used in these studies, and investigators and funding agencies have raised the questions of how and if these various methodologies are at all comparable.
objectiveThe aim was to determine the extent to which 3 different sets of cognitive measures provide comparable information across 2 subsamples that shared culture and language but differed in terms of socioeconomic status (SES) and academic preparation.
methodsA total of 216 participants were recruited at 2 US universities. Each participant completed 3 sets of cognitive measures: 1 custom-designed set based on well-understood laboratory measures of cognition [cognitive task battery (COGTASKS)] and 2 normed batteries [Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB), Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale, fourth edition (WAIS-IV)] designed for assessing general cognitive function.
resultsThe 3 sets differed with respect to the extent to which SES and educational preparation affected the results, with COGTASKS showing no differences due to testing location and WAIS-IV showing substantial differences. There were, at best, weak correlations among tasks sharing the same name or claiming to measure the same construct.
conclusionsComparability of measures of cognition cannot be assumed, even if measures have the same name or claim to assess the same construct. In selecting and evaluating different measures, construct validity and underlying biological mechanisms need to be at least as important as population norms and the ability to connect with existing literatures.
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.