ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2022
The Testamentary Capacity Assessment Tool (TCAT): validation and normative data.
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- NeBa - Neglect battery: updated norms, new scores, and guidelines of a neuropsychological battery for the assessment of unilateral spatial neglect and associated disorders.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2026Article
- Effects of General Anesthesia Versus Spinal Anesthesia on Early Postoperative Cognition and 30-Day Activities of Daily Living in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients in a Chinese Plateau Region.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Testamentary capacity assessment in dementia using artificial intelligence: prospects and challenges.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increasing need for objective and standardized assessment of testamentary capacity (TC) in dementia. A new instrument, the Testamentary Capacity Assessment Tool (TCAT), has been recently developed; however, the lack of validation and normative data regarding this cognitive screening test has limited its adoption in forensic and clinical settings. The present study collects normative data for the TCAT and assesses its convergent validity with standardized cognitive tests and the capacity to define what a 'testament' is.
methodsThe study involved 323 neurologically healthy adults (123 males, 200 females) of different ages (31-93 years) and different educational levels (4-25 years). The TCAT was administered along with the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) and the Testament Definition Scale (TDS).
resultsMultiple regression analyses revealed a significant effect for gender, age and education on TCAT scores. Correlation analyses showed significant associations between the TCAT and the MMSE, MoCA, FAB and BDI-II. A positive correlation between the TCAT and TDS was also found, proving good convergent validity of the TCAT with respect to TC. Finally, cut-off scores and Equivalent Scores (ES) were computed. DISCUSSION: The present study provides normative data for using the TCAT as an adjuvant cognitive screening test in the neuropsychological evaluation of TC. Our findings shall be of interest for the adoption of the TCAT also in clinical practice, since it evaluates cognitive functions (e.g., autobiographic memory, Theory of Mind) not measured by traditional screening tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34787752What 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.