Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35455490›Full record

ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Current and Potential Cognitive Development in Healthy Children: A New Approach to Raven Coloured Progressive Matrices.

Pietro Smirni, Daniela Smirni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Pietro SmirniDepartment of Educational Sciences, University of Catania, 95124 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4477-182X
Daniela SmirniDepartment of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4410-2047

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In clinical practice and research, Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices (RCPMs) continue to be used according to a single procedure that aims to evaluate a single overall score of the current general intelligence level. This study aimed to examine potential cognitive development in a sample of 450 typically developing children, aged from 6 to 10 years, by administering RCPMs according to the standard procedure followed immediately by a standardized interview on incorrect items. In addition, the study aimed to analyze how performance differed across age groups. The results analysis was examined on the basis of three different factors in which the items were grouped in previous factorial studies. The results found that performance improved markedly and significantly after the interview; however, the improvement was not homogeneous in the three factors across age groups or within each age group. The age groups showed a different development potential in relation to the nature of the task: the younger ones showed a greater increase on items requiring figure completion, and the older ones showed a greater increase on analogical reasoning items. Finally, the children who showed the greatest improvement were those with the best performance in standard RCPM administration. The procedure described in the present research could represent a useful tool in clinical practice and in the research for a broader cognitive assessment focused on potential cognitive development, as well as on real cognitive development, and to favor the planning of more adequate rehabilitation and educational treatments.

Indexed as

analogical reasoningcognitive developmentfluid intelligenceintellective testneuropsychological assessmentproblem-solving abilitieszone of proximal development

Identifiers

PMID35455490
PMCPMC9030293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.