ArticleNeuropsychology2023
Cross-national harmonization of neurocognitive assessment across five sites in a global study.
Article in Neuropsychology, 2023. 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.
- Delay Discounting and Risk Tolerance in Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: Results From the Global OCD Study.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2025Article
- Temporal discounting predicts procrastination in the real world.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Assessing harmonized intelligence measures in a multinational study.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCross-national work on neurocognitive testing has been characterized by inconsistent findings, suggesting the need for improved harmonization. Here, we describe a prospective harmonization approach in an ongoing global collaborative study.
methodVisuospatial
resultsThe Netherlands site performed more accurately on
conclusionsFour out of the five sites showed only small between-site differences for each task. Nevertheless, despite our extensive prospective harmonization steps, task score performance deviated from the other sites in the Netherlands site (on four tasks) and the India site (on one task). Because the procedural methods were standardized across sites, and our analyses were adjusted for covariates, the differences found in cognitive performance may indicate selection sampling bias due to unmeasured confounders. Future studies should follow similar cross-site prospective harmonization procedures when assessing neurocognition and consider measuring other possible confounding variables for additional statistical control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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.