Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35999510›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2022

A cross-sectional study to assess pragmatic strengths and weaknesses in healthy ageing.

Dize Hilviu, Ilaria Gabbatore, Alberto Parola, Francesca M Bosco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Understanding Theory of Mind-pragmatics relationship through the spectrum of neurodegenerative diseases.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Pragmatic comprehension and inferential ability: interplay with executive functions and Theory of Mind.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Pragmatic Skills in Late Adulthood.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2024
    Article
  12. 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

4 authors.

Dize HilviuGIPSI Research Group, Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4312-2206
Ilaria GabbatoreGIPSI Research Group, Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. ilaria.gabbatore@unito.it.ORCID 0000-0002-9724-8066
Alberto ParolaGIPSI Research Group, Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6039-0907
Francesca M BoscoGIPSI Research Group, Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6101-8587

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAgeing refers to the natural and physiological changes that individuals experience over the years. This process also involves modifications in terms of communicative-pragmatics, namely the ability to convey meanings in social contexts and to interact with other people using various expressive means, such as linguistic, extralinguistic and paralinguistic aspects of communication. Very few studies have provided a complete assessment of communicative-pragmatic performance in healthy ageing.

methodsThe aim of this study was to comprehensively assess communicative-pragmatic ability in three samples of 20 (N = 60) healthy adults, each belonging to a different age range (20-40, 65-75, 76-86 years old) and to compare their performance in order to observe any potential changes in their ability to communicate. We also explored the potential role of education and sex on the communicative-pragmatic abilities observed. The three age groups were evaluated with a between-study design by means of the Assessment Battery for Communication (ABaCo), a validated assessment tool characterised by five scales: linguistic, extralinguistic, paralinguistic, contextual and conversational.

resultsThe results indicated that the pragmatic ability assessed by the ABaCo is poorer in older participants when compared to the younger ones (main effect of age group: F(2,56) = 9.097; p < .001). Specifically, significant differences were detected in tasks on the extralinguistic, paralinguistic and contextual scales. Whereas the data highlighted a significant role of education (F(1,56) = 4.713; p = .034), no sex-related differences were detected.

conclusionsOur results suggest that the ageing process may also affect communicative-pragmatic ability and a comprehensive assessment of the components of such ability may help to better identify difficulties often experienced by older individuals in their daily life activities.

Indexed as

FrailtyHealthy AgingAgedCommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLinguisticsAgeingDecayLanguageLifespanMultimodal communicationPragmatics

Identifiers

PMID35999510
PMCPMC9400309

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.