Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36389472›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2022

"Where's Wally?" Identifying theory of mind in school-based social skills interventions.

Aneyn M O'Grady, Sonali Nag

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Aneyn M O'GradyDepartment of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Sonali NagDepartment of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This mini configurative review links theory of mind (ToM) research with school-based social skills interventions to reframe theoretical understanding of ToM ability based on a conceptual mapping exercise. The review's aim was to bridge areas of psychology and education concerned with social cognition. Research questions included: how do dependent variables (DVs) in interventions designed to enhance child social-cognitive skills map onto ToM constructs empirically validated within psychology? In which ways do these mappings reframe conceptualization of ToM ability? Thirty-one studies (conducted from 2012 to 2019) on social-cognitive skill with typically-developing children ages 3-11 were included as opposed to explicit ToM trainings in light of an identified performance plateau on ToM tasks in children. Intervention DVs mapped onto the following ToM constructs in at least 87% of studies: "Representation of Others and/or Self," "Knowledge/Awareness of Mental States," "Attributions/Explanations of Mental States," "Social Competence," "Predicting Behavior," and "Understanding Complex Social Situations." The absence of false-belief understanding as an intervention DV indicated a lack of direct training in ToM ability. A hierarchy to further organize the review's ToM framework constructs as either skills or competences within the construct of 'Representation of Others and/or Self' is proposed. Implications for the conceptualization of ToM and social-cognitive research as well as educational practice are discussed, namely how school social skill interventions conceptualize skill along a continuum in contrast to the common artificial dichotomous assessment of ToM skill (i.e., presence or lack), yet the development of ToM can nevertheless be supported by the school environment.

Indexed as

childrenconceptual mappingconfigurative reviewinterventionsocial cognitionsocial skilltheoretical frameworktheory of mind (ToM)

Identifiers

PMID36389472
PMCPMC9646489

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.