Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37297934›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Clinical Assessment of Judgment in Adults and the Elderly: Development and Validation of the Three Domains of Judgment Test-Clinical Version (3DJT-CV).

Simon-Pierre Bernard-Arevalo, Robert Jr Laforce, Olivier Khayat, Vital Bouchard, Marie-Andrée Bruneau, Sarah Brunelle, Stéphanie Caron, Laury Chamelian, Marise Chénard, Jean-François Côté and 17 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 92% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

27 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Simon-Pierre Bernard-ArevaloResearch Center of the Institut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Montréal, Montreal, QC H1N 3V2, Canada.
Robert Jr LaforceFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Olivier KhayatResearch Center of the Institut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Montréal, Montreal, QC H1N 3V2, Canada.
Vital BouchardCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, Quebec City, QC G1C 3S2, Canada.
Marie-Andrée BruneauFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada.
Sarah BrunelleFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada.
Stéphanie CaronFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Laury ChamelianFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada.
Marise ChénardFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Jean-François CôtéFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Gabrielle Crépeau-GendronFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada.
Marie-Claire DoréDepartment of Neurological Sciences, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1J 1Z4, Canada.
Marie-Pierre FortinFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Nadine GagnonFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Pierre R GagnonFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Chloé GirouxCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, Quebec City, QC G1C 3S2, Canada.
Léonie JeanDepartment of Neurological Sciences, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1J 1Z4, Canada.
Geneviève LétourneauFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada.
Émilie MarceauFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada.
Vincent MoreauInstitut de Réadaptation en Déficience Physique de Québec, Quebec City, QC G1W 1P7, Canada.
Michèle MorinFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Christine OuelletCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, Montreal, QC H1T 2M4, Canada.
Stéphane PoulinFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Steve RadermakerFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Katerine RousseauFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada.
Catherine TouchetteFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Alexandre DumaisResearch Center of the Institut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Montréal, Montreal, QC H1N 3V2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4480-0064
Université Laval · CACentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal · CACentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale · CAUniversité de Montréal · CACentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal · CACentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-Appalaches · CAInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel · CAInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal · CA

Funding

J.-L. Lévesque Foundation N.A.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: This article discusses the first two phases of development and validation of the Three Domains of Judgment Test (3DJT). This computer-based tool, co-constructed with users and capable of being administered remotely, aims to assess the three main domains of judgment (practical, moral, and social) and learn from the psychometric weaknesses of tests currently used in clinical practice. (2) Method: First, we presented the 3DJT to experts in cognition, who evaluated the tool as a whole as well as the content validity, relevance, and acceptability of 72 scenarios. Second, an improved version was administered to 70 subjects without cognitive impairment to select scenarios with the best psychometric properties in order to build a future clinically short version of the test. (3) Results: Fifty-six scenarios were retained following expert evaluation. Results support the idea that the improved version has good internal consistency, and the concurrent validity primer shows that 3DJT is a good measure of judgment. Furthermore, the improved version was found to have a significant number of scenarios with good psychometric properties to prepare a clinical version of the test. (4) Conclusion: The 3DJT is an interesting alternative tool for assessing judgment. However, more studies are needed for its implementation in a clinical context.

Indexed as

cognitive impairmentcognitive neurosciencejudgment assessmentneuropsychiatric assessmentparticipatory researchtelemedicine and neuropsychological tests

Identifiers

PMID37297934
PMCPMC10253541
OpenAlexW4378717534

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.