ArticleBrain and cognition2024
Validation of the cognitive section of the Penn computerized adaptive test for neurocognitive and clinical psychopathology assessment (CAT-CCNB).
Article in Brain and cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computerized adaptive testing of neurocognitive deficits in psychosis.Psychological assessment · 2026Article
- The Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort: Perspective, Lessons, and Future Directions.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery is an efficient tool for assessing brain-behavior domains, and its efficiency was augmented via computerized adaptive testing (CAT). This battery requires validation in a separate sample to establish psychometric properties.
methodsIn a mixed community/clinical sample of N = 307 18-to-35-year-olds, we tested the relationships of the CAT tests with the full-form tests. We compared discriminability among recruitment groups (psychosis, mood, control) and examined how their scores relate to demographics. CAT-Full relationships were evaluated based on a minimum inter-test correlation of 0.70 or an inter-test correlation within at least 0.10 of the full-form correlation with a previous administration of the full battery. Differences in criterion relationships were tested via mixed models.
resultsMost tests (15/17) met the minimum criteria for replacing the full-form with the updated CAT version (mean r = 0.67; range = 0.53-0.80) when compared to relationships of the full-forms with previous administrations of the full-forms (mean r = 0.68; range = 0.50-0.85). Most (16/17) CAT-based relationships with diagnostics and other validity criteria were indistinguishable (interaction p > 0.05) from their full-form counterparts.
conclusionsThe updated CNB shows psychometric properties acceptable for research. The full-forms of some tests should be retained due to insufficient time savings to justify the loss in precision.
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.