Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38942811›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Reliable, rapid, and remote measurement of metacognitive bias.

Celine A Fox, Abbie McDonogh, Kelly R Donegan, Vanessa Teckentrup, Robert J Crossen, Anna K Hanlon, Eoghan Gallagher, Marion Rouault, Claire M Gillan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Confidence biases in problem gambling.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2024
    Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

Celine A FoxDepartment of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. foxce@tcd.ie.
Abbie McDonoghDepartment of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Kelly R DoneganDepartment of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Vanessa TeckentrupDepartment of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Robert J CrossenDepartment of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Anna K HanlonDepartment of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Eoghan GallagherDepartment of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Marion RouaultParis Brain Institute (ICM), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris, France.
Claire M GillanDepartment of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

European Research Council Starting Grant ERC-H2020-HABITGovernment of Ireland Postgraduate Scholarship GOIPG/2020/662
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metacognitive biases have been repeatedly associated with transdiagnostic psychiatric dimensions of 'anxious-depression' and 'compulsivity and intrusive thought', cross-sectionally. To progress our understanding of the underlying neurocognitive mechanisms, new methods are required to measure metacognition remotely, within individuals over time. We developed a gamified smartphone task designed to measure visuo-perceptual metacognitive (confidence) bias and investigated its psychometric properties across two studies (N = 3410 unpaid citizen scientists, N = 52 paid participants). We assessed convergent validity, split-half and test-retest reliability, and identified the minimum number of trials required to capture its clinical correlates. Convergent validity of metacognitive bias was moderate (r(50) = 0.64, p < 0.001) and it demonstrated excellent split-half reliability (r(50) = 0.91, p < 0.001). Anxious-depression was associated with decreased confidence (β =  - 0.23, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001), while compulsivity and intrusive thought was associated with greater confidence (β = 0.07, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001). The associations between metacognitive biases and transdiagnostic psychiatry dimensions are evident in as few as 40 trials. Metacognitive biases in decision-making are stable within and across sessions, exhibiting very high test-retest reliability for the 100-trial (ICC = 0.86, N = 110) and 40-trial (ICC = 0.86, N = 120) versions of Meta Mind. Hybrid 'self-report cognition' tasks may be one way to bridge the recently discussed reliability gap in computational psychiatry.

Indexed as

MetacognitionAdultAnxietyBiasCross-Sectional StudiesDepressionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSmartphoneYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38942811
PMCPMC11213917

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.