Observational studyArchives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists2025
Recognition Subtests for Form B of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status: Preliminary Validation.
Observational study in Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDevelop and preliminarily validate recognition subtests for Form B of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS).
method49 older adults with no cognitive impairment were compared to 53 individuals with a primary neurocognitive disorder (e.g., dementia, mild cognitive impairment, and traumatic brain injury) and 22 individuals with a primary psychiatric disorder (e.g., depression and anxiety) on three recognition subtests (list, story, and figure) for Form B of the RBANS in this observational study.
resultsThe individuals with a primary neurocognitive disorder performed significantly poorer on most of the recognition scores compared to those with no cognitive impairment and those with a primary psychiatric disorder, with these latter two groups being largely comparable. In the entire sample, for the recognition subtests, education only correlated with figure recognition scores, and neither age nor gender influenced recognition scores. The RBANS indexes correlated with most of the recognition scores in the expected directions.
conclusionsThe group differences in performance on these recognition subtests preliminarily validate these scores on Form B, which were not previously available. Furthermore, these scores tended to not be influenced by age, education, or gender, although they were related to overall cognitive functioning. Additional validation is needed in larger, better clinically-defined, and more diverse samples. Nonetheless, these findings support the inclusion of the newly-developed Form B recognition subtests in future clinical practice and research settings to enhance the accuracy of diagnoses and treatment recommendations.
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.