ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Establishing construct validity for dynamic measures of behavior using naturalistic study designs.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying the neural mechanisms associated with older adults' dynamic theory of mind judgments during a movie-watching task.Social neuroscience · 2026Article
- Regional activity and interregional functional connectivity uniquely contribute to social cognitive judgments during movie-watching.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Disentangling the role of executive function and episodic memory in older adults' performance on dynamic theory of mind tasks.Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition · 2025Article
- Functional reconfiguration between rest and movie watching relates to theory-of-mind performance among young and older adults.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- Mindsets over matter: priming theory of mind improves older adults' mental state attributions about naturalistic social interactions.Aging & mental health · 2025Observational
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
There has been a recent surge of naturalistic methodology to assess complex topics in psychology and neuroscience. Such methods are lauded for their increased ecological validity, aiming to bridge a gap between highly controlled experimental design and purely observational studies. However, these measures present challenges in establishing construct validity. One domain in which this has emerged is research on theory of mind: the ability to infer others' thoughts and emotions. Traditional measures utilize rigid methodology which suffer from ceiling effects and may fail to fully capture how individuals engage theory of mind in everyday interactions. In the present study, we validate and test a novel approach utilizing a naturalistic task to assess theory of mind. Participants watched a mockumentary-style show while using a joystick to provide continuous, real-time theory of mind judgments. A baseline sample's ratings were used to establish a "ground truth" for the judgments. Ratings from separate young and older adult samples were compared against the ground truth to create similarity scores. This similarity score was compared against two independent tasks to assess construct validity: an explicit judgment performance-based paradigm, and a neuroimaging paradigm assessing response to a static measure of theory of mind. The similarity metric did not have ceiling effects and was significantly positively related to both the performance-based and neural measures. It also replicated age effects that other theory of mind measures demonstrate. Together, our multimodal approach provided convergent evidence that dynamic measures of behavior can yield robust and rigorous assessments of complex psychological processes.
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.