ArticleBMC psychology2024
The development and validation of a tablet-based assessment battery of general cognitive ability.
Article in BMC psychology, 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.
- Social and emotional skills and different bullying behavior of students: serial mediating role of perceived relationships with teachers and sense of belonging at school.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Executive functions in adults: scoping review of computerized neuropsychological batteries.Dementia & neuropsychologia · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraditional cognitive assessments, often reliant on paper-and-pencil tests and professional evaluators, suffer from subjectivity and limited result discrimination. This study introduces the Baguan Online Cognitive Assessment System (BOCAS), a tablet-based system that evaluates both general cognitive ability (GCA) and domain-specific functions across six domains: sensory-motor skills, processing speed, sustained attention, working memory, cognitive flexibility, and spatial ability.
methodsBOCAS was validated with 151 healthy Chinese adults aged 18-40. Reliability was assessed through internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to validate the model. The GCA score was correlated with the Raven IQ test and self-reported cognitive flexibility, and its relationship with negative emotions (depression and anxiety) was examined.
resultsBOCAS showed satisfactory reliability, with internal consistency ranging from 0.712 to 0.846 and test-retest reliability from 0.56 to 0.71. Factor analysis revealed a common factor explaining 40% of the variance, and CFA indicated a good model fit (χ²/df = 1.81; CFI = 0.932). The GCA score strongly correlated with the Raven IQ test (r = 0.58) and was related to self-reported cognitive flexibility and negative emotions.
conclusionBOCAS offers a digital solution for cognitive assessment, providing automated, remote, and precise evaluations. It demonstrates reliability, validity, and potential for use in clinical and research settings.
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.