ArticlePsychology research and behavior management2025
Reliability and Validity of a Chinese Version of Adaptive Cognitive Evaluation Tool in College Students.
Article in Psychology research and behavior management, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cognition is central to acquiring knowledge and learning new experiences, critical for social behavior and quality of life. Despite its importance, traditional cognitive assessment tools face limitations, including high labor costs and human error, underscoring an urgent need for cost-effective, precise tools to assess cognitive functions. Objective: This study aims to address this gap by evaluating the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Adaptive Cognitive Evaluation (ACE) tool among college students, thereby contributing to the advancement of cognitive research and disease management strategies in China. Methods: We collected data from 150 participants (72 males, 78 females) with an average age of 20.97 ±3.36 years. A baseline assessment was conducted using the ACE Chinese version, Digit Span Memory Test (DSMT), and Line-trailing Test-A & B (LTT-A&B). After one week, the ACE tests were administered again to assess test-retest reliability. Results: The results indicated no significant correlations between age, sex, and the outcomes of the sub-tests. However, a significant association was found between educational level and the results of the sub-tests. The Cronbach's α for each sub-test exceeded 0.8, indicating high reliability. Both the I-CVI and S-CVI indexes were 1.00, demonstrating strong content validity. When DSMT, LTT-A, and LTT-B were used as criteria, most sub-tests showed satisfactory criterion validity. The factor-loading coefficient for each dimension of cognitive control was greater than 0.4, and the cumulative variance explanation rate was 64.84%. Conclusion: The Chinese version of the ACE tool demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity, making it an efficient tool for cognitive function assessment among college students.
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.