Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39856338›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Development of a checklist for cognitive assessment requirements (CARE) based on a Delphi consensus study.

Vahid Nejati, Reza Estaji, Vicent Balanzá-Martínez, David A Balota, Suzanne Barker-Collo, Morris Bell, Jacquelyn H Berry, Khatereh Borhani, Munro Cullum, Anthony Feinstein and 14 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

24 authors.

Vahid NejatiDepartment of Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. nejati@sbu.ac.ir.
Reza EstajiDepartment of Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Vicent Balanzá-MartínezTeaching Unit of Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Valencia, CIBERSAM, INCLIVA, Valencia, Spain.
David A BalotaDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Suzanne Barker-ColloSchool of Psychology, University of Auckland, The North Island, Auckland, New Zealand.
Morris BellSchool of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Jacquelyn H BerryDepartment of Psychology, The American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt.
Khatereh BorhaniInstitute for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Munro CullumDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical, Dallas, TX, USA.
Anthony FeinsteinSunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Charles J GoldenCenter for Psychological Studies, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale-Davie, FL, USA.
Raul GonzalezDepartment of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA.
Jordan Henry GrafmanFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
Steven D HollonDepartment of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Petra JansenInstitute of Sport Science, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Bavaria, Germany.
Nicole A KochanDiscipline of Psychiatry & Mental Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, Australia.
Ryan Van PattenCenter for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology, VA Providence Healthcare System, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Olivier PiguetSchool of Psychology, Brain & Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sarah A RaskinDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience Program, Trinity College, Hartford, CT, USA.
Sean B RourkeDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Andrew ScholeyDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Yaakov SternDepartment of Neurology, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA.
Steven Paul WoodsDepartment of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Michael I PosnerDepartment of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Situational factors can influence cognitive performance and should be considered for conducting cognitive assessments. The objective of this project was to develop a checklist for Cognitive Assessment Requirements (CARE) to identify these situational factors before conducting cognitive assessments and account for them. This study employed a four-round Delphi approach involving 22 experts to identify situational factors that can impact cognitive assessment results. The development of a robust and well-balanced checklist was guided by a consensus-driven approach, which considered metrics such as Interquartile Deviation (IQD) (> 1.00), Percentage of Positive Responses (PPR, above 60%), and mean importance ratings (< 3 on a 5-point Likert scale) to assess both degree of agreement and item importance. Consensus was reached, leading to a 14-item checklist to evaluate cognitive assessment requirements. These items were categorized into six groups: Acute Illness or Physical Discomfort, Medication Effects and Substance Use, Sleep Quality and Fatigue, Emotional State, Language factors, and Environmental factors. The CARE can be employed prior to cognitive assessments to identify situational factors of relevance to the individual client, thereby creating a more favorable environment for cognitive evaluation, and enhancing the reliability of the assessment findings. Furthermore, the CARE can help determine the level of confidence in the results by assessing whether the conditions are conducive to testing or if situational factors may undermine the validity of the evaluation.

Indexed as

ChecklistCognitionAdultConsensusDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsCognitive assessmentDelphi consensusNeuropsychological assessmentSituational factors

Identifiers

PMID39856338
PMCPMC11760535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.