Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40001737›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Development and Validation of a Rapid Tool to Measure Pragmatic Abilities: The Brief Assessment of Pragmatic Abilities and Cognitive Substrates (APACS Brief).

Luca Bischetti, Federico Frau, Veronica Pucci, Giulia Agostoni, Chiara Pompei, Veronica Mangiaterra, Chiara Barattieri di San Pietro, Biagio Scalingi, Francesca Dall'Igna, Ninni Mangiaracina and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Ten years of using the APACS test: a multistudy cross-diagnostic analysis of pragmatic profiles and their relationship with Theory of Mind.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
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

16 authors.

Luca BischettiLaboratory of Neurolinguistics and Experimental Pragmatics (NEPLab), Department of Humanities and Life Sciences, University School for Advanced Studies IUSS, Piazza della Vittoria 15, 27100 Pavia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8875-1092
Federico FrauLaboratory of Neurolinguistics and Experimental Pragmatics (NEPLab), Department of Humanities and Life Sciences, University School for Advanced Studies IUSS, Piazza della Vittoria 15, 27100 Pavia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4567-782X
Veronica PucciFI.S.P.P.A. Department, University of Padua, 35131 Padua, Italy.
Giulia AgostoniSchool of Medicine, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0784-652X
Chiara PompeiLaboratory of Neurolinguistics and Experimental Pragmatics (NEPLab), Department of Humanities and Life Sciences, University School for Advanced Studies IUSS, Piazza della Vittoria 15, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
Veronica MangiaterraLaboratory of Neurolinguistics and Experimental Pragmatics (NEPLab), Department of Humanities and Life Sciences, University School for Advanced Studies IUSS, Piazza della Vittoria 15, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
Chiara Barattieri di San PietroLaboratory of Neurolinguistics and Experimental Pragmatics (NEPLab), Department of Humanities and Life Sciences, University School for Advanced Studies IUSS, Piazza della Vittoria 15, 27100 Pavia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4407-7037
Biagio ScalingiLaboratory of Neurolinguistics and Experimental Pragmatics (NEPLab), Department of Humanities and Life Sciences, University School for Advanced Studies IUSS, Piazza della Vittoria 15, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
Francesca Dall'IgnaLaboratory of Neurolinguistics and Experimental Pragmatics (NEPLab), Department of Humanities and Life Sciences, University School for Advanced Studies IUSS, Piazza della Vittoria 15, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
Ninni MangiaracinaDepartment of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement (SPPEFF), University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy.
Sara LagoIRCCS San Camillo Hospital, 30126 Venice, Italy.
Sonia MontemurroFI.S.P.P.A. Department, University of Padua, 35131 Padua, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8752-0978
Sara MondiniFI.S.P.P.A. Department, University of Padua, 35131 Padua, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2144-9435
Marta BosiaSchool of Medicine, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Giorgio ArcaraIRCCS San Camillo Hospital, 30126 Venice, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6270-6883
Valentina BambiniLaboratory of Neurolinguistics and Experimental Pragmatics (NEPLab), Department of Humanities and Life Sciences, University School for Advanced Studies IUSS, Piazza della Vittoria 15, 27100 Pavia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5770-228X

Funding

Ministero della Salute GR-2018-12366092
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pragmatics is key to communicating effectively, and its assessment in vulnerable populations is of paramount importance. Although tools exist for this purpose, they are often effortful and time-consuming, with complex scoring procedures, which hampers their inclusion in clinical practice. To address these issues, we present the Brief Assessment of Pragmatic Abilities and Cognitive Substrates (APACS Brief), a rapid (10 min), easy-to-use and freely distributed tool for evaluating pragmatics in Italian, inspired by the existing APACS test and already validated in the remote version (APACS Brief Remote). The APACS Brief test measures-with a simplified scale-the domains of discourse production and figurative language understanding and is developed in two parallel forms, each including novel items differing from APACS. Psychometric properties, cut-off scores, and thresholds for change were computed on 287 adults. The analysis revealed satisfactory internal consistency, good test-retest reliability, and strong concurrent and construct validity. Moreover, APACS Brief showed excellent discriminant validity on a sample of 56 patients with schizophrenia, who were also cross-classified consistently by APACS Brief and APACS cut-off values. Overall, APACS Brief is a reliable tool for evaluating pragmatic skills and their breakdown, with brief administration time and simple scoring making it well-suited for screening in at-risk populations.

Indexed as

APACScognitive-communicative disorderpragmatic disorderpragmatic impairmentpragmaticsschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID40001737
PMCPMC11851650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.