ArticlePCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences2025
Interrater reliability of the modified Tinkertoy test: A validation study in schizophrenia and control groups.
Article in PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Interrater reliability of the modified Tinkertoy test: A validation study in schizophrenia and control groups.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Divergent thinking and executive function are critical components of cognitive performance, necessitating reliable assessment tools to guide clinical decision-making and research on cognitive deficits. This study aimed to evaluate the interrater reliability of the modified Tinkertoy test (m-TTT), a neuropsychological tool designed to assess these functions, particularly in individuals with schizophrenia. Methods: The interrater reliability of the m-TTT was assessed in a sample of 40 Japanese participants, including 20 individuals with schizophrenia (12 males, eight females; mean age = 42.4 [standard deviation, 12.6] years) and 20 healthy controls (12 males, eight females; mean age = 40.0 [standard deviation, 9.6] years). Performances were independently scored by two occupational therapists using a standardized framework. Relative reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and absolute reliability was examined using Bland-Altman analysis. Results: In the schizophrenia group, ICC values indicated high interrater reliability for complexity (0.979), creation process (0.881), and total (0.969) scores. Similarly, in the control group, ICC values were high for complexity (0.969), creation process (0.790), and total (0.934) scores. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated no fixed or proportional bias; however, greater variability was observed at higher creation process scores in the control group. Conclusion: The results confirm the high interrater reliability of the m-TTT, supporting its utility as a robust tool for assessing cognitive deficits and guiding rehabilitation strategies in psychiatric contexts. However, the study's generalizability is limited by its Japanese-only sample, necessitating further validation across diverse populations and cultural 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.