ArticleSchizophrenia research. Cognition2026
Call to action on social cognition measures in clinical research.
Article in Schizophrenia research. Cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized controlled trial of Understanding Social Situations versus problem-solving training in improving social function in people with psychosis.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS · 2026Article
- Starting from scratch: Ziermans et al. commentary.Schizophrenia research. Cognition · 2026Article
- International use of social cognition assessments: Commentary on Ziermans et al.Schizophrenia research. Cognition · 2026Article
- Commentary on Ziermans, Hadjúk, Pinkham et al. "Call to action on social cognition measures in clinical research" and on Happé's commentary to the call to action.Schizophrenia research. Cognition · 2026Article
- The relationship between mental state decoding and real-world social functioning - An experience sampling investigation.Schizophrenia research. Cognition · 2026Article
- Impact of intelligence on social cognition in mentally disordered offenders: preliminary evidence in schizophrenia and personality disorders.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
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
Objective: To describe current practices and key barriers in social cognition (SC) assessment, given its central role in psychiatric and neurological disorders and the limitations of existing measures. Methods: Fifty-two SC experts from 20 countries completed an online survey regarding SC tests and questions about their usage frequency and perceived obstacles. Results: Only facial emotion recognition tasks were used frequently, while the Hinting task and Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) were used by over half of participants. However, 10 experts also urged discontinuation of RMET, mostly due to validity concerns. Major obstacles included lack of culture-appropriate norms and poor psychometric properties. Conclusions: SC assessment is limited by cultural bias and weak psychometrics. Developing and validating culturally sensitive tools, harmonizing protocols, and securing funding are essential to advance research, enable international trials, and improve clinical outcomes.
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.