ArticleInnovations in clinical neuroscience
Validation of a Pediatric Cognitive Assessment Tool to Advance Knowledge on Children's Cognitive Development, Health Risk Factors, and Health-promoting Interventions in Sub-Saharan Regions.
Article in Innovations in clinical neuroscience. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Responding to Correspondence on "Validation of a Pediatric Cognitive Assessment Tool to Advance Knowledge on Children's Cognitive Development, Health Risk Factors, and Health-Promoting Interventions in Sub-Saharan Regions".Innovations in clinical neuroscienceArticle
- Response to "Validation of a Pediatric Cognitive Assessment Tool to Advance Knowledge on Children's Cognitive Development, Health Risk Factors, and Health-Promoting Interventions in Sub-Saharan Regions".Innovations in clinical neuroscienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCognitive Assessment Tool for Pediatric Clinical Research (CAT-PCR) is a new brief nonverbal test battery validated in a Zambian school-aged population. CAT-PCR involves the standardized administration of two tests, WAVES and SYMBOLS. CAT-PCR provides measures of visuomotor processing (VMP) and visuographomotor constructional processing (VGCP). The psychometric properties of CAT-PCR were evaluated in a field trial complemented with an ancillary test-retest study.
resultsFour-hundred-twenty children, aged 5 to 17 years, 51.2 percent female, speaking Bemba (81.1%), English (72.6 %), Nyanja (22.8%), Tonga (1.9%), and Lozi (1.2%), were recruited at multiple Zambian clinical sites and schools. Children able to speak one, two, and three or more languages composed 23.5, 10.0, and 66.5 percent of participants, respectively. CAT-PCR detected differences in cognitive performance between two comparable subgroups of children with or without conditions associated with increased risk for cognitive impairment. The poorer health group composition reflected a spectrum of conditions such as chronic neurologic or medical diseases (ie, epilepsy, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome [HIV/AIDS], recurrent malaria, sickle cell disease, and other cardiac and metabolic conditions) or prolonged exposure to psychosocial stress and deprivation. The reliability was satisfactory. The intraclass correlation coefficient (95% confidence interval) at test-retest at 48 hours (n=86) was 0.85 (0.78, 0.91) for VGCP Index and 0.84 (0.76, 0.90) for VMP Index.
conclusionStudy findings support the reliability, validity, and utility of CAT-PCR measures in evaluating the effect of health-related risks on the child's cognitive functioning and development. Further research should address the validity of CAT-PCR in response prediction, monitoring, and evaluation of health-promoting interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41647065PMC12872051What 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.