ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Computerized adaptation and validity evidence of the test of assessment of syntactic processing in comprehension (TASComp) in Brazilian adults.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Instruments for the assessment of syntax in Brazilian Portuguese remain scarce, despite their crucial role in identifying comprehension and production deficits in clinical populations. This study aimed to develop a computerized version of the Test for the Assessment of Syntactic Processing in Comprehension (TASComp) and to investigate validity evidence related to sentence reading comprehension among Brazilian adults. Methods: Procedures included stimulus adaptation for the PsyToolkit platform, content validation by expert judges, and psychometric analyses of a final version administered to 102 healthy adults, stratified by in-person ( Results: The TASComp demonstrated satisfactory content validity, with a Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI) of 0.87 and adequate internal consistency (KR-20 = 0.66). Syntactic complexity effects were confirmed by significant differences in the results of reversible passives vs. irreversible ( Discussion: Validity evidence based on response processes was observed, as the instrument successfully discriminated between levels of syntactic complexity, with significant performance differences in structures that impose high working memory demands, such as object clefts and center-embedded and object relative clauses. No significant differences were found between administration modalities (in-person vs. online), indicating that both modes assess sentence reading comprehension without compromising psychometric quality. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate that age and years of education significantly impact syntactic processing and reading comprehension. Conclusion: TASComp demonstrates adequate validity of evidence and clinical relevance. The instrument shows promise for detecting subtle language deficits that are often overlooked by other assessments, due to its inclusion of a wide range of 46 complex syntactic structures.
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.