ReviewPsychology research and behavior management2026
Mapping the Cognitive Constructs Assessed by the Allen Cognitive Level Screen: A Scoping Review.
Review in Psychology research and behavior management, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Despite widespread clinical use for over four decades, the precise cognitive constructs assessed by the Allen Cognitive Level Screen (ACLS) remain unresolved. This scoping review examines quantitative relationships between ACLS scores and standardized cognitive assessments to clarify which cognitive abilities the ACLS captures and inform its integration alongside traditional cognitive evaluations. Methods: Following Arksey and O'Malley's framework, we searched five databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO) from inception through December 2025. Studies were included if they reported empirical data from clinical populations, used any ACLS version, included standardized cognitive measures, and reported correlation analyses. Two independent reviewers screened 222 records. Cognitive measures were classified into nine domains based on Lezak's neuropsychological taxonomy. Correlation strength was categorized according to Cohen's conventions: weak (r < 0.30), moderate (0.30 ≤ r < 0.50), or strong (r ≥ 0.50). Results: Twenty-four studies, encompassing 1951 participants across six diagnostic groups, met the inclusion criteria. Of 117 quantitative relationships examined, 73.5% were statistically significant. The ACLS showed the strongest associations with global cognition, social cognition, and executive function, with significance rates ranging from 81.5% to 94.7%. Associations were comparatively weaker across memory, visuospatial, and orientation domains, ranging from 33.3% to 50.0%. Correlation patterns varied across populations and ACLS versions, with only one study examining the current ACLS-6. Conclusion: The ACLS demonstrates reliable associations with integrated cognitive processes, particularly global functioning, executive abilities, and attention-processing capacities, rather than discrete cognitive components. These findings suggest the ACLS may reflect observable patterns of sensorimotor information processing during purposeful activity. Clinicians should therefore interpret ACLS results as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, traditional domain-specific cognitive assessments, particularly when precise differentiation of cognitive deficits is required for treatment planning. Critical gaps in structural validity research and ACLS-6 which currently constrain definitive conclusions regarding the instrument's construct validity.
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.