ReviewNeuropsychology review2026
Assessing Social Cognition in Neurological and Psychiatric Patients: A Psychometric Meta-analysis.
Review in Neuropsychology review, 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
Social cognition impairments have received growing attention in both neuroscientific research and clinical practice, largely due to their high prevalence in neurological and psychiatric populations. However, selecting an appropriate and sensitive assessment tool remains challenging in both fields due to the limited availability of comprehensive psychometric data across conditions. Suboptimal test selection may significantly influence research outcomes and diagnostic accuracy. To address this, this meta-analysis synthesizes the literature on the validation of social attribution tasks, including theory of mind (ToM) and emotion recognition measures, across a broad range of clinical conditions. We extracted psychometric data (i.e. known-group, content and convergent validity, sensitivity/specificity, test-retest reliability, interrater reliability, internal consistency) from validation studies published until May 2024. Pooled effect sizes, confidence intervals, and heterogeneity indices were estimated within a random-effect model. In addition, we synthesized all available psychometric criteria for each test. We also examined ecological validity, which is particularly relevant for social cognition. Of 1055 articles, 55 studies reporting psychometric data from 3'845 patients and 3'807 control subjects were included in the present paper. Known-group validity was assessed via pooled effect sizes derived from 46 studies with control groups, with robust outcomes for schizophrenia and ASD (ToM tests only), but considerable heterogeneity and inconsistencies for other populations. Several tasks and batteries emerged as particularly well validated for specific conditions. Our findings underscore the importance and possibility of selecting valid social attribution tests for a given population of interest. This article provides useful information to facilitate this selection process, including a review of ecological validity. Additional research is needed to promote the validation and use of social cognition assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42518021What 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.