Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42587250›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

Item analyses of the 20-item prosopagnosia index using classical test theory and item response theory.

Masaki Mori, Midori Sugiyama

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Masaki MoriGraduate School of Advanced Science and Technology, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 1-1, Asahidai, Nomi, Ishikawa, 923-1292, Japan. morima@jaist.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0963-4950
Midori SugiyamaGraduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University, 5322, Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa, 252-0882, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9151-0216

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 20-item prosopagnosia index (PI20) is a highly practical tool for assessing lifelong difficulties in face processing across individuals (developmental prosopagnosia). Recent research suggests that the quality of the PI20 may vary depending on the item; however, the quantitative quality of each item has not been sufficiently examined. In this study, the item properties of the PI20 were investigated using classical test theory and item response theory. The analyses confirmed that the one-factor structure of the PI20 showed high reliability and validity. Item response theory further revealed that the items differed in measurement power, discrimination, and difficulty under the unidimensional graded response model. Items reflecting the additional psychological load and social consequences associated with face processing difficulty demonstrated high measurement precision. In contrast, items related to the recognition of distinctive or self-faces contributed to the construct to a lesser degree. These results indicate that while most items adequately capture the characteristics of developmental prosopagnosia, certain items may not be suitable for screening for developmental prosopagnosia. The present study provides open materials to facilitate further psychometric evaluation of the PI20 and offers insights for refining self-report assessment of developmental prosopagnosia.

Indexed as

Neuropsychological TestsProsopagnosiaPsychometricsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultClassical test theoryDevelopmental prosopagnosiaFace processingItem analysesItem response theory

Identifiers

PMID42587250
PMCPMC13469481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.