MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4406882682 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1549236

Editorial: Neuropsychological testing: from psychometrics to clinical neuropsychology

2025· editorial· en· W4406882682 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alessio Facchin, Elisa Cavicchiolo, Edgar Chan

Notice bibliographique

RevueFrontiers in Psychology · 2025
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNeuropsychologyPsychologyPsychometricsNeuropsychological assessmentClinical psychologyClinical neuropsychologyCognitive psychologyPsychiatryCognition

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The development of novel neuropsychological tests is crucial to advance our understanding of brain-behavior relationships in the ever changing social context. Innovative testing methods which incorporate new technology or advances in cognitive neuroscience allow us to better capture cognitive changes and provide more personalized treatment plans (7). As the field of neuropsychology and neurorehabilitation moves towards a greater dependence on computerized or digitalised tools, it is important to consider the suitability of these tools for the individual. The article "Diagnosing homo digitalis: towards a standardized assessment for digital tool competencies" explores this concept using the "Digital Tools Test" (DIGI), a standardized instrument designed to evaluate digital tool competencies in a sample of young people and older adults. Preliminary results highlight performance differences between age groups, with older adults showing lower proficiency in navigating digital tools. In the future, digital tool competency assessments like the DIGI may be used in standard neuropsychological assessments. As technological advances allow for biometric measurements to be more accessible, the study "Using behavior and eye-fixations to detect feigned memory impairment" explores the use of both response type/time and eye-fixation measures to detect feigned memory impairment through a computerized version of the wellestablished TOMM. Results found distinct behavioral patterns for genuine and feigned memory impairment. The findings highlight the potential of how eye-tracking metrics may enhance standard paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tools. Finally, the opinion piece "Performance validity testing: the need for digital technology and where to go from here" discusses the use of digital technologies to enhance Performance Validity Assessment (PVA).Taking an alternative approach, the article "Navigating the "frontal lobe paradox": integrating Real-Life Tasks (RLTs) approach into neuropsychological evaluations" explores the "frontal lobe paradox" proposes integrating Real-Life Tasks (RLTs) may also be important to enhance standard paper-and-pencil tasks. The "frontal lobe paradox" is a well-described phenomena in neuropsychology whereby some patients with frontal lobe compromise report a host of executive difficulties in daily activities but perform reasonably well in standardized neuropsychological tests. A framework for assessing frontal dysfunction using a variety of RLTs is presented.The evaluation of psychometric properties is essential for selecting reliable and valid instruments, making it a fundamental aspect of clinical practice and research in many areas (8). Unfortunately, many instruments still lack thorough or complete validation, which hinders their practical application (9). In this special issue, particular emphasis has been placed on the psychometric properties of various existing neuropsychological instruments, and notable advancements have also been reported. The study "A new neuropsychological tool for simultaneous reading and executive functions assessment: initial psychometric properties" presents the development and initial validation of a new tool for the Assessment of Reading and Executive Functions (AREF) in children. The findings highlight the interdependence of executive functions, such as inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility and working memory, with reading skills. Once new tests such as the AREF are validated and in use, further validation studies and developments can improve its clinical utility. Country-specific validation of tests is useful to overcome inherent cultural, language and educational differences. The study "Psychometrics and validation of the EQ-5D-5L instrument in individuals with ischemic stroke in Lithuania" investigated the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L instrument for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Lithuanian individuals who have experienced stroke, while the study "Reliability and validity of a novel attention assessment scale (broken ring enVision search test) in the Chinese population" investigated the reliability and validity of the BReViS test for assessing attention in the Chinese population. It is also important to understand the test-retest reliability of our tools for monitoring change over time. The study "Reliability and minimal detectable change of the Yoni task for the theory of mind assessment" investigates the test-retest reliability of the Yoni-48 task, a tool for assessing Theory of Mind (ToM) in social cognition, and to establish the minimal detectable change for determining clinical significance. Lastly, shortening established tests can often improve clinical utility but it is important that the same validation rigour is applied before use. The study "Short Italian Wilkins Rate of Reading Test for repeated-measure designs in optometry and neuropsychology" focuses on the development of the Short Italian Wilkins Rate of Reading Test to enhance the test's applicability to elderly and neuropsychological patients by reducing reading time.Meta-analysis and systematic reviews provide a comprehensive understanding of test properties by synthesizing vast amounts of research on a given topic. These studies help ascertain clinical utility with greater power and guide future research. The article "Metaanalysis of Montreal cognitive assessment diagnostic accuracy in amnestic mild cognitive impairment" presents a systematic review assessing the diagnostic accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for detecting amnestic mild cognitive impairment. The findings support the MoCA's utility as a screening tool in clinical settings but emphasizes the need for context-specific cutoff adjustments. The article "Assessments scales for the evaluation of health-related quality of life in Parkinson's disease, progressive supranuclear palsy, and multiple system atrophy: a systematic review" provides a critical evaluation of the scale used to assess wellbeing in people with Parkinsonism. Although eight HRQoL tools were identified, questions were raised about the psychometric properties of the measures which may mar their utility.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,018
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,046

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,025
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0040,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,003
Bibliométrie0,0040,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,003
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0040,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0180,020
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0140,011

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,109
Tête enseignante GPT0,464
Écart entre enseignants0,355 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFrontiers in Psychology→Même sujetTraumatic Brain Injury Research→Travaux en français237 207→