Reliability of Theory of Mind Tasks in Schizophrenia, ASD, and Nonclinical Populations: A Systematic Review and Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis.

IF 5.4 2区 心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES
Harry Kam Hung Tsui, Ting Yat Wong, Chak Fai Ma, Ting Eva Wong, Janet Hsiao, Sherry Kit Wa Chan
{"title":"Reliability of Theory of Mind Tasks in Schizophrenia, ASD, and Nonclinical Populations: A Systematic Review and Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis.","authors":"Harry Kam Hung Tsui, Ting Yat Wong, Chak Fai Ma, Ting Eva Wong, Janet Hsiao, Sherry Kit Wa Chan","doi":"10.1007/s11065-024-09652-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Though theory of mind (ToM) is an important area of study for different disciplines, however, the psychometric evaluations of ToM tasks have yielded inconsistent results across studies and populations, raising the concerns about the accuracy, consistency, and generalizability of these tasks. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the psychometric reliability of 27 distinct ToM tasks across 90 studies involving 2771 schizophrenia (SZ), 690 autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and 15,599 nonclinical populations (NC). Findings revealed that while all ToM tasks exhibited satisfactory internal consistency in ASD and SZ, about half of them were not satisfactory in NC, including the commonly used Reading the Mind in the Eye Test and Hinting Task. Other than that, Reading the Mind in the Eye Test showed acceptable reliability across populations, whereas Hinting Task had poor test-retest reliability. Notably, only Faux Pas Test and Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition had satisfactory reliability across populations albeit limited numbers of studies. However, only ten studies examined the psychometric properties of ToM tasks in ASD adults, warranting additional evaluations. The study offered practical implications for selecting ToM tasks in research and clinical settings, and underscored the importance of having a robust psychometric reliability in ToM tasks across populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-024-09652-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Though theory of mind (ToM) is an important area of study for different disciplines, however, the psychometric evaluations of ToM tasks have yielded inconsistent results across studies and populations, raising the concerns about the accuracy, consistency, and generalizability of these tasks. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the psychometric reliability of 27 distinct ToM tasks across 90 studies involving 2771 schizophrenia (SZ), 690 autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and 15,599 nonclinical populations (NC). Findings revealed that while all ToM tasks exhibited satisfactory internal consistency in ASD and SZ, about half of them were not satisfactory in NC, including the commonly used Reading the Mind in the Eye Test and Hinting Task. Other than that, Reading the Mind in the Eye Test showed acceptable reliability across populations, whereas Hinting Task had poor test-retest reliability. Notably, only Faux Pas Test and Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition had satisfactory reliability across populations albeit limited numbers of studies. However, only ten studies examined the psychometric properties of ToM tasks in ASD adults, warranting additional evaluations. The study offered practical implications for selecting ToM tasks in research and clinical settings, and underscored the importance of having a robust psychometric reliability in ToM tasks across populations.

精神分裂症、自闭症和非临床人群中心智理论任务的可靠性:系统综述与可靠性归纳元分析》。
尽管心智理论(ToM)是不同学科的一个重要研究领域,但不同研究和人群对心智理论任务的心理测量评估结果并不一致,这引起了人们对这些任务的准确性、一致性和可推广性的担忧。本系统综述和荟萃分析研究了 90 项研究中 27 种不同 ToM 任务的心理测量可靠性,涉及 2771 名精神分裂症患者 (SZ)、690 名自闭症谱系障碍患者 (ASD) 和 15599 名非临床人群 (NC)。研究结果表明,虽然所有 ToM 任务在 ASD 和 SZ 中都表现出令人满意的内部一致性,但在 NC 中约有一半的任务内部一致性并不令人满意,其中包括常用的 "眼读心术测试 "和 "暗示任务"。除此之外,"眼读心术 "测试在不同人群中表现出可接受的可靠性,而 "暗示任务 "的测试-再测可靠性较差。值得注意的是,尽管研究数量有限,但只有 "假动作测验 "和 "社会认知评估电影 "在不同人群中的可靠性令人满意。然而,只有十项研究对 ASD 成人 ToM 任务的心理测量特性进行了研究,因此需要进行更多的评估。该研究为在研究和临床环境中选择ToM任务提供了实际意义,并强调了在不同人群中ToM任务具有稳健的心理测量可靠性的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuropsychology Review
Neuropsychology Review 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信