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