Harmonizing cross-cultural and transdiagnostic assessment of social cognition by expert panel consensus.

IF 3 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Amy E Pinkham, Michal Hajdúk, Tim Ziermans
{"title":"Harmonizing cross-cultural and transdiagnostic assessment of social cognition by expert panel consensus.","authors":"Amy E Pinkham, Michal Hajdúk, Tim Ziermans","doi":"10.1038/s41537-024-00540-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social cognition, the perception and processing of social information, is adversely affected in multiple psychiatric, neurological, and neurodevelopmental disorders, and these impairments negatively impact quality of life for individuals across the globe. Despite the clear importance of social cognition, efforts to advance research via harmonization of data across cultures and diagnoses has been stymied by the lack of uniformly used and suitable assessments. To address this issue, the current study conducted an expert survey and consensus process to identify social cognitive assessments that are best suited for cross-cultural and transdiagnostic use among adults. A large group of experts in social cognition were surveyed to gather nominations for cross-culturally and transdiagnostically appropriate measures. These measures were then critically evaluated by a smaller group of experts using a Delphi consensus process to identify the best existing tasks for each use. Ninety-eight experts, representing 25 countries, responded to the initial survey and nominated a total of 81 tasks. Initial rounds of the Delphi process identified 50 tasks with adequate psychometric properties that were then subdivided into social cognition domains. For each domain, members ranked the five best tasks, once for cross-cultural use and once for transdiagnostic use, and rated the suitability of those tasks for the intended use. No tasks were identified as ideally suited for either use; however, within each domain, 4-5 tasks emerged as the most consistently selected, and all were ranked as having \"good\" or better suitability for use. While there is still a critical need for social cognitive assessments that are specifically designed for cross-cultural and transdiagnostic use, there does appear to be a handful of existing tasks that are currently available and likely informative. Caution is warranted however, as these still require comprehensive evaluation in cross-cultural and transdiagnostic studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":74758,"journal":{"name":"Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany)","volume":"11 1","pages":"25"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11845741/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-024-00540-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social cognition, the perception and processing of social information, is adversely affected in multiple psychiatric, neurological, and neurodevelopmental disorders, and these impairments negatively impact quality of life for individuals across the globe. Despite the clear importance of social cognition, efforts to advance research via harmonization of data across cultures and diagnoses has been stymied by the lack of uniformly used and suitable assessments. To address this issue, the current study conducted an expert survey and consensus process to identify social cognitive assessments that are best suited for cross-cultural and transdiagnostic use among adults. A large group of experts in social cognition were surveyed to gather nominations for cross-culturally and transdiagnostically appropriate measures. These measures were then critically evaluated by a smaller group of experts using a Delphi consensus process to identify the best existing tasks for each use. Ninety-eight experts, representing 25 countries, responded to the initial survey and nominated a total of 81 tasks. Initial rounds of the Delphi process identified 50 tasks with adequate psychometric properties that were then subdivided into social cognition domains. For each domain, members ranked the five best tasks, once for cross-cultural use and once for transdiagnostic use, and rated the suitability of those tasks for the intended use. No tasks were identified as ideally suited for either use; however, within each domain, 4-5 tasks emerged as the most consistently selected, and all were ranked as having "good" or better suitability for use. While there is still a critical need for social cognitive assessments that are specifically designed for cross-cultural and transdiagnostic use, there does appear to be a handful of existing tasks that are currently available and likely informative. Caution is warranted however, as these still require comprehensive evaluation in cross-cultural and transdiagnostic studies.

通过专家小组共识,协调社会认知的跨文化和跨诊断评估。
社会认知,即对社会信息的感知和处理,在多种精神、神经和神经发育障碍中受到不利影响,这些损害对全球个体的生活质量产生负面影响。尽管社会认知具有明显的重要性,但由于缺乏统一使用和适当的评估,通过协调跨文化和诊断数据来推进研究的努力受到了阻碍。为了解决这个问题,目前的研究进行了专家调查和共识过程,以确定最适合成年人跨文化和跨诊断使用的社会认知评估。一大批社会认知专家接受了调查,以收集跨文化和跨诊断适当措施的提名。然后由一小群专家使用德尔菲共识过程对这些措施进行严格评估,以确定每种用途的最佳现有任务。代表25个国家的98名专家对初步调查作出了回应,并提名了总共81项任务。德尔菲过程的最初几轮确定了50个具有足够心理测量特性的任务,然后将其细分为社会认知领域。对于每个领域,成员对五个最佳任务进行排名,一次用于跨文化使用,一次用于跨诊断使用,并对这些任务的预期用途的适用性进行评级。没有任务被确定为理想的适合任何一种使用;然而,在每个领域中,出现了4-5个最一致选择的任务,并且所有任务都被评为具有“良好”或更好的使用适用性。虽然仍然迫切需要专门为跨文化和跨诊断用途而设计的社会认知评估,但目前似乎有一些现有的任务是可用的,并且可能提供信息。然而,谨慎是必要的,因为这些仍然需要在跨文化和跨诊断研究中进行全面评估。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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