The association between subjective and objective cognitive functioning from a transdiagnostic perspective: An umbrella review and meta-analysis

IF 12.2 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Ryan Van Patten , Kyler Mulhauser , Tara A. Austin , John A. Bellone , Erica Cotton , Lawrence Chan , Elizabeth W. Twamley , Kelsey Sawyer , W. Curt LaFrance Jr.
{"title":"The association between subjective and objective cognitive functioning from a transdiagnostic perspective: An umbrella review and meta-analysis","authors":"Ryan Van Patten ,&nbsp;Kyler Mulhauser ,&nbsp;Tara A. Austin ,&nbsp;John A. Bellone ,&nbsp;Erica Cotton ,&nbsp;Lawrence Chan ,&nbsp;Elizabeth W. Twamley ,&nbsp;Kelsey Sawyer ,&nbsp;W. Curt LaFrance Jr.","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102648","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The relationship between subjective (self-reported) and objective (performance-based) cognitive functioning has significant clinical implications across neuropsychiatric syndromes. We performed an umbrella review examining literature on the association between subjective and objective cognition from a transdiagnostic perspective. Eligible studies were full reports of review papers examining the relationship between subjective and objective cognition in humans across the lifespan. Risk of bias was evaluated using a modified version of the AMSTAR rating scale. Of 7329 initial reports screened, 50 reviews of mostly cross-sectional data were included. Review size ranged from 4 to 488 studies and demographic factors aside from age were rarely reported. Risk of bias was mixed. A narrative synthesis across more than 20 neuropsychiatric and neuromedical conditions found an inconsistent relationship between subjective and objective cognition, with effect sizes ranging from null to weak. Mental health factors such as depression and anxiety were more reliably and strongly related to subjective cognition than were objective cognitive test scores. In a second-order meta-analysis (10 reviews; <em>N</em> = 92,606), the pooled correlation between overall objective and subjective cognition was 0.14 (95 % CI [0.08, 0.21]; <em>p</em> = 0.001, Q(9) = 179.50, τ = 0.09, I<sup>2</sup> = 95.00, &lt;2 % variance shared). Subjective and objective cognition are largely non-overlapping constructs, reflecting unique and complementary aspects of overall cognitive functioning regardless of the specific population investigated or assessment method used. Researchers and clinicians should not expect to find concordance between concurrent self-reported cognition and neuropsychological testing, and simple discrepancies between subjective and objective cognition are so common as to be diagnostically unhelpful.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 102648"},"PeriodicalIF":12.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735825001151","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The relationship between subjective (self-reported) and objective (performance-based) cognitive functioning has significant clinical implications across neuropsychiatric syndromes. We performed an umbrella review examining literature on the association between subjective and objective cognition from a transdiagnostic perspective. Eligible studies were full reports of review papers examining the relationship between subjective and objective cognition in humans across the lifespan. Risk of bias was evaluated using a modified version of the AMSTAR rating scale. Of 7329 initial reports screened, 50 reviews of mostly cross-sectional data were included. Review size ranged from 4 to 488 studies and demographic factors aside from age were rarely reported. Risk of bias was mixed. A narrative synthesis across more than 20 neuropsychiatric and neuromedical conditions found an inconsistent relationship between subjective and objective cognition, with effect sizes ranging from null to weak. Mental health factors such as depression and anxiety were more reliably and strongly related to subjective cognition than were objective cognitive test scores. In a second-order meta-analysis (10 reviews; N = 92,606), the pooled correlation between overall objective and subjective cognition was 0.14 (95 % CI [0.08, 0.21]; p = 0.001, Q(9) = 179.50, τ = 0.09, I2 = 95.00, <2 % variance shared). Subjective and objective cognition are largely non-overlapping constructs, reflecting unique and complementary aspects of overall cognitive functioning regardless of the specific population investigated or assessment method used. Researchers and clinicians should not expect to find concordance between concurrent self-reported cognition and neuropsychological testing, and simple discrepancies between subjective and objective cognition are so common as to be diagnostically unhelpful.
从跨诊断角度看主客观认知功能之间的关系:概括性回顾和荟萃分析
主观(自我报告)和客观(基于表现)认知功能之间的关系在神经精神综合征中具有重要的临床意义。我们从跨诊断的角度对主观认知和客观认知之间的关系进行了综述。合格的研究是研究人类一生中主观认知和客观认知之间关系的综述论文的完整报告。使用改良版AMSTAR评定量表评估偏倚风险。在筛选的7329份初始报告中,包括了50份主要是横断面数据的综述。综述规模从4到488项研究不等,除年龄外的人口统计学因素很少报道。偏倚风险是混合的。一项针对20多种神经精神病学和神经医学疾病的叙事综合研究发现,主观认知和客观认知之间存在不一致的关系,效应大小从零到弱不等。与客观认知测试分数相比,抑郁和焦虑等心理健康因素与主观认知的关系更为可靠和强烈。在二阶荟萃分析(10篇综述,N = 92,606)中,总体客观认知和主观认知之间的总相关性为0.14 (95% CI [0.08, 0.21]; p = 0.001, Q(9) = 179.50, τ = 0.09, I2 = 95.00, <; 2%的方差共享)。主观认知和客观认知在很大程度上是不重叠的结构,反映了整体认知功能的独特和互补方面,而不管所调查的特定人群或使用的评估方法如何。研究人员和临床医生不应该期望在同时自我报告的认知和神经心理学测试之间找到一致性,主观和客观认知之间的简单差异是如此普遍,以至于对诊断没有帮助。
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
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信