Recommendations for Reporting Cognitive Training Trials (RCTT): A Delphi consensus study.

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES
Vahid Nejati, Azin Sarraj Khorrami, Karlene Ball, Morris Bell, Guido P H Band, Aida Bikic, Jalil Fathabadi, Anthony Feinstein, Helmut Hildebrandt, Petra Jansen, Stuart J Johnstone, Torkel Klingberg, Kerryn Pike, Sarah Raskin, Ian H Robertson, Lesley Ross, Mojtaba Soltanlou, Lyn Turkstra, Antonio Vita, Xin Xu, Mehdi Alizadeh Zarei, Philip David Zelazo, Dawei Zhang, McKay Moore Sohlberg
{"title":"Recommendations for Reporting Cognitive Training Trials (RCTT): A Delphi consensus study.","authors":"Vahid Nejati, Azin Sarraj Khorrami, Karlene Ball, Morris Bell, Guido P H Band, Aida Bikic, Jalil Fathabadi, Anthony Feinstein, Helmut Hildebrandt, Petra Jansen, Stuart J Johnstone, Torkel Klingberg, Kerryn Pike, Sarah Raskin, Ian H Robertson, Lesley Ross, Mojtaba Soltanlou, Lyn Turkstra, Antonio Vita, Xin Xu, Mehdi Alizadeh Zarei, Philip David Zelazo, Dawei Zhang, McKay Moore Sohlberg","doi":"10.1080/09602011.2026.2729732","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The absence of standardized reporting criteria in cognitive training research has led to difficulties in classification, assessment of effectiveness, reproducibility, comparability, and quality evaluation across studies. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive, consensus-based checklist for evaluating, reporting, and conducting cognitive training studies. A Delphi method was employed to achieve consensus among experts. A panel of 22 experts participated in three rounds of surveys, providing feedback and reaching agreement on essential items for the checklist. The final checklist items were categorized into four primary domains: Participants, Cognitive Training Protocol/Program, Cognitive Training Procedure, and Study Procedure. The expert panel reached consensus on key items to be included in the checklist. These items include demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, cultural characteristics, participant eligibility criteria, sample size, recruitment process, previous experience with cognitive training, medication details, baseline cognitive function, and various parameters of cognitive training protocols and procedures. The developed checklist provides a structured and thorough approach to reporting cognitive training studies. It aligns with existing guidelines such as CONSORT and enhances the clarity, transparency, and replicability of research. Future research should aim to validate and refine the checklist across diverse cognitive training studies and populations, ensuring its generalizability and effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":54729,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1-28"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2026.2729732","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The absence of standardized reporting criteria in cognitive training research has led to difficulties in classification, assessment of effectiveness, reproducibility, comparability, and quality evaluation across studies. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive, consensus-based checklist for evaluating, reporting, and conducting cognitive training studies. A Delphi method was employed to achieve consensus among experts. A panel of 22 experts participated in three rounds of surveys, providing feedback and reaching agreement on essential items for the checklist. The final checklist items were categorized into four primary domains: Participants, Cognitive Training Protocol/Program, Cognitive Training Procedure, and Study Procedure. The expert panel reached consensus on key items to be included in the checklist. These items include demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, cultural characteristics, participant eligibility criteria, sample size, recruitment process, previous experience with cognitive training, medication details, baseline cognitive function, and various parameters of cognitive training protocols and procedures. The developed checklist provides a structured and thorough approach to reporting cognitive training studies. It aligns with existing guidelines such as CONSORT and enhances the clarity, transparency, and replicability of research. Future research should aim to validate and refine the checklist across diverse cognitive training studies and populations, ensuring its generalizability and effectiveness.

认知训练试验报告建议(RCTT):一项德尔菲共识研究。
认知训练研究缺乏标准化的报告标准,导致在分类、有效性评估、可重复性、可比性和跨研究质量评估方面存在困难。本研究旨在为认知训练研究的评估、报告和实施制定一个全面的、基于共识的检查表。采用德尔菲法,在专家之间达成共识。一个由22名专家组成的小组参加了三轮调查,提供反馈意见并就清单的基本项目达成协议。最终的清单项目被分为四个主要领域:参与者、认知训练方案/程序、认知训练程序和研究程序。专家小组就列入清单的关键项目达成了共识。这些项目包括人口统计学特征、临床特征、文化特征、参与者资格标准、样本量、招募过程、以前的认知训练经验、药物细节、基线认知功能以及认知训练方案和程序的各种参数。开发的检查表提供了一个结构化和彻底的方法来报告认知训练研究。它与CONSORT等现有指南保持一致,并提高了研究的清晰度、透明度和可重复性。未来的研究应致力于在不同的认知训练研究和人群中验证和完善清单,确保其普遍性和有效性。
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
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
78
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuropsychological Rehabilitation publishes human experimental and clinical research related to rehabilitation, recovery of function, and brain plasticity. The journal is aimed at clinicians who wish to inform their practice in the light of the latest scientific research; at researchers in neurorehabilitation; and finally at researchers in cognitive neuroscience and related fields interested in the mechanisms of recovery and rehabilitation. Papers on neuropsychological assessment will be considered, and special topic reviews (2500-5000 words) addressing specific key questions in rehabilitation, recovery and brain plasticity will also be welcomed. The latter will enter a fast-track refereeing process.
×
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
小红书