Dynamic and/or multimodal assessments for social cognition in neuropsychology: Results from a systematic literature review.

IF 3 3区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Clinical Neuropsychologist Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-30 DOI:10.1080/13854046.2023.2266172
Eva-Flore Msika, Mathilde Despres, Pascale Piolino, Pauline Narme
{"title":"Dynamic and/or multimodal assessments for social cognition in neuropsychology: Results from a systematic literature review.","authors":"Eva-Flore Msika, Mathilde Despres, Pascale Piolino, Pauline Narme","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2023.2266172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> Despite the prevalence of socio-cognitive disturbances, and their important diagnostic/therapeutic implications, the assessment of these disturbances remains scarce. This systematic review aims to identify available social cognition tools for adult assessment that use multimodal and/or dynamic social cues, specifying their strengths and limitations (e.g. from a methodological, psychometric, ecological, and clinical perspective). <b>Method:</b> An electronic search was conducted in Pubmed, PsychINFO, Embase and Scopus databases for articles published up to the 3<sup>th</sup> of January 2023 and the first 200 Google Scholar results on the same date. The PRISMA methodology was applied, 3884 studies were screened based on title and abstract and 329 full texts were screened. Articles using pseudo-dynamic methodologies (e.g. morphing), reported only subjective or self-reported measures, or investigated only physiological or brain activity responses were excluded. <b>Results:</b> In total, 149 works were included in this review, representing 65 assessment tools (i.e. 48% studying emotion recognition (<i>n</i> = 31), 32% Theory of Mind (<i>n</i> = 21), 5% empathy (<i>n</i> = 3), 1.5% moral cognition/social reasoning (<i>n</i> = 1), and 14% being multimodal (<i>n</i> = 9)). For each study, the tool's main characteristics, psychometric properties, ecological validity indicators and available norms are reported. The tools are presented according to social-cognitive process assessed and communication channels used. <b>Conclusions:</b> This study highlights the lack of validated and standardized tools. A few tools appear to partially meet some clinical needs. The development of methodologies using a first-person paradigm and taking into account the multidimensional nature of social cognition seems a relevant research endeavour for greater ecological validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":55250,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","volume":" ","pages":"922-962"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2023.2266172","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Despite the prevalence of socio-cognitive disturbances, and their important diagnostic/therapeutic implications, the assessment of these disturbances remains scarce. This systematic review aims to identify available social cognition tools for adult assessment that use multimodal and/or dynamic social cues, specifying their strengths and limitations (e.g. from a methodological, psychometric, ecological, and clinical perspective). Method: An electronic search was conducted in Pubmed, PsychINFO, Embase and Scopus databases for articles published up to the 3th of January 2023 and the first 200 Google Scholar results on the same date. The PRISMA methodology was applied, 3884 studies were screened based on title and abstract and 329 full texts were screened. Articles using pseudo-dynamic methodologies (e.g. morphing), reported only subjective or self-reported measures, or investigated only physiological or brain activity responses were excluded. Results: In total, 149 works were included in this review, representing 65 assessment tools (i.e. 48% studying emotion recognition (n = 31), 32% Theory of Mind (n = 21), 5% empathy (n = 3), 1.5% moral cognition/social reasoning (n = 1), and 14% being multimodal (n = 9)). For each study, the tool's main characteristics, psychometric properties, ecological validity indicators and available norms are reported. The tools are presented according to social-cognitive process assessed and communication channels used. Conclusions: This study highlights the lack of validated and standardized tools. A few tools appear to partially meet some clinical needs. The development of methodologies using a first-person paradigm and taking into account the multidimensional nature of social cognition seems a relevant research endeavour for greater ecological validity.

神经心理学中社会认知的动态和/或多模式评估:来自系统文献综述的结果。
目的:尽管社会认知障碍的普遍性及其重要的诊断/治疗意义,但对这些障碍的评估仍然很少。这项系统综述旨在确定可用于成人评估的社会认知工具,这些工具使用多模式和/或动态社会线索,明确其优势和局限性(例如,从方法论、心理测量学、生态学和临床角度)。方法:在Pubmed、PsychINFO、Embase和Scopus数据库中进行电子搜索,查找截至2023年1月3日发表的文章以及当天的前200个谷歌学者结果。应用PRISMA方法,根据标题和摘要筛选了3884项研究,筛选了329篇全文。排除了使用伪动态方法(如变形)、仅报告主观或自我报告测量或仅调查生理或大脑活动反应的文章。结果:共有149篇作品被纳入本综述,代表了65种评估工具(即48%的作品研究情绪识别(n = 31),32%心学(n = 21),5%的同理心(n = 3) ,1.5%的道德认知/社会推理(n = 1) ,14%为多峰(n = 9) )。每项研究都报告了该工具的主要特征、心理测量特性、生态有效性指标和可用规范。这些工具是根据评估的社会认知过程和使用的沟通渠道提出的。结论:本研究强调了缺乏经过验证和标准化的工具。一些工具似乎部分满足了一些临床需求。使用第一人称范式并考虑到社会认知的多维性的方法论的发展似乎是一项旨在提高生态有效性的相关研究努力。
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 Neuropsychologist
Clinical Neuropsychologist 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
12.80%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Clinical Neuropsychologist (TCN) serves as the premier forum for (1) state-of-the-art clinically-relevant scientific research, (2) in-depth professional discussions of matters germane to evidence-based practice, and (3) clinical case studies in neuropsychology. Of particular interest are papers that can make definitive statements about a given topic (thereby having implications for the standards of clinical practice) and those with the potential to expand today’s clinical frontiers. Research on all age groups, and on both clinical and normal populations, is considered.
×
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