精神分裂症社会认知研究的生态有效性进展:文献系统回顾

IF 2.3 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Alvaro Cavieres, Vanessa Acuña, Marcelo Arancibia, Camila Escobar
{"title":"精神分裂症社会认知研究的生态有效性进展:文献系统回顾","authors":"Alvaro Cavieres,&nbsp;Vanessa Acuña,&nbsp;Marcelo Arancibia,&nbsp;Camila Escobar","doi":"10.1016/j.scog.2024.100333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Ecologically valid assessments need to require tasks representative of real, everyday interactions between people in a social environment (i.e., verisimilitude) and to predict aspects of real-life performance in those same interactions (i.e., veridicality). To determine how researchers interested in social cognition among people with schizophrenia currently understand and apply ecological validity in their work, we conducted a systematic review of studies that had the ecological validity of their results as an explicit objective.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We performed the described systematic review following PRISMA guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 18 studies reviewed, only two defined <em>ecological validity</em>, 15 incorporated modifications to improve their verisimilitude, eight proposed analyses to examine their veridicality, and seven aimed to achieve both objectives.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our systematic review suggests that very few published studies on social cognition among people with schizophrenia have explicitly defined <em>ecological validity</em>, and most have focused only on the verisimilitude of the tasks required while neglecting the veridicality of the results.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38119,"journal":{"name":"Schizophrenia Research-Cognition","volume":"39 ","pages":"Article 100333"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advances in the ecological validity of research on social cognition in schizophrenia: A systematic review of the literature\",\"authors\":\"Alvaro Cavieres,&nbsp;Vanessa Acuña,&nbsp;Marcelo Arancibia,&nbsp;Camila Escobar\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.scog.2024.100333\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Ecologically valid assessments need to require tasks representative of real, everyday interactions between people in a social environment (i.e., verisimilitude) and to predict aspects of real-life performance in those same interactions (i.e., veridicality). To determine how researchers interested in social cognition among people with schizophrenia currently understand and apply ecological validity in their work, we conducted a systematic review of studies that had the ecological validity of their results as an explicit objective.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We performed the described systematic review following PRISMA guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 18 studies reviewed, only two defined <em>ecological validity</em>, 15 incorporated modifications to improve their verisimilitude, eight proposed analyses to examine their veridicality, and seven aimed to achieve both objectives.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our systematic review suggests that very few published studies on social cognition among people with schizophrenia have explicitly defined <em>ecological validity</em>, and most have focused only on the verisimilitude of the tasks required while neglecting the veridicality of the results.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38119,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Schizophrenia Research-Cognition\",\"volume\":\"39 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100333\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Schizophrenia Research-Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215001324000349\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schizophrenia Research-Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215001324000349","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

摘要

引言 生态效度评估需要能代表社会环境中人与人之间真实的日常互动的任务(即真实性),并能预测在这些互动中现实生活表现的各个方面(即真实性)。为了确定对精神分裂症患者的社会认知感兴趣的研究人员目前是如何理解并在工作中应用生态效度的,我们对以结果的生态效度为明确目标的研究进行了系统综述。结论我们的系统性综述表明,已发表的有关精神分裂症患者社会认知的研究中很少有明确定义生态效度的,大多数研究只关注任务要求的真实性,而忽视了结果的真实性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Advances in the ecological validity of research on social cognition in schizophrenia: A systematic review of the literature

Introduction

Ecologically valid assessments need to require tasks representative of real, everyday interactions between people in a social environment (i.e., verisimilitude) and to predict aspects of real-life performance in those same interactions (i.e., veridicality). To determine how researchers interested in social cognition among people with schizophrenia currently understand and apply ecological validity in their work, we conducted a systematic review of studies that had the ecological validity of their results as an explicit objective.

Methods

We performed the described systematic review following PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Of the 18 studies reviewed, only two defined ecological validity, 15 incorporated modifications to improve their verisimilitude, eight proposed analyses to examine their veridicality, and seven aimed to achieve both objectives.

Conclusions

Our systematic review suggests that very few published studies on social cognition among people with schizophrenia have explicitly defined ecological validity, and most have focused only on the verisimilitude of the tasks required while neglecting the veridicality of the results.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.70%
发文量
54
审稿时长
67 days
×
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