{"title":"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。","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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}
Dynamic and/or multimodal assessments for social cognition in neuropsychology: Results from a systematic literature review.
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.
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.