Harmonizing cross-cultural and transdiagnostic assessment of social cognition by expert panel consensus.

IF 3 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) Pub Date : 2025-02-21 DOI:10.1038/s41537-024-00540-7
Amy E Pinkham, Michal Hajdúk, Tim Ziermans
{"title":"Harmonizing cross-cultural and transdiagnostic assessment of social cognition by expert panel consensus.","authors":"Amy E Pinkham, Michal Hajdúk, Tim Ziermans","doi":"10.1038/s41537-024-00540-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social cognition, the perception and processing of social information, is adversely affected in multiple psychiatric, neurological, and neurodevelopmental disorders, and these impairments negatively impact quality of life for individuals across the globe. Despite the clear importance of social cognition, efforts to advance research via harmonization of data across cultures and diagnoses has been stymied by the lack of uniformly used and suitable assessments. To address this issue, the current study conducted an expert survey and consensus process to identify social cognitive assessments that are best suited for cross-cultural and transdiagnostic use among adults. A large group of experts in social cognition were surveyed to gather nominations for cross-culturally and transdiagnostically appropriate measures. These measures were then critically evaluated by a smaller group of experts using a Delphi consensus process to identify the best existing tasks for each use. Ninety-eight experts, representing 25 countries, responded to the initial survey and nominated a total of 81 tasks. Initial rounds of the Delphi process identified 50 tasks with adequate psychometric properties that were then subdivided into social cognition domains. For each domain, members ranked the five best tasks, once for cross-cultural use and once for transdiagnostic use, and rated the suitability of those tasks for the intended use. No tasks were identified as ideally suited for either use; however, within each domain, 4-5 tasks emerged as the most consistently selected, and all were ranked as having \"good\" or better suitability for use. While there is still a critical need for social cognitive assessments that are specifically designed for cross-cultural and transdiagnostic use, there does appear to be a handful of existing tasks that are currently available and likely informative. Caution is warranted however, as these still require comprehensive evaluation in cross-cultural and transdiagnostic studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":74758,"journal":{"name":"Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany)","volume":"11 1","pages":"25"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11845741/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-024-00540-7","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

Abstract

Social cognition, the perception and processing of social information, is adversely affected in multiple psychiatric, neurological, and neurodevelopmental disorders, and these impairments negatively impact quality of life for individuals across the globe. Despite the clear importance of social cognition, efforts to advance research via harmonization of data across cultures and diagnoses has been stymied by the lack of uniformly used and suitable assessments. To address this issue, the current study conducted an expert survey and consensus process to identify social cognitive assessments that are best suited for cross-cultural and transdiagnostic use among adults. A large group of experts in social cognition were surveyed to gather nominations for cross-culturally and transdiagnostically appropriate measures. These measures were then critically evaluated by a smaller group of experts using a Delphi consensus process to identify the best existing tasks for each use. Ninety-eight experts, representing 25 countries, responded to the initial survey and nominated a total of 81 tasks. Initial rounds of the Delphi process identified 50 tasks with adequate psychometric properties that were then subdivided into social cognition domains. For each domain, members ranked the five best tasks, once for cross-cultural use and once for transdiagnostic use, and rated the suitability of those tasks for the intended use. No tasks were identified as ideally suited for either use; however, within each domain, 4-5 tasks emerged as the most consistently selected, and all were ranked as having "good" or better suitability for use. While there is still a critical need for social cognitive assessments that are specifically designed for cross-cultural and transdiagnostic use, there does appear to be a handful of existing tasks that are currently available and likely informative. Caution is warranted however, as these still require comprehensive evaluation in cross-cultural and transdiagnostic studies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过专家小组共识,协调社会认知的跨文化和跨诊断评估。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Determinants of patient satisfaction in clozapine users: results from the Clozapine International Consortium (CLOZIN). Independent and joint effects of genomic and exposomic loads for schizophrenia on psychotic experiences in adolescents of European ancestry. Interpretable machine learning to evaluate relationships between DAO/DAOA (pLG72) protein data and features in clinical assessments, functional outcome, and cognitive function in schizophrenia patients. Harmonizing cross-cultural and transdiagnostic assessment of social cognition by expert panel consensus. Shared genetic architecture and causal relationship between frailty and schizophrenia.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1