社会认知测试的跨文化适应性评价:系统综述。

IF 5.4 2区 心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES Neuropsychology Review Pub Date : 2023-11-17 DOI:10.1007/s11065-023-09616-0
Renelle Bourdage, Pauline Narme, Raquel Neeskens, Janne Papma, Sanne Franzen
{"title":"社会认知测试的跨文化适应性评价:系统综述。","authors":"Renelle Bourdage, Pauline Narme, Raquel Neeskens, Janne Papma, Sanne Franzen","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09616-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social cognition remains one of the most difficult cognitive domains to assess in diverse populations due to a lack of culturally appropriate tools. This study systematically reviewed literature on neuropsychological tests for social cognition that have been translated, adapted, are cross-cultural, or are assembled for diverse, specifically \"Global South,\" populations. The aim was to identify assessments appropriate for diverse populations, outline and evaluate their methodological approaches, and provide procedural recommendations for future research. The PRISMA systematic review search strategy produced 10,957 articles, of which 287 were selected for full-text screening. The study had to include a neuropsychological assessment of social cognition. The full text of the resulting 287 articles was then screened; the study had to include a translated, adapted, cross-cultural test, or an assembled test for Global South populations. Eighty-four articles were included in this study: 24 for emotion recognition, 45 for theory of mind, 9 for moral reasoning, and six for social cognition in general. Overall, there were 31 translations, 27 adaptations, 14 cross-cultural tests, and 12 assembled tests for Global South populations. Regarding quality, 35 were of low quality, 27 were of moderate quality, and 22 were high quality. This study provides an overview of social cognition tests modified or assembled for diverse populations and gives examples of methodological procedures. It highlights the variability in procedure quality and provides possible reasons for this variability. Finally, it suggests a need to report rigorous modification and assembly procedure in order to have modified and assembled social cognition tests appropriate for diverse populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Evaluation of Cross-Cultural Adaptations of Social Cognition Testing: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Renelle Bourdage, Pauline Narme, Raquel Neeskens, Janne Papma, Sanne Franzen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11065-023-09616-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Social cognition remains one of the most difficult cognitive domains to assess in diverse populations due to a lack of culturally appropriate tools. This study systematically reviewed literature on neuropsychological tests for social cognition that have been translated, adapted, are cross-cultural, or are assembled for diverse, specifically \\\"Global South,\\\" populations. The aim was to identify assessments appropriate for diverse populations, outline and evaluate their methodological approaches, and provide procedural recommendations for future research. The PRISMA systematic review search strategy produced 10,957 articles, of which 287 were selected for full-text screening. The study had to include a neuropsychological assessment of social cognition. The full text of the resulting 287 articles was then screened; the study had to include a translated, adapted, cross-cultural test, or an assembled test for Global South populations. Eighty-four articles were included in this study: 24 for emotion recognition, 45 for theory of mind, 9 for moral reasoning, and six for social cognition in general. Overall, there were 31 translations, 27 adaptations, 14 cross-cultural tests, and 12 assembled tests for Global South populations. Regarding quality, 35 were of low quality, 27 were of moderate quality, and 22 were high quality. This study provides an overview of social cognition tests modified or assembled for diverse populations and gives examples of methodological procedures. It highlights the variability in procedure quality and provides possible reasons for this variability. Finally, it suggests a need to report rigorous modification and assembly procedure in order to have modified and assembled social cognition tests appropriate for diverse populations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49754,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuropsychology Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuropsychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09616-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09616-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于缺乏文化上合适的工具,社会认知仍然是在不同人群中最难评估的认知领域之一。本研究系统地回顾了关于社会认知的神经心理学测试的文献,这些文献已经被翻译、改编、跨文化,或者是为不同的,特别是“全球南方”人群而组装的。目的是确定适合不同人口的评估,概述和评价其方法方法,并为今后的研究提供程序建议。PRISMA系统综述检索策略共产生10957篇文章,其中287篇入选全文筛选。这项研究必须包括对社会认知的神经心理学评估。然后对287篇文章的全文进行筛选;这项研究必须包括翻译的、改编的、跨文化的测试,或者对全球南方人口的组合测试。本研究共纳入84篇文章,其中情绪识别24篇,心理理论45篇,道德推理9篇,一般社会认知6篇。总的来说,有31个翻译,27个改编,14个跨文化测试和12个针对全球南方人口的组合测试。质量方面,低质量的有35个,中等质量的有27个,高质量的有22个。本研究概述了针对不同人群修改或组装的社会认知测试,并给出了方法学程序的示例。它强调了程序质量的可变性,并提供了这种可变性的可能原因。最后,它建议有必要报告严格的修改和组装程序,以便修改和组装适合不同人群的社会认知测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
An Evaluation of Cross-Cultural Adaptations of Social Cognition Testing: A Systematic Review.

Social cognition remains one of the most difficult cognitive domains to assess in diverse populations due to a lack of culturally appropriate tools. This study systematically reviewed literature on neuropsychological tests for social cognition that have been translated, adapted, are cross-cultural, or are assembled for diverse, specifically "Global South," populations. The aim was to identify assessments appropriate for diverse populations, outline and evaluate their methodological approaches, and provide procedural recommendations for future research. The PRISMA systematic review search strategy produced 10,957 articles, of which 287 were selected for full-text screening. The study had to include a neuropsychological assessment of social cognition. The full text of the resulting 287 articles was then screened; the study had to include a translated, adapted, cross-cultural test, or an assembled test for Global South populations. Eighty-four articles were included in this study: 24 for emotion recognition, 45 for theory of mind, 9 for moral reasoning, and six for social cognition in general. Overall, there were 31 translations, 27 adaptations, 14 cross-cultural tests, and 12 assembled tests for Global South populations. Regarding quality, 35 were of low quality, 27 were of moderate quality, and 22 were high quality. This study provides an overview of social cognition tests modified or assembled for diverse populations and gives examples of methodological procedures. It highlights the variability in procedure quality and provides possible reasons for this variability. Finally, it suggests a need to report rigorous modification and assembly procedure in order to have modified and assembled social cognition tests appropriate for diverse populations.

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
Neuropsychology Review
Neuropsychology Review 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
期刊最新文献
Cognitive Intra-individual Variability in Cognitively Healthy APOE ε4 Carriers, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Alzheimer's Disease: a Meta-analysis. Measurement Error and Methodologic Issues in Analyses of the Proportion of Variance Explained in Cognition. Implementation of Cognitive (Neuropsychological) Interventions for Older Adults in Clinical or Community Settings: A Scoping Review. Verbal and Spatial Working Memory Capacity in Blind Adults and the Possible Influence of Age at Blindness Onset: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Reliability of Theory of Mind Tasks in Schizophrenia, ASD, and Nonclinical Populations: A Systematic Review and Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis.
×
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