Psychometrics and diagnostics of Italian cognitive screening tests: a systematic review
Neurological Sciences, ISSN: 1590-3478, Vol: 43, Issue: 2, Page: 821-845
2022
- 28Citations
- 27Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations28
- Citation Indexes28
- 28
- CrossRef7
- Captures27
- Readers27
- 27
Review Description
Background: Cognitive screening tests (CSTs) are crucial to neuropsychological diagnostics, and thus need to be featured by robust psychometric and diagnostic properties. However, CSTs happen not to meet desirable statistical standards, negatively affecting their level of recommendations and applicability. This study aimed at (a) providing an up-to-date compendium of available CSTs in Italy, (b) report their psychometric and diagnostic properties, and (c) address related limitations. Methods: This review was implemented by consulting Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and pre-registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Standardization and usability studies focusing on norms, validity, reliability, or sensitivity/specificity (and derived metrics) in adults were considered for eligibility. Quality assessment was performed by means of an ad hoc checklist collecting information on sampling, psychometrics/diagnostics, norming, and feasibility. Results: Sixty studies were included out of an initial N = 683. Identified CSTs (N = 40) were classified into general, domain-, and disease-specific (N = 17, 7, and 16, respectively), the latter being less statistically robust than remaining categories. Validity and reliability evidence was provided for 29 and 26 CSTs, respectively, sensitivity/specificity for 20 and norms for 33. Prevalence- and post-test-based diagnostic metrics were seldomly represented; factorial structures, ceiling/floor effects, and acceptability rarely investigated; content, face, and ecological validity never assessed. Discussion: Although available Italian CSTs overall met basic psychometric/diagnostic requirements, their statistical profile often proved to be poor on several properties that are desirable for clinical applications, with a few exceptions among general and domain-specific ones.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85118771596&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10072-021-05683-4; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34816316; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10072-021-05683-4; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10072-021-05683-4; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10072-021-05683-4
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know