This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

44/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Getting a diagnosis

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Harmonized neuropsychological assessment for neurocognitive disorders (NCDs) is an urgent priority in clinics. Neuropsychology assessments in NCDs seldom include tests exploring social cognitive skills. In 2022, we launched the SIGNATURE initiative to optimize socio-cognitive assessment in NCDs. Here, we report findings from the first initiative phase, including consortium creation and evaluation of the state of the art in socio-cognitive assessment in memory clinics. We developed an ad hoc online survey to explore practices and measures, relevance, and obstacles preventing the use of socio-cognitive testing in clinics. The survey was distributed within the SIGNATURE network. National coordinators were identified to disseminate the survey to local collaborators and scientific societies active in the field of dementia and/or neuropsychology. Data were analysed in aggregate form and stratified by geographical area and variables of interest. Four hundred and thirteen (413) responses from 10 European and Latin American geographical regions were recorded. Responders were balanced between physicians and psychologists. Seventy-eight (78) % of respondents reported no/limited experience with socio-cognitive measures; more than 85% agreed on their relevance in clinics. Ekman-60 faces was the most well-known and/or used task, followed by the Faux-Pas and Reading-the-Mind-in-the-Eyes tests. Lack of clinical measures, assessment time, guidelines, and education/training were reported as main obstacles. Real-life barriers prevent the adoption of socio-cognitive testing in clinics. Bidirectional collaboration between clinicians and researchers is required to address clinical needs and constraints and facilitate consistent socio-cognitive assessment.

Key findings

Seventy-eight (78) % of respondents reported no/limited experience with socio-cognitive measures; more than 85% agreed on their relevance in clinics.
Ekman-60 faces was the most well-known and/or used task, followed by the Faux-Pas and Reading-the-Mind-in-the-Eyes tests.
Lack of clinical measures, assessment time, guidelines, and education/training were reported as main obstacles.
Real-life barriers prevent the adoption of socio-cognitive testing in clinics.
Bidirectional collaboration between clinicians and researchers is required to address clinical needs and constraints and facilitate consistent socio-cognitive assessment.

Why it matters

This survey found that most clinicians have little or no experience using social cognitive tests, even though most agree these tests are relevant. It identifies practical barriers such as lack of measures, time, guidelines and training that currently prevent their use in memory clinics.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 44/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 42 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 44 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Neuropsychology)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	Journal of Neuropsychology: journal h-index 56 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	3 / 7	Cited 17 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	5.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	4 / 6	Cited 10.8× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 17 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	2 / 3	Inserm: institution h-index 1,988 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 43 institution(s) in 16 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40365933)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	42 / 96	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 44 out of 100.
Total	44 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Cerami, C., Boccardi, M., Meli, C., Panzavolta, A., Funghi, G., Festari, C., et al. (2025). Understanding barriers and optimizing socio‐cognitive assessment in the diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders. Journal of Neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12431

Vancouver

Cerami C, Boccardi M, Meli C, Panzavolta A, Funghi G, Festari C, et al. Understanding barriers and optimizing socio‐cognitive assessment in the diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders. Journal of Neuropsychology. 2025. doi:10.1111/jnp.12431. PMID: 40365933.

BibTeX

@article{cerami2025-40365933,
  author  = {Cerami, Chiara and Boccardi, Marina and Meli, Claudia and Panzavolta, Andrea and Funghi, Giulia and Festari, Cristina and Cappa, Stefano Francesco and Chatzikostopoulos, Thanos and others},
  title   = {{Understanding barriers and optimizing socio‐cognitive assessment in the diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders}},
  journal = {Journal of Neuropsychology},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1111/jnp.12431},
  pmid    = {40365933},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12431}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Getting a diagnosis

Similar studies

More on Getting a diagnosis

See all studies in Getting a diagnosis →