Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
In acquired brain injury (ABI), social cognition is a contributing factor to the changes observed in functional outcomes. However, progress in assessing and understanding social cognitive impairments is limited by a lack of consistency in terminology and the proliferation in assessment tools, leading to a lack of consensus on what should be assessed and how. This review aims to examine the domains of social cognition commonly assessed in ABI, the assessment tools used, and the appropriateness of these tools for researchers and clinicians. Using the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review methodology, 367 articles reporting results from 10,930 people with an ABI met our inclusion criteria. The five most commonly assessed domains of social cognition were emotion perception, theory of mind, social communication, identity recognition and empathy. The most commonly used measure of these domains included: the Ekman and Friesen photo series, Faux Pas Recognition Test, La Trobe Communication Questionnaire, Benton Facial Recognition Test and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. There are well-validated measures readily available that are underused in favour of non-standardized measures clinically or the development of one's own measure in research. The appropriateness of the identified measure for research and clinical use was discussed, including suggestions for future research.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2021.1933087 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!