Development of a short-form version of the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test for assessing theory of mind in older adults.
Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test
neurocognitive disorders
social cognition
theory of mind
Journal
International journal of geriatric psychiatry
ISSN: 1099-1166
Titre abrégé: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8710629
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2020
11 2020
Historique:
received:
27
02
2020
revised:
13
05
2020
accepted:
20
06
2020
pubmed:
26
6
2020
medline:
20
4
2021
entrez:
26
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Reading the Mind in the Eyes test (RMET) is a 36-item assessment for theory of mind (ToM) performance. While this measure has been shown to be sensitive to age-related ToM difficulties, there are no established cutoffs or guidelines currently available that are specific to older adults. This article seeks to validate a short-form version of the RMET appropriate for use in such populations. Cross-sectional data from 295 participants (mean age 86 years) from the Sydney Memory and Ageing Study, a longitudinal community observational cohort. Participants underwent an assessment battery that included the RMET. Individuals who scored >1SD below the RMET scores of cognitively normal participants were deemed to have below average RMET scores. Various model-building methods were used to generate short-form solutions of the RMET, which were compared with previously validated versions in their predictive power for below average full RMET performance. Individuals with below average RMET performance tended to be older and have poorer global cognition. Of the eight short-form solutions, the 21-item version generated using genetic algorithm exhibited the best classification performance with an area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of 0.98 and had 93.2% accuracy in classifying individuals with below average ToM. A shorter 10-item solution derived by ant colony optimization also had acceptable performance. We recommend the 21-item version of the RMET for use in older adult populations for identifying individuals with impaired ToM. Where an even shorter version is needed with a trade-off of slightly reduced performance, the 10-item version is acceptable.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The Reading the Mind in the Eyes test (RMET) is a 36-item assessment for theory of mind (ToM) performance. While this measure has been shown to be sensitive to age-related ToM difficulties, there are no established cutoffs or guidelines currently available that are specific to older adults. This article seeks to validate a short-form version of the RMET appropriate for use in such populations.
METHODS
Cross-sectional data from 295 participants (mean age 86 years) from the Sydney Memory and Ageing Study, a longitudinal community observational cohort. Participants underwent an assessment battery that included the RMET. Individuals who scored >1SD below the RMET scores of cognitively normal participants were deemed to have below average RMET scores. Various model-building methods were used to generate short-form solutions of the RMET, which were compared with previously validated versions in their predictive power for below average full RMET performance.
RESULTS
Individuals with below average RMET performance tended to be older and have poorer global cognition. Of the eight short-form solutions, the 21-item version generated using genetic algorithm exhibited the best classification performance with an area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of 0.98 and had 93.2% accuracy in classifying individuals with below average ToM. A shorter 10-item solution derived by ant colony optimization also had acceptable performance.
CONCLUSION
We recommend the 21-item version of the RMET for use in older adult populations for identifying individuals with impaired ToM. Where an even shorter version is needed with a trade-off of slightly reduced performance, the 10-item version is acceptable.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1322-1330Informations de copyright
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Henry JD, von Hippel W, Molenberghs P, Lee T, Sachdev PS. Clinical assessment of social cognitive function in neurological disorders. Nat Rev Neurol. 2016;12(1):28-39. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2015.229.
Henry JD, Cowan DG, Lee T, Sachdev P. Recent trends in testing social cognition. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2015;28(2):133-140. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000139.
Hayes GS, McLennan SN, Henry JD, et al. Task characteristics influence facial emotion recognition age-effects: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Aging. 2020;35:295-315. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000441.
Henry JD, Phillips LH, Ruffman T, Bailey PE. A meta-analytic review of age differences in theory of mind. Psychol Aging. 2013;28(3):826-839. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030677.
Ruffman T, Henry JD, Livingstone V, Phillips LH. A meta-analytic review of emotion recognition and aging: implications for neuropsychological models of aging. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008;32(4):863-881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.01.001.
Premack D, Woodruff G. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav Brain Sci. 1978;1(4):515-526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512.
Nazlidou E-I, Moraitou D, Natsopoulos D, Papantoniou G. Social cognition in adults: the role of cognitive control. Hell J Nucl Med. 2015;18(Suppl 1):109-121.
Henry JD, Rendell PG, Scicluna A, Jackson M, Phillips LH. Emotion experience, expression, and regulation in Alzheimer's disease. Psychol Aging. 2009;24(1):252-257. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014001.
Baglio F, Castelli I, Alberoni M, et al. Theory of mind in amnestic mild cognitive impairment: an fMRI study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2012;29(1):25-37. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-2011-111256.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Hill J, Raste Y, Plumb I. The “reading the mind in the eyes” test revised version: a study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001;42(2):241-251.
Sasson NJ, Pinkham AE, Carpenter KLH, Belger A. The benefit of directly comparing autism and schizophrenia for revealing mechanisms of social cognitive impairment. J Neurodev Disord. 2011;3(2):87-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11689-010-9068-x.
Henry JD, Phillips LH, von Hippel C. A meta-analytic review of theory of mind difficulties in behavioural-variant frontotemporal dementia. Neuropsychologia. 2014;56:53-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.12.024.
Schroeter ML, Pawelke S, Bisenius S, et al. A modified reading the mind in the eyes test predicts behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia better than executive function tests. Front Aging Neurosci. 2018;10:11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2018.00011.
Gallant C, Good D. Examining the “reading the mind in the eyes test” as an assessment of subtle differences in affective theory of mind after concussion. Clin Neuropsychol. 2020;34(2):296-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2019.1612946.
Duval C, Piolino P, Bejanin A, Eustache F, Desgranges B. Age effects on different components of theory of mind. Conscious Cogn. 2011;20(3):627-642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.10.025.
Castelli I, Baglio F, Blasi V, et al. Effects of aging on mindreading ability through the eyes: an fMRI study. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(9):2586-2594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.05.005.
Olderbak S, Wilhelm O, Olaru G, Geiger M, Brenneman MW, Roberts RD. A psychometric analysis of the reading the mind in the eyes test: toward a brief form for research and applied settings. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1503. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01503.
Black JE. An IRT analysis of the reading the mind in the eyes test. J Pers Assess. 2018;101(4):425-433. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1447946.
Konrath S, Corneille O, Bushman BJ, Luminet O. The relationship between narcissistic exploitativeness, dispositional empathy, and emotion recognition abilities. J Nonverbal Behav. 2014;38(1):129-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-013-0164-y.
Harkness K, Sabbagh M, Jacobson J, Chowdrey N, Chen T. Enhanced accuracy of mental state decoding in dysphoric college students. Cogn Emot. 2005;19(7):999-1025. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930541000110.
Sachdev PS, Brodaty H, Reppermund S, et al. The Sydney memory and ageing study (MAS): methodology and baseline medical and neuropsychiatric characteristics of an elderly epidemiological non-demented cohort of Australians aged 70-90 years. Int Psychogeriatr. 2010;22(8):1248-1264. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610210001067.
Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6.
Hsieh S, Schubert S, Hoon C, Mioshi E, Hodges JR. Validation of the Addenbrooke's cognitive examination III in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2013;36(3-4):242-250. https://doi.org/10.1159/000351671.
Sheikh JI, Yesavage JA. Geriatric depression scale (GDS): recent evidence and development of a shorter version. Clin Gerontol. 1986;5(1-2):165-173. https://doi.org/10.1300/J018v05n01_09.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed., Text Revision. Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
Takenoshita S, Terada S, Yoshida H, et al. Validation of Addenbrooke's cognitive examination III for detecting mild cognitive impairment and dementia in Japan. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1120-4.
Hindmarch I, Lehfeld H, de Jongh P, Erzigkeit H. The Bayer activities of daily living scale (B-ADL). Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 1998;9(2):20-26. https://doi.org/10.1159/000051195.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2019. https://www.R-project.org/
El Haj M, Raffard S, Gély-Nargeot M-C. Destination memory and cognitive theory of mind in normal ageing. Memory. 2016;24(4):526-534. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1021257.
Grainger SA, Henry JD, Naughtin CK, Comino MS, Dux PE. Implicit false belief tracking is preserved in late adulthood. Q J Exp Psychol. 2018;71(9):1980-1987.
Michaelian JC, Mowszowski L, Guastella AJ, et al. Theory of mind in mild cognitive impairment-relationship with limbic structures and behavioural change. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2019;29:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617719000870.
Bottiroli S, Cavallini E, Ceccato I, Vecchi T, Lecce S. Theory of mind in aging: comparing cognitive and affective components in the faux pas test. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2016;62:152-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2015.09.009.
Rosi A, Cavallini E, Bottiroli S, Bianco F, Lecce S. Promoting theory of mind in older adults: does age play a role? Aging Ment Health. 2016;20(1):22-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2015.1049118.
Credé M, Harms P, Niehorster S, Gaye-Valentine A. An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the big five personality traits. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012;102(4):874-888. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027403.
Rowan N, Wulff D. Using qualitative methods to inform scale development. Qual Rep. 2007;12(3):450-466.
Ziegler M, Kemper CJ, Kruyen P. Short scales-five misunderstandings and ways to overcome them. J Individ Differ. 2014;35(4):185-189. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000148.
Stanton JM, Sinar EF, Balzer WK, Smith PC. Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-report scales. Pers Psychol. 2002;55(1):167-194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00108.x.