ArticlePsychological assessment
Test-retest reliability of computational parameters versus manifest behavior for decisional flexibility in psychosis.
Article in Psychological assessment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computational psychiatry aims to quantify individual patients' psychiatric pathology by measuring behavior during psychophysical tasks and characterizing the neurocomputational parameters underlying specific decision-making systems. While this approach has great potential for informing us about specific computational processes associated with psychopathology, the fundamental psychometric properties of computational assessments remain understudied. Optimizing these psychometric properties, including test-retest reliability, is essential for clinical utility. To address this gap, we assessed the test-retest reliability of manifest behavior and computational model parameters of a probabilistic reward and reversal learning task, two-armed Bandit, using intraclass correlations (ICCs) in 179 adults, including those with various psychosis-spectrum disorders and undiagnosed controls. We studied two computational models from recent literature: regression modeling of choice strategies and a hidden Markov model. The test-retest reliability for both manifest behavior (0.24 ≤ ICCs ≤ 0.54) and computational parameters (0.30 ≤ ICCs ≤ 0.61) ranged from poor to moderate, which was not explained by practice effects. Computational parameters did not outperform manifest behavior parameters. The reliability of computational parameters was generally-though not significantly-higher in healthy adults, which may potentially reflect the internal heterogeneity of categorical psychiatric diagnoses. Computational modeling holds promise, but tasks and analyses must be optimized for greater reliability before proceeding into clinical use. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.