Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Catch the ruler: concurrent validity and test–retest reliability of the ReacStick measures of reaction time and inhibitory executive function in older people

van Schooten, Kimberley S., Duran, Lionne, Visschedijk, Maike, Pijnappels, Mirjam, Lord, Stephen R., Richardson, James, Delbaere, Kim·2019·Aging Clinical and Experimental Research
DOI 10.1007/s40520-018-1050-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40520-018-1050-6

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

1 more claim about this paper

Create a free account to see every claim other papers make about this one.

See all claims — free account

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Springer S, Giladi N, Peretz C et al (2006) Dual-tasking effects on gait variability: the role of aging, falls, and executive function. Mov Disord 21:950–957. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.20848 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Yogev-Seligmann G, Hausdorff JM, Giladi N (2008) The role of executive function and attention in gait. Mov Disord 23:329–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.21720 · DOI
  3. Lord S, Galna B, Verghese J et al (2013) Independent domains of gait in older adults and associated motor and nonmotor attributes: validation of a factor analysis approach. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci 68:820–827. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/gls255 · DOI
  4. Herman T, Mirelman A, Giladi N et al (2010) Executive control deficits as a prodrome to falls in healthy older adults: a prospective study linking thinking, walking, and falling. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci 65:1086–1092. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glq077 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Mirelman A, Herman T, Brozgol M et al (2012) Executive function and falls in older adults: new findings from a five-year prospective study link fall risk to cognition. PLoS One 7:e40297. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040297 · DOI
  6. Delbaere K, Kochan NA, Close JC et al (2012) Mild cognitive impairment as a predictor of falls in community-dwelling older people. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 20:845–853. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e31824afbc4 · DOI
  7. Hsu CL, Nagamatsu LS, Davis JC et al (2012) Examining the relationship between specific cognitive processes and falls risk in older adults: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int 23:2409–2424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-1992-z · DOI
  8. Montero-Odasso M, Verghese J, Beauchet O et al (2012) Gait and cognition: a complementary approach to understanding brain function and the risk of falling. J Am Geriatr Soc 60:2127–2136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04209.x · DOI
  9. Verbruggen F, Logan GD (2009) Models of response inhibition in the stop-signal and stop-change paradigms. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 33:647–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.08.014 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Wecker NS, Kramer JH, Wisniewski A et al (2000) Age effects on executive ability. Neuropsychology 14:409–414 · DOI
  11. Diamond A (2013) Executive functions. Annu rev Psychol 64:135–168 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Lunt L, Bramham J, Morris RG et al (2012) Prefrontal cortex dysfunction and ‘Jumping to Conclusions’: bias or deficit? J Neuropsychol 6:65–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-6653.2011.02005.x · DOI
  13. Anstey KJ, Wood J, Kerr G et al (2009) Different cognitive profiles for single compared with recurrent fallers without dementia. Neuropsychology 23:500 · DOI
  14. Schoene D, Delbaere K, Lord SR (2017) Impaired response selection during stepping predicts falls in older people—a cohort study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 18:719–725 · DOI
  15. Eckner JT, Richardson JK, Kim H et al (2012) A novel clinical test of recognition reaction time in healthy adults. Psychol Assess 24:249–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025042 · DOI
  16. Eckner JT, Chandran S, Richardson JK (2011) Investigating the role of feedback and motivation in clinical reaction time assessment. PM R J Injury Funct Rehabil 3:1092–1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2011.04.022 · DOI
  17. Eckner JT, Kutcher JS, Broglio SP et al (2014) Effect of sport-related concussion on clinically measured simple reaction time. Br J Sports Med 48:112–118. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2012-091579 · DOI
  18. Eckner JT, Lipps DB, Kim H et al (2011) Can a clinical test of reaction time predict a functional head-protective response? Med Sci Sports Exerc 43:382–387. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181f1cc51 · DOI
  19. Delbaere K, Valenzuela T, Woodbury A et al (2015) Evaluating the effectiveness of a home-based exercise programme delivered through a tablet computer for preventing falls in older community-dwelling people over 2 years: study protocol for the Standing Tall randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 5:e009173. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009173 · DOI
  20. Lord SR, Menz HB, Tiedemann A (2003) A physiological profile approach to falls risk assessment and prevention. Phys Ther 83:237–252 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Loring DW et al (2004) Neuropsychological assessment. Oxford University Press, USA
  22. Sanchez-Cubillo I, Perianez JA, Adrover-Roig D et al (2009) Construct validity of the Trail Making Test: role of task-switching, working memory, inhibition/interference control, and visuomotor abilities. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 15:438–450. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617709090626 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd. Erlbaum, Hillsdale
  24. Cicchetti D (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instrument in psychology. Psychol Assess 6:284–290 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Eckner JT, Whitacre RD, Kirsch NL et al (2009) Evaluating a clinical measure of reaction time: an observational study. Percept Motor Skills 108:717–720 · DOI
  26. Montare A (2010) The simplest chronoscope II: reaction time measured by meterstick versus machine. Percept Mot Skills 111:819–828 · DOI
  27. Goodale MA, Milner AD (1992) Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci 15:20–25 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Bari A, Robbins TW (2013) Inhibition and impulsivity: behavioral and neural basis of response control. Progress Neurobiol 108:44–79 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Der G, Deary IJ (2006) Age and sex differences in reaction time in adulthood: results from the United Kingdom Health and Lifestyle Survey. Psychol Aging 21:62 · DOI
  30. Richardson JK, Eckner JT, Allet L et al (2017) Complex and simple clinical reaction times are associated with gait, balance, and major fall injury in older subjects with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 96:8 · DOI
  31. Verghese J, Wang C, Ayers E et al (2017) Brain activation in high-functioning older adults and falls: Prospective cohort study. Neurology 88:191–197. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000003421 · DOI

Cited by

See all 28

Metadata

Authors
van Schooten, K. S., Duran, L., Visschedijk, M., Pijnappels, M., Lord, S. R., Richardson, J., & Delbaere, K.
ORCID
van Schooten, Kimberley S.
Venue
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-10-09
Volume
31
Issue
8
Pages
1147-1154
ISSN
1720-8319
DOI
10.1007/s40520-018-1050-6
Cited by
28
References
4
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Funders
  • Human Frontier Science Program (LT001080/2017)
  • Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research (91714344)
  • Newman Family Foundation
  • Australian National Health and Medical Research Council

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.