Validation of a Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment (NEPSY) through comparison of neurological, scholastic concerns, and control groups
Open accessAbstract
Validity of the standard, 13 subtest A Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment (NEPSY) was investigated by comparing scores for 30 children with neurological conditions, 35 children with scholastic concerns, and 39 controls. Overall differences were found among the groups with and without controlling for IQ (Lambda = .60, Lambda = .001; Lambda = .70, P < .001). Four of five NEPSY domain scores differed among the three groups. Language and Sensorimotor domain score differences were found even when IQ was controlled, and group status accounted for substantial variance in these domain scores. Regarding specific tasks, Phonological Processing and Fingertip Tapping were among the subtests that varied the most between groups, especially when children with scholastic concerns were compared with controls. Findings offer preliminary support for the validity of several NEPSY indexes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 28 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
Overall NEPSY domain scores differed among the three groups (neurological, scholastic concerns, and controls) in a one-way MANOVA, Wilks' Λ = .60, F(10, 194) = 5.69, P < .001.
“A significant group effect was indicated at the .05level (Wilks' Λ = .60,F(10, 194) = 5.69, P < .001)documenting overall NEPSY differences among the groups”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
In post hoc analyses, the neurological group performed poorer than controls on the Language domain (P = .005).
“With respect to the Language domain, the neurological group performed poorer than the controls, P = .005”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
In post hoc analyses, the neurological group performed poorer than controls on the Attention/Executive Function domain (P = .01).
“Regarding the Attention/Executive Function domain, only the neurological group performed poorer than the controls, P = .01.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
Four of five NEPSY domain scores differed among the three groups: Attention/Executive Function, Language, Memory and Learning, and Sensorimotor.
“Four of five NEPSY domain scores differed among the three groups.”
- Also stated in: § 2. Results · plain
“The following four domain scores were found to contribute to the significant multivariate result: Attention/Executive Function, F(2, 101) = 4.59, P = .01;Language, F(2, 101) = 11.95,P < .001;Memory and Learning, F(2, 101) = 4.72, P = .01;and Sensorimotor, F(2, 101) = 19.44,P < .001.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Also stated in: § 2. Results · plain
- Findingown data
In post hoc analyses, the scholastic concerns group performed poorer than controls on the Language domain (P < .001).
“and the scholastic concerns group performed poorer than controls, P < .001.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
When controlling for FSIQ, the scholastic concerns group performed poorer than controls on all three Sensorimotor subtests: Fingertip Tapping, Imitating Hand Positions, and Visuomotor Precision.
“Follow-up ANCOVAs revealed the scholastic group performed significantly poorer than controls on all three Sensorimotor subtests: Fingertip Tapping, F(1, 71) = 10.64,P = .002,Imitating Hand Positions, F(1, 71) = 9.94, P = .002,and Visuomotor Precision, F(1, 71) = 6.37,P = .01.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
The neurological group performed poorer than the control group on all three Language domain subtests: Comprehension of Instructions, Phonological Processing, and Speeded Naming.
“Follow-up ANOVAs revealed the neurological group performed poorer than the control group on all Language domain subtests: Comprehension of Instructions, F(1, 67) = 4.28, P = .04;Phonological Processing, F(1, 67) = 13.30,P = .001;and Speeded Naming, F(1, 67) = 6.37,P = .01.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
The Memory and Learning composite and individual subtest scores failed to distinguish neurological from control groups.
“The Memory and Learning composite and individual subtest scores failed to distinguish neurological from control groups”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Considerable variance was explained when both scholastic concerns and neurological groups were compared with controls on the Language domain and its component subtests.
“In contrast, considerable variance was explained when both scholastic concerns and neurological groups were compared with controls on the Language domain and its component subtests.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Group membership explained substantial variance in Sensorimotor domain scores when either clinical group was contrasted with controls: 27% for neurological and 30% for scholastic concerns versus controls.
“group membership explained substantial variance in Sensorimotor domain scores when either clinical group was contrasted with controls (27% and 30% for neurological and scholastic concerns versus controls, respectively).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Four of the five NEPSY domains differed among the groups when IQ was not controlled.
“Four of the five NEPSY domains differed among the groups being studied when IQ was not controlled”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
No known studies beyond those provided in the NEPSY manual have attempted to validate the English language version of the NEPSY.
“No known studies beyond those provided in the NEPSY manual have attempted to validate the English language version of the NEPSY.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
When controlling for FSIQ, the scholastic concerns group performed poorer than the neurological group on the Language domain (P = .004).
“Regarding the Language domain, the scholastic concerns group performed poorer than the neurological group, F(1, 100) = 8.66, P = .004”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
The neurological group performed poorer than the control group on all three Sensorimotor subtests: Fingertip Tapping, Imitating Hand Positions, and Visuomotor Precision.
“Follow-up ANOVAs revealed the neurological group performed poorer than the control group on all three subtests: Fingertip Tapping, F(1, 67) = 12.20, P = .001;Imitating Hand Positions, F(1, 67) = 12.52, P = .001;and Visuomotor Precision, F(1, 67) = 12.66, P = .001.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
When controlling for FSIQ, the scholastic concerns group performed poorer than controls on Phonological Processing and Speeded Naming subtests.
“Follow-up ANCOVAs revealed the scholastic concerns group performed significantly poorer than controls on Phonological Processing, F(1, 71) = 16.53,P < .001,and Speeded Naming, F(1, 71) = 4.56, P = .04.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
On the NEPSY Auditory Attention and Visual Attention tests, little variance was explained by group membership.
“on NEPSY timed tests designed to tap persistence, attention, and response inhibition (viz., Auditory Attention and Visual Attention), little variance was explained by group membership.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Even when controlling for FSIQ, performances on the five NEPSY domain scores varied among groups, Wilks' Λ = .70, F(10, 192) = 3.82, P < .001.
“Even when controlling for FSIQ, performances on the five NEPSY domain scores were found to vary among groups beyond the .05level of significance, Wilks' Λ = .70,F(10, 192) = 3.82, P < .001”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
When IQ differences were statistically controlled, the data continued to reveal group differences on the NEPSY.
“When IQ differences were statistically controlled, the data continued to reveal group differences on the NEPSY.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The scholastic concerns group performed poorer than the control group on all three Sensorimotor subtests: Fingertip Tapping, Imitating Hand Positions, and Visuomotor Precision.
“Following the same procedure, the scholastic concerns group was found to perform significantly poorer than the control group on the same three subtests, F(1, 72) = 18.64,P < .001;F(1, 72) = 14.82,P < .001;and F(1, 72) = 11.23,P = .001,respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
The Tower subtest failed to produce lower scores for either clinical group than controls.
“The Tower subtest, an analog of the widely studied Tower of London and Tower of Hanoi (Levin et al., 1991;Shallice, 1982), failed to produce lower scores for either of the clinical groups than controls.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
When IQ was added to the analysis, only the Language and Sensorimotor domain scores continued to vary among groups.
“but when IQ was added to the analysis, only the Language and Sensorimotor domain scores continued to vary among groups.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In post hoc analyses, the scholastic concerns group performed poorer than controls on the Memory and Learning domain (P = .01).
“Regarding the Memory and Learning domain, the scholastic concerns group performed poorer than the controls, P = .01.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingnone given
Absent from the literature search were formal validation studies, especially those using clinical samples conducted in North America.
“Absent from the literature search were formal validation studies, especially those using clinical samples conducted in North America.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Children with neurological conditions had lower mean Sensorimotor scores than controls.
“Lower mean scores among children with neurological conditions com-pared to controls were entirely expected.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Phonological Processing and Speeded Naming yielded the study's only differences between the two clinical groups.
“Moreover, Phonological Processing and Speeded Naming yielded the study's only differences between the two clinical groups.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The scholastic concerns group performed poorer than the control group on Memory for Names and Narrative Memory subtests.
“Follow-up ANOVAs indicated the scholastic concerns group performed poorer on Memory for Names, F(1, 72) = 15.89,P < .001;and Narrative Memory, F(1, 72) = 6.88,P = .01.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
The neurological group performed poorer than the control group on Auditory Attention and Response Set and Visual Attention subtests.
“Follow-up ANOVAs revealed the neurological group performed poorer than the control group on Auditory Attention and Response Set, F(1, 67) = 4.50, P = .04,and Visual Attention, F(1, 67) = 5.33, P = .02.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
The scholastic concerns group performed poorer than the control group on all three Language domain subtests: Comprehension of Instructions, Phonological Processing, and Speeded Naming.
“Follow-up ANOVAs revealed the scholastic concerns group performed poorer than the control group on all Language domain subtests: Comprehension of Instructions, F(1, 72) = 8.13, P = .006;Phonological Processing, F(1, 72) = 29.94,P < .001;and Speeded Naming, F(1, 72) = 13.73,P < .001.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingreasoning
Only one of the five English language NEPSY studies explicitly concerned the instrument's validation.
“only one of the studies, a factor analytic investigation, explicitly concerned the instrument's validation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
IQs differed among the three groups.
“As was speculated, IQs differed among the three groups.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The only nonverbal subtest within the Memory and Learning domain, which involves recall of faces, resulted in no such group differences.
“the only nonverbal subtest within this domain, which involves recall of faces, resulted in no such group differences.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
For the most part, the Language domain differences were true regardless of whether IQ effects were controlled.
“For the most part, this was true regardless of whether IQ effects were controlled.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Reading problems were common among this study's scholastic concerns group.
“As reading problems were common among this study's scholastic concerns group it makes sense that these two subtests would prove difficult.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
When controlling for FSIQ, both the neurological and scholastic concerns groups performed poorer than controls on the Sensorimotor domain.
“Post hoc F tests examining the Sensorimotor domain indicated that both the neurological, F(1, 100) = 12.75, P = .001,and scholastic concerns, F(1, 100) = 19.94,P < .001,groups performed poorer than controls.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
The Language domain differences persisted after IQ was covaried.
“Equally outstanding is the fact that these differences persisted after IQ was covaried.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
When controlling for FSIQ, the scholastic concerns group performed poorer than the control group on the Language domain (P = .002).
“and the scholastic concerns group performed poorer than the control group, F(1, 100) = 10.03,P = .002.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
Once group IQ differences were accounted for, children with scholastic concerns scored no worse on Memory and Learning tasks than counterparts in the control group.
“Once group IQ differences were accounted for in our study, which presumably includes verbal ability differences, children with scholastic concerns scored no worse on Memory and Learning tasks than counterparts in the control group.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Group IQ differences in this study include verbal ability differences.
- Findingown data
Sensorimotor domain scores were significantly different between both clinical groups and controls, even when IQ was covaried.
“Domain scores were significantly different between both clinical groups and controls, even when IQ was covaried.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In post hoc analyses, both the neurological and scholastic concerns groups performed poorer than the control group on the Sensorimotor domain (P < .001).
“Finally, both the neurological and scholastic concerns groups performed poorer than the control group, P < .001 on the Sensorimotor domain.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
When controlling for FSIQ, only the Language and Sensorimotor domains differed among groups.
“Follow-up ANCOVAs revealed only the Language, F(2, 100) = 6.56,P = .002,and Sen- sorimotor, F(2, 100) = 11.05,P < .001,domains differed among groups.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Findingown data
There were no differences between either of the two clinical groups on the entire Visuospatial domain, even when group IQ differences were disregarded.
“There were no differences between either of the two clinical groups on the entire Visuospatial domain, even when group IQ differences were disregarded.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Our findings failed to indicate that copying tasks, at least as presented by the NEPSY, yielded much information about the performance of these three groups of children.
“Our findings failed to indicate that such copying tasks, at least as presented by the NEPSY, yielded much information about the performance of these three groups of children.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The NEPSY appears to pass an important preliminary test of neuropsychological validity.
“The NEPSY appears to pass an important preliminary test of neuropsychological validity.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The children in the neurological and scholastic concerns groups are representative of children with those conditions in the broader clinical population.
- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Interpretationown data
These data seem to support the contention that NEPSY scores are distinct among children with scholastic concerns, neurological conditions, and unimpaired status.
“These data seem to support the contention that NEPSY scores are distinct among these three groups”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The children in the neurological and scholastic concerns groups are representative of children with those conditions in the broader clinical population.
- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Interpretationreasoning
These findings offer indirect support for the validity of Phonological Processing and Speeded Naming in learning disability assessments.
“Accordingly, it can be argued that these findings offer indirect support for these subtests' validity in learning disability assessments.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Even when Memory and Learning domain scores differentiated scholastic concern and control group children, these differences may not have derived from explicit memory per se.
“What is more, even when Memory and Learning domain scores did differentiate scholastic concern and control group children, these differences may not have derived from explicit memory per se.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
These findings help confirm the neuropsychological validity of some portions of the NEPSY.
“As such, these findings help confirm the neuropsychological validity of some portions of the NEPSY.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The persistence of NEPSY group differences after IQ control bolsters the use of the NEPSY as part of a battery that includes IQ tests.
“This finding seems to bolster the use of the NEPSY as part of a battery that includes IQ tests.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Regarding the Sensorimotor domain, the findings were more supportive of the NEPSY's validity.
“Regarding the Sensorimotor domain, the findings were more supportive of the NEPSY's validity.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The Narrative Memory subtest is highly correlated with verbal IQ.
“(and is highly correlated with verbal IQ; Korkman, Kirk, et al., 1998).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Korkman, Kirk, et al., 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationown data
Available data appear to offer little support for the NEPSY's use regarding executive function and attention control.
“Thus, available data appear to offer little support for the NEPSY's use regarding the intensively studied domain of executive function and attention control”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Denckla, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
Memory for Names may tap phonological processes.
“Memory for Names may tap phonological processes (i.e., it requires examinees to recall phonologically exact first names of children)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Study design and conductown data
No multivariate analyses revealed a significant interaction effect between group status and FSIQ.
“Performing the requisite check for interaction effects, no multivariate analyses discussed in this section revealed a significant interaction effect between group status and FSIQ.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The indirect support for validity in learning disability assessments is likely especially true regarding reading.
“This is likely to be especially true regarding reading, although our sample was too small to create subdivisions composed of children with various types of subject matter failure.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationcitation
The Narrative Memory subtest appears to possess extreme lexical demands.
“The Narrative Memory subtest appears to possess extreme lexical demands”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Normal controls from the NEPSY standardization sample represented the most appropriate control group with which to compare the two clinical samples.
“As these children were selected using a stratified random sampling procedure based on United States census data, they represented the most appropriate control group with which to compare the two clinical samples.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Interpretationown data
Findings offer preliminary support for the validity of several NEPSY indexes.
“Findings offer preliminary support for the validity of several NEPSY indexes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The children in the neurological and scholastic concerns groups are representative of children with those conditions in the broader clinical population.
- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
- Premisecitation
Well-standardized and validated IQ tests such as the WISC-III have documented sensitivity to brain impairments.
“because well-standardized and validated IQ tests such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III (WISC-III; Wechsler, 1991) have documented sensitivity to brain impairments (e.g., Anderson, Catroppa, Rosenfeld, Haritou, & Morse, 2000;Precourt, Robaey, Lamothe, Lassonde, & Sauerwein, 2002), this study also controlled for the effect of general cognitive ability.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Wechsler, 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Anderson, Catroppa, Rosenfeld, Haritou, & Morse, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Precourt, Robaey, Lamothe, Lassonde, & Sauerwein, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationown data
There is some evidence for the neuropsychological validity of the NEPSY Language domain and its Comprehension of Instructions, Phonological Processing, and Speeded Naming subtests.
“Thus, there is some evidence for the neuropsychological validity of the NEPSY language do-main and its Comprehension of Instructions, Phonological Processing, and Speeded Naming subtests.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Memory for Names is highly correlated with reading success.
“and is highly correlated with reading success (Korkman, Kirk, et al., 1998).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Korkman, Kirk, et al., 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation
The factor analytic study of Stinnett et al. (2002) found Phonological Processing, together with Memory for Names, to possess psychometric uniqueness not found among most other NEPSY subtests.
“the factor analytic study of Stinnett et al. (2002) found Phonological Processing (together with another task involving auditory processing and linguistic output, Memory for Names) to possess psychometric uniqueness not found among most other NEPSY subtests.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Stinnett et al. (2002) source
- Study design and conductown data
Some genuine differences may have been missed because of lack of power.
“some genuine differences may have been missed because of lack of power.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Study design and conductnone given
Group heterogeneity was a limitation that may have disguised underlying differences among finer grained subgroups of children with neurological and scholastic problems.
“group heterogeneity was a limitation that may have disguised underlying differences among finer grained subgroups of children with neurological and scholastic problems.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The current study offers at least some empirical backing for the practice of supplementing, rather than replacing, Wechsler IQ tests with NEPSY.
“the current study offers at least some empirical backing for this practice.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Diagnosticians are likely to supplement, rather than replace, Wechsler IQ tests with other tests.
- Study design and conductnone given
This study did not establish the severity of children's impairments in either the neurological or scholastic groups.
“this study did not establish the severity of children's impairments in either the neurological or scholastic groups.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Study design and conductcitation
When less than 3% of test score variance was explained by group membership, the study had approximately a one in four chance of missing legitimate differences.
“when less than 3% of test score variance was explained by group membership, as occurred in several instances, our study had approximately a one in four chance of missing legitimate differences (i.e., risk of Type II error; Cohen, 1988).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Cohen, 1988
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationown data
Findings failed to document the validity of the Visuospatial domain.
“Findings failed to document the validity of the Visuospatial domain.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- May combine two claims. 9
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 15
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataMemory and Learning domain composite scores differed between children from the scholastic concerns and control groups only, and these differences were no longer found when IQ was controlled.
“Memory and Learning domain composite scores differed between children from the scholastic concerns and control groups only, and these differences were no longer found when IQ was controlled.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataLarge differences were found on the Language domain and on the Phonological Processing and Speeded Naming subtests in control versus scholastic concerns group comparisons.
“Most striking, however, were the large differences found on the Language domain and on the Phonological Processing and Speeded Naming subtests in control versus scholastic concerns group comparisons.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data29% of the variance in Phonological Processing subtest scores was explained by group membership when IQ was not considered and 19% when IQ was considered.
“For example, 29% of the variance in the Phonological Processing subtest scores was explained by group membership when IQ was not considered and 19% when IQ was considered.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataBoth Phonological Processing and Speeded Naming proved harder for the scholastic concerns group than the neurological group.
“Both tasks proved harder for the scholastic concerns than the neurological group.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataFor the Attention/Executive domain, differences were found only between children with neurological conditions and controls, and these disappeared if IQ was covaried.
“For the Attention/Executive domain, differences were found only between children with neurological conditions and controls, and these disappeared if IQ was covaried.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimThe quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataWhen controlling for FSIQ, the neurological group performed poorer than controls on Fingertip Tapping and Imitating Hand Positions subtests.
“The following Sensorimotor subtests were found to significantly contribute to the multivariate result via follow-up ANCOVAs: Fingertip Tapping, F(1, 66) = 5.29, P = .03and Imitating Hand Positions, F(1, 66) = 5.46, P = .02.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone givenA literature search concerning the English language NEPSY revealed only five studies.
“A literature search concerning the English language NEPSY revealed only five studies.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe NEPSY is promoted as both a neuropsychological and a developmental instrument.
“Because the NEPSY is promoted as both a neuropsychological and a developmental instrument (Korkman, Kirk, et al., 1998), it was deemed essential that this study use both criterion groups of children with documented neurological and developmental (school failure) conditions, as contrasted with control subjects.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Korkman, Kirk, et al., 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationWhen associations between academic skills and sensorimotor deficits have been established, they appear to relate to motor timing control rather than to NEPSY-related variables of motor speed and dexterity.
“When associations between academic skills and sensorimotor deficits have been established, they appear to relate to motor timing control rather than to NEPSY-related variables of motor speed and dexterity (Waber et al.).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Waber et al.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationDevelopmental linguistic deficits, including general verbal delays and specific phonological deficits, are linked to classroom failure, especially in reading.
“the findings concur with the extensive literature linking developmental linguistic deficits (including general verbal delays and specific phonological deficits) to classroom failure, especially in reading”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe literature links memory deficits and diverse pediatric conditions.
“the abundant literature linking memory deficits and diverse pediatric conditions (e.g., traumatic brain injury, Woodward & Donders, 1998;Yeates, Blumenstein, Patterson, & Dellis, 1995; sickle cell disease, Kral, Brown, & Hynd, 2001;epilepsy, Cohen, 1992;Seidenberg et al., 1997;acute lymphoblastic leukemia, Waber & Mullenix, 2000).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe NEPSY authors explicitly state that their instrument is suitable to assess children who present with either scholastic or neurological problems.
“The scholastic concerns group was deemed an important source of comparison in that the NEPSY's authors explicitly state that their instrument is suitable to assess children who present with either scholastic or neurological problems.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenThe multivariate normality assumption was established via Box's Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices in all multivariate analyses.
“The multivariate normality assumption was established via Box's Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices in all multivariate analyses discussed in this section.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationStandard neuropsychological batteries almost universally afford prominent roles to motor tasks.
“standard neuropsychological batteries almost universally afford prominent roles to motor tasks (e.g., Halstead Reitan Neuropsychological Battery for Older Children, Reitan & Wolfson, 1992; Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery: Children's Revision, Golden, 1987).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Reitan & Wolfson, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Golden, 1987
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe finding of group differences is arguably a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion for the NEPSY's validation in clinical use.
“This finding is arguably a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion for the NEPSY's validation in clinical use.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The children in the neurological and scholastic concerns groups are representative of children with those conditions in the broader clinical population.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThere is limited literature concerning tests of manual dexterity and school learning difficulties.
“There is limited literature concerning tests of manual dexterity and school learning difficulties (see Rosselli, Ardila, Bateman, & Guzman, 2001;Waber et al., 2000).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe practice of using a heterogeneous neurological group for test validation has been used elsewhere.
“The practice of using a heterogeneous neurological group for test validation has been used elsewhere (e.g., Reitan & Wolfson, 2002).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Reitan & Wolfson, 2002 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationNEPSY Sensorimotor tasks rely upon a portable kit only and do not necessitate laboratory equipment.
“Additionally, NEPSY Sensorimotor tasks rely upon a portable kit only and do not necessitate laboratory equipment, such as is needed for the Finger Tapping Test (Reitan & Wolfson, 1992) or the Grooved Pegboard Test (Matthews & Kløve, 1964).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Reitan & Wolfson, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Matthews & Kløve, 1964
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe NEPSY Design Copying subtest is analogous to the Bender Gestalt and the Visual-Motor Integration Test.
“the NEPSY Design Copying subtest is analogous to the Bender Gestalt (Bender, 1946) and the Visual-Motor Integration Test (Beery, 1982)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Bender, 1946
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Beery, 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe large variance in NEPSY Sensorimotor domain scores explained by membership in either the scholastic concerns versus control group speaks to the test's potential validity and the prospective importance of this class of skills in understanding children's development.
“The fact that so much variance in NEPSY Sensorimotor domain scores was explained by membership in either the scholastic concerns versus control group (especially in light of the fact that the former group was relatively heterogeneous), speaks both to the test's potential validity and the prospective importance of this class of skills in understanding children's development.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
Interpretationnone givenThis basic NEPSY validity study comparing two clinical groups with randomly selected children from a control group implies promise.
“This basic NEPSY validity study comparing two clinical groups with randomly selected children from a control group implies promise.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationAt the content level, language and motor tasks of the NEPSY are missing from the WISC-III and some have direct educational implications.
“At the content level, these types of language and motor tasks are missing from the WISC-III and some of them have direct educational implications (see Berninger & Richards, 2002;Flanagan, 2000).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Berninger & Richards, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Flanagan, 2000 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationSurveys have suggested that only Wechsler IQ scales are more commonly used than the Bender Gestalt in school-based evaluations.
“Surveys have suggested that only Wechsler IQ scales are more commonly used than the Bender Gestalt in school-based evaluations (Wilson & Reschly, 1996).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Wilson & Reschly, 1996 source
The paper relies on this without support.
The children in the neurological and scholastic concerns groups are representative of children with those conditions in the broader clinical population.
“We thus studied consecutive clinic referrals from neurology and neurosurgery clinics, each of whom had an established neurological diagnosis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The NEPSY standardization sample control group is free of neurological and scholastic concerns.
“Normal controls consisted of randomly selected individuals from the standardization sample of the NEPSY.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Group IQ differences in this study include verbal ability differences.
“Once group IQ differences were accounted for in our study, which presumably includes verbal ability differences,”
The paper relies on this without support.
Diagnosticians are likely to supplement, rather than replace, Wechsler IQ tests with other tests.
“Clinical experience suggests that diagnosticians are likely to supplement, rather than replace, the Wechsler IQ tests; the current study offers at least some empirical backing for this practice.”
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 66) = 5.29, p = .03
MinorThe paper reports p = .03 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .025. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.
Reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .025
“F(1, 66) = 5.29, P = .03”
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Doesn’t add upF(1, 66) = 5.29reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .025
“F(1, 66) = 5.29, p = .03”
- ConsistentF(10, 194) = 5.69reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(10, 194) = 5.69, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(2, 101) = 4.59reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .012
“F(2, 101) = 4.59, p = .01”
- ConsistentF(2, 101) = 11.95reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2, 101) = 11.95,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(2, 101) = 4.72reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .011
“F(2, 101) = 4.72, p = .01”
- ConsistentF(2, 101) = 19.44reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2, 101) = 19.44,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(3, 65) = 2.72reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .052
“F(3, 65) = 2.72, p = .05”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 4.5reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .038
“F(1, 67) = 4.50, p = .04”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 5.33reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .024
“F(1, 67) = 5.33, p = .02”
- ConsistentF(3, 65) = 4.5reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006
“F(3, 65) = 4.50, p = .006”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 4.28reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .042
“F(1, 67) = 4.28, p = .04”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 13.3reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 67) = 13.30,p = .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 6.37reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .014
“F(1, 67) = 6.37,p = .01”
- ConsistentF(3, 70) = 10.54reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(3, 70) = 10.54,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 72) = 8.13reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006
“F(1, 72) = 8.13, p = .006”
- ConsistentF(1, 72) = 29.94reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 72) = 29.94,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 72) = 13.73reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 72) = 13.73,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(3, 70) = 6.35reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(3, 70) = 6.35,p = .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 72) = 15.89reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 72) = 15.89,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 72) = 6.88reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .011
“F(1, 72) = 6.88,p = .01”
- ConsistentF(3, 65) = 8.05reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(3, 65) = 8.05, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(3, 70) = 10.01reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(3, 70) = 10.01,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 12.2reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 67) = 12.20, p = .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 12.52reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 67) = 12.52, p = .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 12.66reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 67) = 12.66, p = .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 72) = 18.64reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 72) = 18.64,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 72) = 14.82reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 72) = 14.82,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 72) = 11.23reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001
“F(1, 72) = 11.23,p = .001”
- ConsistentF(10, 192) = 3.82reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(10, 192) = 3.82, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(2, 100) = 6.56reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
“F(2, 100) = 6.56,p = .002”
- ConsistentF(2, 100) = 11.05reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2, 100) = 11.05,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 100) = 8.66reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004
“F(1, 100) = 8.66, p = .004”
- ConsistentF(1, 100) = 10.03reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
“F(1, 100) = 10.03,p = .002”
- ConsistentF(1, 100) = 12.75reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 100) = 12.75, p = .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 100) = 19.94reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 100) = 19.94,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(3, 60) = 2.84reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .045
“F(3, 60) = 2.84, p = .05”
- ConsistentF(1, 62) = 6.89reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .011
“F(1, 62) = 6.89,p = .01”
- ConsistentF(1, 62) = 3.86reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .054
“F(1, 62) = 3.86, p = .05”
- ConsistentF(3, 69) = 5.77reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001
“F(3, 69) = 5.77, p = .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 71) = 16.53reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 71) = 16.53,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 71) = 4.56reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .036
“F(1, 71) = 4.56, p = .04”
- ConsistentF(3, 64) = 3.23reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .028
“F(3, 64) = 3.23, p = .03”
- ConsistentF(1, 66) = 5.46reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .023
“F(1, 66) = 5.46, p = .02”
- ConsistentF(3, 69) = 6.36reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(3, 69) = 6.36,p = .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 71) = 10.64reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
“F(1, 71) = 10.64,p = .002”
- ConsistentF(1, 71) = 9.94reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
“F(1, 71) = 9.94, p = .002”
- ConsistentF(1, 71) = 6.37reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .014
“F(1, 71) = 6.37,p = .01”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Standard-battery subtest count conflicts
MinorThe abstract calls the standard battery a 13-subtest assessment, but the Methods section says it includes 14 subtests. The subtests listed there also total 14.
“Validity of the standard, 13 subtest A Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment (NEPSY) was investigated”
“For children age 5 years, 0 months to 11 years, 11 months, the standard battery, as investigated in this article, includes only 14 subtests.”
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,588 · see citing works
ASSESSMENT OF COMA AND IMPAIRED CONSCIOUSNESS
Teasdale, G., & Jennett, B. (1974) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0 · Cited by 13,215 · see citing works
Specific impairments of planning
Shallice, T. (1982) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.1982.0082 · Cited by 3,741 · see citing works
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.73 · Cited by 1,385 · see citing works
Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh : Analyzing and Understanding Data
Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2004) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 1,335 · see citing works
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R., Donahue, J., & Garon, T. (1997) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.3.468 · Cited by 1,077 · see citing works
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R., Donahue, J., & Garon, T. (1997) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037//0012-1649.33.3.468 · Cited by 1,070 · see citing works
(2001) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,044 · see citing works
Attention, Memory, and Executive Function
Lyon, G. R., Krasnegor, N. A., & McMenamin, S. (1996) · Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics · doi:10.1097/00004703-199608000-00014 · Cited by 972 · see citing works
NEPSY, Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment
Kreutzer, J. S., DeLuca, J., & Caplan, B. (2010) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_4835 · Cited by 672 · see citing works
The Relationship Between Speech-Language Impairments and Reading Disabilities
Catts, H. W. (1993) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/jshr.3605.948 · Cited by 618 · see citing works
Developmental changes in performance on tests of purported frontal lobe functioning
Levin, H. S., Culhane, K. A., Hartmann, J., Evankovich, K. D., Mattson, A. J., Harward, H. N., Ringholz, G. M., Ewing‐Cobbs, L., & Fletcher, J. M. (1991) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/87565649109540499 · Cited by 581 · see citing works
(2001) · Cited by 506 · see citing works
Snowling, M. J. (2000) · Cited by 447 · see citing works
Language Deficits in Dyslexic Children: Speech Perception, Phonology, and Morphology
Joanisse, M. F., Manis, F. R., Keating, P., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1006/jecp.1999.2553 · Cited by 394 · see citing works
Pediatric Neuropsychology : Research, Theory, and Practice
Yeates, K. O., Ris, M. D., & Taylor, H. G. (1999) · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Korkman, M., Kemp, S. L., & Kirk, U. (2001) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2001_2 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
Brain Literacy for Educators and Psychologists
(2002) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-092871-2.x5000-1 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Assessment in School Psychology Training and Practice
Wilson, M. S., & Reschly, D. J. (1996) · School Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/02796015.1996.12085799 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Neuropsychological evaluation of older children
Reitan, R. M. (1992) · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Korkman, M., & Pesonen, A.-E. (1994) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/002221949402700605 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Verbal learning and memory following pediatric closed-head injury
Yeates, K. O., Blumenstein, E., Patterson, C. M., & Delis, D. C. (1995) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617700000138 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Defining dyslexia as a developmental language disorder: An expanded view
Catts, H. W. (1996) · Topics in Language Disorders · doi:10.1097/00011363-199602000-00004 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Recovery of memory function following traumatic brain injury in pre-school children
Vicki A. Anderson, C. C. (2000) · Brain Injury · doi:10.1080/026990500413704 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Longitudinal influence of prenatal cocaine exposure on child language functioning
Bandstra, E. S., Morrow, C. E., Vogel, A. L., et al. (2002) · Neurotoxicology and Teratology · doi:10.1016/s0892-0362(02)00192-7 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Neuropsychological Assessment of Children
Rourke, B. P. (1987) · Journal of Child Neurology · doi:10.1177/088307388700200101 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Cohen, M. (1992) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/0278-2626(92)90024-g · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Neuropsychological Aspects of Pediatric Sickle Cell Disease
Kral, M. C., Brown, R. T., & Hynd, G. W. (2001) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1012901124088 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Performance of Zambian Children on the NEPSY: A Pilot Study
Mulenga, K., Ahonen, T., & Aro, M. (2001) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2001_4 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Korkman, M., Liikanen, A., & Fellman, V. (1996) · Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/01688639608408277 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Prenatal exposure to organic solvents and child neurobehavioral performance
Till, C., Koren, G., & ROVET, J. F. (2001) · Neurotoxicology and Teratology · doi:10.1016/s0892-0362(01)00141-6 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Bateman, J. R., & Guzman, M. (2001) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2001_3 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Applying Luria's Diagnostic Principles in the Neuropsychological Assessment of Children
Korkman, M. (1999) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1025659808004 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Flanagan, D. P. (2000) · School Psychology Quarterly · doi:10.1037/h0088789 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
A New Classification of Developmental Language Disorders (DLD)
(1994) · doi:10.1006/brln.1994.1044 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Reorganization of Verbal Memory Function in Early Onset Left Temporal Lobe Epilepsy
Seidenberg, M., Hermann, B. P., Schoenfeld, J., et al. (1997) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1006/brcg.1997.0931 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Précourt, S., Robaey, P., Lamothe, I., et al. (2002) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2102_4 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Neuropsychological Effects at Early School Age of Fetal Alcohol Exposure of Varying Duration
Korkman, M., Autti‐Rämö, I., Koivulehto, H., & Granström, M. (1998) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1076/chin.4.3.199.3171 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Examination of the Underlying Structure of the NEPSY: A Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment
Stinnett, T. A., Oehler-Stinnett, J., Fuqua, D. R., & Palmer, L. S. (2002) · Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · doi:10.1177/073428290202000105 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Diminished Motor Timing Control in Children Referred for Diagnosis of Learning Problems
Waber, D. P., Weiler, M. D., Bellinger, D. C., Marcus, D. J., Forbes, P. W., Wypij, D., & Wolff, P. H. (2000) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1207/s15326942dn1702_03 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Sajaniemi, N. K., Hakamies-Blomqvist, L., Katainen, S., et al. (2001) · Early Childhood Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/s0885-2006(01)00107-7 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
The relationship between speech-language impairments and reading disabilities
Catts, H. W. (1993) · doi:10.1515/9783110879575.167 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Evidence of altered dominance in children with congenital spastic hemiplegia
Korkman, M., & von Wendt, L. (1995) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617700000254 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Child neuropsychological assessment: A test of basic assumptions
Taylor, H. G., & Schatschneider, C. W. (1992) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854049208404128 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Luria‐Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery: Children's Revision
Golden, C. J. (2014) · Encyclopedia of Special Education · doi:10.1002/9781118660584.ese1458 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Farhi, D. C., & Rosenthal, N. S. (2000) · Clinics in Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0272-2712(18)30073-8 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Neuropsychological assessment in children
da Costa, D. I., Azambuja, L. S., Portuguez, M. W., et al. (2004) · Jornal de Pediatria · doi:10.2223/1175 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Luria‐Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery–Children's Revision
Dumont, R., & Willis, J. O. (2008) · Encyclopedia of Special Education · doi:10.1002/9780470373699.speced1298 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
A pattern of test findings predicting attention problems at school
(1991) · doi:10.1007/bf00919088 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Woodward, H., & Donders, J. (1998) · Applied Neuropsychology · doi:10.1207/s15324826an0503_1 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Reitan, R. M., & Wolfson, D. (2002) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/17.2.117 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Reitan, R. M. (2002) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1016/s0887-6177(00)00100-1 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Wodrich, D. L., & Kush, J. C. (1998) · Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · doi:10.1177/073428299801600303 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Lamminranta, S., Aberg, L. E., Autti, T., et al. (2001) · Journal of Intellectual Disability Research · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2788.2001.00288.x
Flagged first, then by citations
4 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [5]5. Beery, K. E. (1982). Revised administration, scoring, and teaching manual for the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration. Cleveland, OH: Modern Curriculum Press.
- [49]49. Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children (3rd ed.). San Antonio: The Psychological Corpo- ration.
- [50]50. Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children (4th ed.). San Antonio: The Psychological Corpo- ration.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vatavu, R.-D., Cramariuc, G., & Schipor, D. M. (2014) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.10.007 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
“…instrument for measuring neurocognitive functioning in children aged between 3 and 12 years old (Ahmad and Warriner, 2001; Korkman et al., 1998; Schmitt and Wodrich, 2004), and includes tests that assumes the brain as a functional mosaic interacting to serve cognitive processing (Luria, 1973).”
BackgroundMethodObstructive sleep apnoea in children: perioperative considerations
Patiño, M., Sadhasivam, S., & Mahmoud, M. (2013) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aet371 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Long term follow up of high risk children: who, why and how?
Doyle, L. W., Anderson, P. J., BATTIN, M. R., Bowen, J. R., Brown, N. C., Callanan, C., Campbell, C., Chandler, S., Cheong, J. L. Y., Darlow, B. A., et al. (2014) · BMC Pediatrics · doi:10.1186/1471-2431-14-279 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
“While numerous neuropsychological measures are available, well validated tests to consider are the NEPSY-II [49] which assesses a range of domains from 3 to 16 years, the Test of Everyday Attention for Children (TEACh) [50] for the assessment of attention from 6 to 15 years, the Children’s Memory Scale [51] for the as…”
MethodPlanning in young children: A review and synthesis
McCormack, T., & Atance, C. M. (2011) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2011.02.002 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
“Impairments in planning do not seem to be an inevitable consequence of childhood neurological disease or brain injury (Jacobs & Anderson, 2002; Schmitt & Wodrich, 2004), with only around half of Bonnier, Marique, Van Hout, and Potelle’s (2007) sample of children who had early severe brain injury…”
BackgroundNattel, S. N., Adrianzen, L., Kessler, E. C., Andelfinger, G., Dehaes, M., Côté‐Corriveau, G., & Trelles, M. P. (2017) · Canadian Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2017.09.020 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
JONSDOTTIR, S., BOUMA, A., SERGEANT, J., & SCHERDER, E. (2006) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1016/j.acn.2006.05.003 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
“There have not been many validation studies comparing the NEPSY with behavioral measures (e.g. Schmitt & Wodrich, 2004).”
BackgroundThe assessment of executive functioning in children
Henry, L. A., & Bettenay, C. (2010) · Child and Adolescent Mental Health · doi:10.1111/j.1475-3588.2010.00557.x · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Evidence-based Assessment of Cognitive Functioning in Pediatric Psychology
Campbell, J. M., Brown, R. T., Cavanagh, S. E., Vess, S. F., & Segall, M. J. (2008) · Journal of Pediatric Psychology · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsm138 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
“In addition, the WRAML has shown fairly high convergent validity with various memory indices found on general intelligence tests, and has been found to discriminate children with severe TBI from those with mild to moderate TBI.”
BackgroundMaziade, M., Rouleau, N., Lee, B., Rogers, A. K., Davis, L., & Dickson, R. A. (2009) · Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1089/cap.2008.0166 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
“…neuropsychological instrument consisting of 27 subtests that evalu-ateneuropsychologicalstatusofchildrenaged3–12yearsacrossfive domains (attention = executive functions, language, visual–spatial processing, sensorimotor, and memory and learning) (Korkman et al. 2001; Schmitt and Wodrich 2004).”
Krasny‐Pacini, A., Chevignard, M., Lancien, S., Escolano, S., Laurent‐Vannier, A., Agostini, M. D., & Meyer, P. G. (2016) · Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2016.06.001 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
The effects of anticholinergic drugs on attention span and short‐term memory skills in children
Giramonti, K. M., Kogan, B. A., & Halpern, L. F. (2007) · Neurourology and Urodynamics · doi:10.1002/nau.20507 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
“On the other hand, the NEPSY is a standardized test well accepted for use in children and if anything, our results show a tendency to improved scores in children on anticholinergic medications.(12) Overall, a better explanation is that children are more resistant to the effects of anticholinergic medications.”
ResultTaverna, E. C., Huedo-Medina, T. B., FEIN, D. A., & Eigsti, I. (2021) · Research in Autism · doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2021.101824 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Thimerosal Exposure in Early Life and Neuropsychological Outcomes 7–10 Years Later
Barile, J. P., Kuperminc, G. P., Weintraub, E., Mink, J. W., & Thompson, W. (2011) · Journal of Pediatric Psychology · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsr048 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
“All of these tests have well-established reliability and validity (Gioia, Isquith, Retzlaff, & Espy, 2002; Mayes & Crowell, 2001; Schmitt & Wodrich, 2004).”
BackgroundEvaluation and Assessment Issues in the Diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Nass, R. D. (2005) · Seminars in Pediatric Neurology · doi:10.1016/j.spen.2005.12.002 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Morsanuto, S., Cassese, F. P., Tafuri, F., & Tafuri, D. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151813456 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Visu‐Petra, L., Bengà, O., & Miclea, M. (2007) · Cognitie, Creier, Comportament · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Lincă, F. I., Budișteanu, M., Popovici, D. V., & Cucu, N. (2022) · Children · doi:10.3390/children9111637 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“In order to measure the level of attention deficit and hyperactivity, the Romanian version of the Teacher Rating Scale/TRS-P from BASC-2 (Behaviour Assessment System for Children-2) developed and standardized by [48] for 6–11-year-old children was used.”
MethodNeuropsychological Predictors of ODD Symptom Dimensions in Young Children
Griffith, S. F., Arnold, D. H., Rolon‐Arroyo, B., & Harvey, E. A. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1266643 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“Children with neurological impairment have been found to have lower scores on the NEPSY than controls (Schmitt & Wodrich, 2004).”
Backgroundvan den Berg, L., de Weerd, A., Reuvekamp, M., & van der Meere, J. J. (2021) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2021.1888906 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Beeghly, M., Jacobs, R. R., Martin, B. M., Cabral, H., Heeren, T., & Frank, D. A. (2014) · Neurotoxicology and Teratology · doi:10.1016/j.ntt.2014.06.007 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
“…children, including children with neurological problems, survivors of extremely low birth weight, children with attention deficit disorders and other academic concerns, and children with a history of physical abuse and neglect (Kemp et al., 2001; Nolin and Ethier, 2007; Schmitt and Wodrich, 2004).”
BackgroundAn Observational Study of Children’s Problem Solving during Play with Friends
Gold, Z. S., Perlman, J., Howe, N., et al. (2022) · Journal of Cognition and Development · doi:10.1080/15248372.2022.2058509 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Lerner, M. D., Potthoff, L. M., & Hunter, S. J. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128303 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Reasons and rationales for neuropsychological tests in a multitier system of school services
Schmitt, A. J., & Wodrich, D. L. (2008) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.20329 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citationThe CAS and NEPSY as measures of cognitive processes: examining the underlying constructs
Jarratt, K. P. (2006) · OakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries) · Cited by 4 · see citing works
ADHD and its relationship to comorbidity and gender
Jónsdóttir, S. (2006) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Robledo-Castro, C., Mejía, C. V., & Chiu, J. L. (2024) · MethodsX · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2024.103145 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“• Visuospatial Processing: Assessed using the NEPSY-II battery’s [ 61 ] geometric puzzles scale [ 62 ], designed to evaluate mental rotation and visuospatial analysis ( Fig.”
Singh, L. J., Floyd, R. G., Reynolds, M. R., Pike, N. M., & Huenergarde, M. C. (2025) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2024.2357376 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Muñoz, M. M. P., & Filippetti, V. A. (2022) · The Journal of Genetic Psychology · doi:10.1080/00221325.2022.2156266 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Dumas, L.-É., Bonnard-Couton, V., Golse, B., & Askenazy-Gittard, F. (2021) · L Encéphale · doi:10.1016/j.encep.2021.06.010 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Aspects du bilan neuropsychologique chez l’enfant et l’adolescent
Jacquet-Andrieu, A. (2014) · Neuropsychiatrie de l Enfance et de l Adolescence · doi:10.1016/j.neurenf.2014.08.005 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Neuropsychological factors underlying developmental dyslexia, measured by NEPSY-I
Mohai, K. (2014) · Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle · doi:10.1556/mpszle.69.2014.1.5 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Executive Function at Early School Age in Children Born Very Preterm
Clark, C. A. C. (2008) · UC Research Repository (University of Canterbury) · doi:10.26021/6124 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Dumas, L.-É., Fernandez, A., Auby, P., & Askenazy-Gittard, F. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306338 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS
Colón-torres, M. (2011) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Follow-Up and Follow-Through after Discharge and Early Intervention Services
Hintz, S. R., Lakshmanan, A., Litt, J. S., & Mcmanus, B. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009418034.054
Dumas, L.-É., Askenazy-Gittard, F., & Fernandez, A. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0332910
The neuropsychological profile of the child with hearing and vision impairment
Ionela, L. F., & Lavinia, M. F. (2025) · Journal of Education Society & Multiculturalism · doi:10.2478/jesm-2025-0003
Vista, A., & Kim, H. (2024) · The Educational and Developmental Psychologist · doi:10.1080/20590776.2024.2383178
“Various analyses have been conducted examining psychometric properties of the NEPSY, including the factor structure (e.g., Stinnett et al., 2002; Visu-Petra et al., 2007, 2012) and comparison of scores across different subgroups (Schmitt & Wodrich, 2004).”
Robledo-Castro, C., Mejía, C. V., & Chiu, J. L. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5056065
Suarez, J. R. (2012) · University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota)
Remédiation cognitive en pédopsychiatrie
(2012) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-2-294-71342-2.00005-x
Abedi, A. (2011) · Advances in Cognitive Science
Marcin, R. (2010) · CommonKnowledge Research Repository (Pacific University Oregon)
Neuropsychology in Asperger's Disorder
Miller, L. S., & Ahmed, F. S. (2008) · Medical psychiatry · doi:10.3109/9780849383649.007
- Authors
- SCHMITT, A.
- Affiliations
- Phoenix Children's Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- SCHMITT, A
- ORCID
- SCHMITT, A
- Venue
- Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1077-1093
- ISSN
- 0887-6177 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2119829662
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Development and Preterm Care
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Keywords
- NEPSY, test validity, neurologically impaired children, language domains, phonological processing, neuropsychological assessment
- MeSH terms
- Achievement, Child, Female, Humans, Language Disorders, Male, Neuropsychological Tests
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.
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
