On the correlation between children's performances on electronic board tasks and nonverbal intelligence test measures
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Sample correlations from some simpler validation studies suggest intertask correlations of 0.45-0.60.
“However, sample correlations from some of the simpler validation studies suggest intertask correlations of 0.45-0.60 [28,37,39,63].”
From Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy (2016) · cites this paper as [63]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 7
- Authors
- Verhaegh, J., Fontijn, W. F. J., & Resing, W. C. M.
- Affiliations
- Philips (Netherlands) (NL)
- Leiden University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Verhaegh, Janneke
- ORCID
- Resing, Wilma C.M.
- Venue
- Computers & Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-11
- Volume
- 69
- Pages
- 419-430
- ISSN
- 0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2063038260
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Computers & Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
- Keywords
- tangible user interfaces, nonverbal intelligence, WISC-III, Raven's Progressive Matrices, memory span, psychometric validation, cognitive development assessment
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
