Cited by 101Historical and Modern Theater StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPsychological Testing and Assessment

The Penn Conditional Exclusion Test: a new measure of executive-function with alternate forms for repeat administration

Kurtz, M·2004·Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

Abstract

Studies of change in neuropsychological function over time in both healthy and diseased populations have been hindered by the absence of alternate forms of most commonly used neuropsychological tests. The Penn Conditional Exclusion Test (PCET) was developed as a new cognitive instrument to assess "executive" functioning with four alternate forms. In Study 1, the PCET was administered in counterbalanced order to 80 healthy young adults to establish equivalent test difficulty. Results revealed that the four versions were related on categories achieved, total number of errors and total number of trials. In Study 2, the PCET was administered to 25 healthy adults of a wide age range with a battery of computerized neuropsychological tests to assess construct validity. Convergent validity was confirmed by positive correlations between the PCET and a measure of abstraction. Divergent validity was established through low, nonsignificant correlations between the PCET and measures of facial emotion recognition, word and face memory, visuospatial function, and verbal reasoning.

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 · 10.1016/s0887-6177(03)00003-9

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • The neurocognitive tasks were validated computerized measures of working memory, sustained attention, and executive function.

    “using validated computerized tasks: the Letter-N-back task of working memory (28), the Penn Continuous Performance Task (P-CPT) of sustained attention (29), and the Conditional Exclusion Test (CET) of abstraction in executive function (30, 31).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bornstein, R. A., Baker, G. B., & Douglass, A. B. (1987). Short-term reliability of the Halstead-Reitan battery in a normal sample. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease , 175 , 232-299.
  2. Rahmani, L., Geva, N., Rochberg, J., Trope, I., & Bore, B. (1990). Issues in the neurocognitive assessment and training. In E. Vakil, D. Hoffein, & Z. Groswasser (Eds.), Rehabilitation of the brain injured person: A neuropsychological perspective (pp. 43-60). New York: Freund Publishing House.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kurtz, M.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Kurtz, M
Venue
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
Published
2004-03
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
191-201
ISSN
0887-6177 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2151445399
Cited by
101
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1k05mh001336-01)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH19112, MH 43880, MH01336, MH-65377, R03MH065377, T32MH019112)
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01RR0040, M01RR000040)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
executive function, alternate test forms, test-retest reliability, construct validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, neuropsychological assessment, cognitive change over time, abstraction
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Cognition, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Reference Values, Task Performance and Analysis, Reproducibility of Results

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