Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The National Adult Reading Test as a measure of premorbid intelligence: A comparison with estimates derived from demographic variables

BRIGHT, PETER, JALDOW, ELI, KOPELMAN, MICHAEL D.·2002·Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society

Abstract

Since its publication in 1982, the National Adult Reading Test (NART; Revised Version, NART–R) has become a widely accepted method for estimating premorbid levels of intelligence in neuropsychological research. However, the assumption that NART/NART–R performance is relatively independent of brain damage has been increasingly challenged in recent years. In a number of conditions, including Alzheimer dementia and Korsakoff's syndrome, studies have indicated a deterioration in reading ability, leading to an underestimated premorbid IQ. In a reaction to these studies, some researchers have advocated the use of demographic variables as a more suitable foundation for accurately predicting premorbid intelligence. We addressed this issue by calculating IQ estimates on the basis of NART/NART–R, demographic variables, and a combination of the two approaches and by comparing these with current WAIS/WAIS–R IQ in patients with Korsakoff's syndrome, Alzheimer dementia, frontal or temporal lobe lesions, and in healthy controls. Estimated premorbid IQs did not differ across groups, whether derived from NART/NART–R or demographic variables. Those based on NART/NART–R demonstrated higher correlations with current WAIS/WAIS–R IQ in controls and patients than those derived from demographic variables. An equation combining NART scores with demographic variables did not significantly increase the amount of variance in IQ explained by NART only, either in patients or controls. The data offer reassurance regarding the continued use of NART as a valid estimate of premorbid intelligence in a number of conditions. (JINS, 2002, 8, 847–854.)

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 · 10.1017/s1355617702860131

Cites

1 of 1 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

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 293

Metadata

Authors
BRIGHT, P., JALDOW, E., & KOPELMAN, M. D.
Venue
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
Published
2002-09
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
847-854
ISSN
  • 1355-6177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7661
OpenAlex
W2008448232
Cited by
293
References
1
FWCI
18.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The National Adult Reading Test as a measure of premorbid intelligence: A comparison with estimates derived from demographic variables. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s1355617702860131
The paper
BRIGHT, P., JALDOW, E., & KOPELMAN, M. D. (2002). The National Adult Reading Test as a measure of premorbid intelligence: A comparison with estimates derived from demographic variables. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617702860131

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.