Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 192

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Action (verb) fluency: Test–retest reliability, normative standards, and construct validity

WOODS, STEVEN PAUL, SCOTT, J. COBB, SIRES, DANIELLE A., GRANT, IGOR, HEATON, ROBERT K., TRÖSTER, ALEXANDER I., GROUP, THE HIV NEUROBEHAVIORAL RESEARCH CENTER (HNRC)·2005·Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society

Abstract

Action (verb) fluency is a newly developed verbal fluency task that requires the examinee to rapidly generate as many verbs (i.e., “things that people do”) as possible within 1 min. Existing literature indicates that action fluency may be more sensitive to frontal–basal ganglia loop pathophysiology than traditional noun fluency tasks (e.g., animal fluency), which is consistent with the hypothesized neural dissociation between noun and verb retrieval. In the current study, a series of analyses were undertaken to examine the psychometric properties of action fluency in a sample of 174 younger healthy participants. The first set of analyses describes the development of demographically adjusted normative data for action fluency. Next, a group of hypothesis-driven correlational analyses reveals significant associations between action fluency and putative tests of executive functions, verbal working memory, verbal fluency, and information processing speed, but not between action fluency and tests of learning or constructional praxis. The final set of analyses demonstrates the test–retest stability of the action fluency test and provides standards for determining statistically reliable changes in performance. In sum, this study enhances the potential clinical applicability of action fluency by providing demographically adjusted normative data and demonstrating evidence for its reliability and construct validity. (JINS, 2005,11, 408–415.)

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/s1355617705050460

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 192

Metadata

Authors
WOODS, S. P., SCOTT, J. C., SIRES, D. A., GRANT, I., HEATON, R. K., TRÖSTER, A. I., & GROUP, T. H. N. R. C. (.
Venue
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
Published
2005-07
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
408-415
ISSN
  • 1355-6177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7661
OpenAlex
W2162044456
Cited by
192
References
2
FWCI
4.04
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: Action (verb) fluency: Test–retest reliability, normative standards, and construct validity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s1355617705050460
The paper
WOODS, S. P., SCOTT, J. C., SIRES, D. A., GRANT, I., HEATON, R. K., TRÖSTER, A. I., & GROUP, T. H. N. R. C. (. (2005). Action (verb) fluency: Test–retest reliability, normative standards, and construct validity. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617705050460

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.