Cited by 69Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchHistorical and Modern Theater StudiesPsychological Testing and Assessment

Psychometric properties of the NIH Toolbox cognition battery in healthy older adults: reliability, validity, and agreement with standard neuropsychological tests

Open access
Scott, Emmi P., Sorrell, Anne, Benitez, Andreana·2019·Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society

Abstract

Objective: Few independent studies have examined the psychometric properties of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) in older adults, despite growing interest in its use for clinical purposes. In this paper we report the test–retest reliability and construct validity of the NIHTB-CB, as well as its agreement or concordance with traditional neuropsychological tests of the same construct to determine whether tests could be used interchangeably. Methods: Sixty-one cognitively healthy adults ages 60–80 completed “gold standard” (GS) neuropsychological tests, NIHTB-CB, and brain MRI. Test–retest reliability, convergent/discriminant validity, and agreement statistics were calculated using Pearson’s correlations, concordance correlation coefficients (CCC), and root mean square deviations. Results: Test–retest reliability was acceptable (CCC = .73 Fluid; CCC = .85 Crystallized). The NIHTB-CB Fluid Composite correlated significantly with cerebral volumes (r’s = |.35−.41|), and both composites correlated highly with their respective GS composites (r’s = .58−.84), although this was more variable for individual tests. Absolute agreement was generally lower (CCC = .55 Fluid; CCC = .70 Crystallized) due to lower precision in fluid scores and systematic overestimation of crystallized composite scores on the NIHTB-CB. Conclusions: These results support the reliability and validity of the NIHTB-CB in healthy older adults and suggest that the fluid composite tests are at least as sensitive as standard neuropsychological tests to medial temporal atrophy and ventricular expansion. However, the NIHTB-CB may generate different estimates of performance and should not be treated as interchangeable with established neuropsychological tests.

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/s1355617719000614

Cites

43 of 43 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?

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

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wechsler D (1997). Wechsler memory scale: WMS-III (3 ed.). San Antonio: Psychological Corp., Harcourt Brace WorldCat.org.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scott, E. P., Sorrell, A., & Benitez, A.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • Appalachian State University (US)
Corresponding author
Scott, Emmi P.
Venue
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
Published
2019-07-01
Volume
25
Issue
08
Pages
857-867
ISSN
  • 1355-6177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7661
OpenAlex
W2953946857
Cited by
69
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2
FWCI
5.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (KL2TR000060, UL1TR000062)
  • National Institute on Aging (K23AG044434)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery, cognitive assessment, older adults, test-retest reliability, construct validity, fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, brain volume, medial temporal lobe atrophy, ventriculomegaly, healthy aging
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychometrics, 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