The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Changes in attention and information-processing speed following severe traumatic brain injury: A meta-analytic review.
Abstract
Deficits in attention are frequently reported following severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, methodological differences make it difficult to reconcile inconsistencies in the research findings in order to undertake an evidence-based assessment of attention. The current study therefore undertook a meta-analytic review of research examining attention following severe TBI. A search of the PsycINFO and PubMed databases spanning the years 1980 to 2005 was undertaken with 24 search terms. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to screen all articles, leaving 41 studies that were included in the current meta-analysis. Weighted Cohen's d effect sizes, percentage overlap statistics, and confidence intervals were calculated for the different tests of attention. Fail-safe Ns were additionally calculated to address the bias introduced by the tendency to publish significant results. Large and significant deficits were found in specific measures of information-processing speed, attention span, focused/selective attention, sustained attention, and supervisory attentional control following severe TBI. Finally, age, education, and postinjury interval were not significantly related to these deficits in attention.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure
Shallice, T. (1988) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511526817 · Cited by 4,072
Paced Auditory Serial-Addition Task: A Measure of Recovery from Concussion
Gronwall, D. M. A. (1977) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.2466/pms.1977.44.2.367 · Cited by 2,395
Writing meta-analytic reviews.
Rosenthal, R. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.183 · Cited by 1,108
Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions.
Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.96 · Cited by 309
Cited by
Maruff, P., Thomas, E., Cysique, L., Brew, B., Collie, A., Snyder, P., & Pietrzak, R. H. (2009) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acp010 · Cited by 635
Rohling, M. L., Faust, M. E., Beverly, B., & Demakis, G. (2009) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/a0013659 · Cited by 403
The Interruptive Effect of Pain on Attention
Moore, D. J., Keogh, E., & Eccleston, C. (2012) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.626865 · Cited by 224
The NIH Toolbox Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test: Normative Data
Carlozzi, N. E., Beaumont, J. L., Tulsky, D. S., & Gershon, R. C. (2015) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acv031 · Cited by 115
Reappraisal generation after acquired brain damage: The role of laterality and cognitive control
Salas, C. E., Gross, J. J., & Turnbull, O. H. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00242 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Mathias, J. L., & Wheaton, P.
- Venue
- Neuropsychology
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 212-223
- ISSN
- 0894-4105 (ISSN-L)
- 1931-1559
- OpenAlex
- W2093651985
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 7.33
- 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: Changes in attention and information-processing speed following severe traumatic brain injury: A meta-analytic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0894-4105.21.2.212
- The paper
- Mathias, J. L., & Wheaton, P. (2007). Changes in attention and information-processing speed following severe traumatic brain injury: A meta-analytic review. Neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.21.2.212
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.