Cited by 325Historical and Modern Theater StudiesPsychological Testing and AssessmentCognitive Abilities and Testing

Psychometric Properties of the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery

Open access
Moore, Tyler M., Reise, Steven P., Gur, Raquel E., Hakonarson, Hakon, Gur, Ruben C.·2015·Neuropsychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (CNB) was designed to measure performance accuracy and speed on specific neurobehavioral domains using tests that were previously validated with functional neuroimaging. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the neuropsychological theory used to construct the CNB by confirming the factor structure of the tests composing it. METHOD: In a large community sample (N = 9,138; age range 8-21), we performed a correlated-traits confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and multiple exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) on the 12 CNB measures of Efficiency (which combine Accuracy and Speed). We then performed EFAs of the Accuracy and Speed measures separately. Finally, we performed a confirmatory bifactor analysis of the Efficiency scores. All analyses were performed with Mplus using maximum likelihood estimation. RESULTS: RESULTS strongly support the a priori theory used to construct the CNB, showing that tests designed to measure executive, episodic memory, complex cognition, and social cognition aggregate their loadings within these domains. When Accuracy and Speed were analyzed separately, Accuracy produced 3 reliable factors: executive and complex cognition, episodic memory, and social cognition, while speed produced 2 factors: tests that require fast responses and those where each item requires deliberation. The statistical "Fit" of almost all models described above was acceptable (usually excellent). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the analysis from these large-scale data, the CNB offers an effective means for measuring the integrity of intended neurocognitive domains in about 1 hour of testing and is thus suitable for large-scale clinical and genomic studies.

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 · 10.1037/neu0000093

Cites

46 of 46 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 Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery was built to be highly reliable, psychometrically robust, and to incorporate tasks linked to specific brain systems.

    “This battery was built to be highly-reliable, psychometrically-robust, and to incorporate tasks linked to specific brain systems.”

    From Global Ancestry and Cognitive Ability (2019) · cites this paper as [68]

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: 5

  1. Duffy TE Howse DC Plum F Cerebral energy metabolism during experimental status epilepticus Journal of Neurochemistry 1975 24 5 925 934 237981
  2. Larrabee GJ Kane RL Schuck JR Factor analysis of the WAIS and Wechsler Memory Scale: An analysis of the construct validity of the Wechsler Memory Scale Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 1983 5 2 159 168 6863562
  3. Passolunghi MC Lanfranchi S Domain-specific and domain-general precursors of mathematical achievement: A longitudinal study from kindergarten to first grade British Journal of Educational Psychology 2012 82 1 42 63 22429058
  4. Raven J Raven JC Court JH Manual Section 1. General Overview (1998 Edition, Updated 2003) 2003 Pearson Assessment San Antonio, TX
  5. Thurstone LL Multiple-factor analysis 1947 University of Chicago Press Chicago

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moore, T. M., Reise, S. P., Gur, R. E., Hakonarson, H., & Gur, R. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
Venue
Neuropsychology
Published
2015-03
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
235-246
ISSN
  • 0894-4105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1559
OpenAlex
W2005900392
Cited by
325
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1
FWCI
15.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH089983, MH089924, MH019112)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
factor structure, executive function, episodic memory, complex cognition, social cognition, neuropsychological theory, bifactor analysis, computerized cognitive assessment
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychometrics, Reaction Time, Young Adult, Memory, Episodic

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