Working memory performance following paediatric traumatic brain injury
Abstract
Primary objective The present study investigated working memory ability in children who sustained moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injuries in relation to pre-injury, injury-related and developmental factors. It was hypothesized that there would be a correlation between performance- and rater-based working memory measures; factors predictive of working memory impairment would include earlier age at injury, more severe injury, longer time since injury and poorer overall cognitive functioning; and working memory performance would be significantly impaired when compared to normative populations. Methods and procedures Working memory was assessed in 62 children using a traditional performance measure (digit span backward) and parent report (Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF)). Main outcomes and results Contrary to prediction, there was no statistical association between performance- and rater-based measures of working memory. Regression analyses revealed injury severity, time-since-injury, overall cognitive ability and attention span were predictive of working memory performance. As a group, working memory was impaired relative to normative samples on both measures. Conclusions Performance- and rater-based working memory measures, while not significantly correlated, are both sensitive to acquired cognitive dysfunction following paediatric traumatic brain injury. Demographic and clinical factors may be used to predict cognitive outcomes, educate caregivers…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 construct validity of executive function rating scales has been questioned because they consistently correlate non-significantly or weakly with performance-based tests measuring the same construct.
“the construct validity of executive function rating scales has been questioned because they consistently correlate non-significantly (Biederman et al., 2008; Conklin et al., 2008; Mahone et al., 2002) or weakly (Gross et al. 2015; Miranda et al., 2015; Nordvall et al., 2017) with performance-based tests measuring the same construct.”
From Executive functioning rating scales: Ecologically valid or construct invalid? (2020) · cites this paper as Conklin et al., 2008
Replicated evidence shows that executive function rating scales and performance-based tests are weakly or non-significantly associated with each other.
“replicated evidence indicates weak/non-significant cross-method associations that suggest divergent rather than convergent validity.”
From Executive functioning rating scales: Ecologically valid or construct invalid? (2020) · cites this paper as Conklin et al., 2008
The modest EF test/rating association is consistent with prior literature showing modest to non-significant measure-level relations in child, adolescent, and adult populations.
“This finding was highly consistent with prior literature showing modest to non-significant measure-level relations between these two putative methods for assessing the same construct in child, adolescent, and adult populations (Biederman et al., 2008; Conklin et al., 2008; Mahone et al., 2002)”
From Executive functioning rating scales: Ecologically valid or construct invalid? (2020) · cites this paper as Conklin et al., 2008
Cites
TEST REVIEW behavior rating inventory of executive function.
Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1076/chin.6.3.235.3152 · Cited by 1,925 · see citing works
Sowell, E. R., Thompson, P. M., Tessner, K. D., & Toga, A. W. (2001) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.21-22-08819.2001 · Cited by 983 · see citing works
The development of nonverbal working memory and executive control processes in adolescents
Luciana, M., Conklin, H. M., Hooper, C. J., & Yarger, R. S. (2005) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00872.x · Cited by 567 · see citing works
Self-citationAnderson, V. A., Anderson, P., Northam, E., Jacobs, R., & Mikiewicz, O. (2002) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1076/chin.8.4.231.13509 · Cited by 338 · see citing works
Vriezen, E. R., & Pigott, S. E. (2002) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1076/chin.8.4.296.13505 · Cited by 298 · see citing works
Mangeot, S., Armstrong, K., Colvin, A. N., Yeates, K. O., & Taylor, H. G. (2002) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1076/chin.8.4.271.13503 · Cited by 257 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.12001 · Cited by 1,381 · see citing works
MCAULEY, T., CHEN, S., GOOS, L., SCHACHAR, R., & CROSBIE, J. (2010) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617710000093 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
Contribution of Rating Scales to the Assessment of Executive Functions
Isquith, P. K., Roth, R. M., & Gioia, G. (2013) · Applied Neuropsychology: Child · doi:10.1080/21622965.2013.748389 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Roth, R. M., Isquith, P. K., & Gioia, G. A. (2014) · Handbook of Executive Functioning · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8106-5_18 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Executive Function in the Real World: BRIEF Lessons From Mark Ylvisaker
Gioia, G. A., Kenworthy, L., & Isquith, P. K. (2010) · Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · doi:10.1097/htr.0b013e3181fbc272 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Executive functioning rating scales: Ecologically valid or construct invalid?
Soto, E. F., Kofler, M. J., Singh, L. J., Wells, E. L., Irwin, L. N., Groves, N. B., & Miller, C. E. (2020) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/neu0000681 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
“As detailed below, concurrent and predictive validity studies consistently indicate that executive function rating scales and performance-based tests correlate weakly/non-significantly with one another (Biederman et al., 2008; Conklin et al., 2008; Nordvall et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
- Authors
- Conklin, H. M., Salorio, C. F., & Slomine, B. S.
- Affiliations
- St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (US)
- Kennedy Krieger Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Conklin, Heather M.
- Venue
- Brain Injury
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 847-857
- ISSN
- 0269-9052 (ISSN-L)
- 1362-301X
- OpenAlex
- W2142241247
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 3.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Brain Injury (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
- Keywords
- working memory, pediatric traumatic brain injury, children, injury severity, time since injury, cognitive impairment, parent report, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, backward digit span, attention span, cognitive outcome prediction
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Age Factors, Attention, Brain Injuries, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Parents, Surveys and Questionnaires, Time Factors, Glasgow Coma Scale, Young Adult
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
