The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Practice Effects Associated with the Repeated Assessment of Cognitive Function Using the CogState Battery at 10-minute, One Week and One Month Test-retest Intervals
Abstract
There are many situations in which cognitive tests need to be administered on more than two occasions and at very brief test-retest intervals to detect change in group performance. However, previous literature has not specifically addressed these important issues. The main aim of the current study was to examine these two factors by using a computerized cognitive battery designed specifically for the repeated assessment of cognition (i.e., CogState) in healthy young adult individuals. A further aim of the study was to examine how many times the battery needed to be completed before performance, as measured by the battery, stabilized. Forty-five adults (age range: 18-40 years) completed the battery four times at 10-minute test-retest intervals, and a fifth time at an interval of one week. The results illustrated that when brief test-retest intervals were used (i.e., 10 minutes), performance stabilized after the second assessment, as significant practice effects were generally observed between the first and the second assessments. Practice effects were also observed on some of the tasks at a one-week test-retest interval. Due to these findings, 55 adults (age range: 18-40 years) completed the battery twice at 10-minute test-retest intervals (i.e., to eliminate the initial practice effect), and a third time at an interval of one month. No practice effects were observed. The implications of the results are discussed in terms of methods that can be adopted in order to minimize practice effects when this particular cognitive battery is used.
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
The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population
Radloff, L. S. (1977) · Applied Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/014662167700100306 · Cited by 53,267
Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences
Guitton, H., & Siegel, S. (1958) · Revue économique · doi:10.2307/3498751 · Cited by 35,245
(1970) · Cited by 24,983
Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs
Dunlap, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., & Burke, M. J. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.170 · Cited by 1,693 · cited 1×
“Since previous researchers have recommended that performance change be expressed as an estimate of effect size since this quantifies any differences between two measures of average performance relative to the variability associated with each ( Cohen, 1988 ; Dunlap, Cortina, Vaslow, & Burke, 1996 ), Dunlap et al.”
BackgroundStatistics Notes: Measurement error
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7059.744 · Cited by 1,070
Hyperbaric Oxygen for Acute Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
Weaver, L. K., Hopkins, R. O., Chan, K. J., Churchill, S., Elliott, C. G., Clemmer, T. P., Orme, J. F., Thomas, F. O., & Morris, A. H. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa013121 · Cited by 971
Statistics Notes: Measurement error and correlation coefficients
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7048.41 · Cited by 639
Individual change after epilepsy surgery: Practice effects and base-rate information.
Chelune, G. J., Naugle, R. I., Lüders, H., & Sedlak, J. (1993) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037//0894-4105.7.1.41 · Cited by 597
Interpreting Change on ImPACT Following Sport Concussion
Iverson, G. L., Lovell, M. R., & Collins, M. W. (2003) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1076/clin.17.4.460.27934 · Cited by 518
DIKMEN, S. S., HEATON, R. K., GRANT, I., & TEMKIN, N. R. (1999) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617799544056 · Cited by 473
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
Self-citationStatus of computerized cognitive testing in aging: a systematic review
Wild, K., Howieson, D., Webbe, F., Seelye, A., & Kaye, J. (2008) · Alzheimer's & Dementia · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2008.07.003 · Cited by 436
Goldberg, T. E., Harvey, P. D., Wesnes, K. A., Snyder, P. J., & Schneider, L. S. (2015) · Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring · doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2014.11.003 · Cited by 343
Computerized Cognitive Testing for Older Adults: A Review
Zygouris, S., & Tsolaki, M. (2015) · American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease & Other Dementias® · doi:10.1177/1533317514522852 · Cited by 272
Heilbronner, R. L., Sweet, J. J., Attix, D. K., Krull, K. R., Henry, G. K., & Hart, R. P. (2010) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2010.526785 · Cited by 199
Metadata
- Authors
- Falleti, M. G., Maruff, P., Collie, A., & Darby, D. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1095-1112
- ISSN
- 0165-0475 (ISSN-L)
- 1380-3395
- 1744-411X
- OpenAlex
- W2014289115
- Cited by
- 422
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 10.48
- 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: Practice Effects Associated with the Repeated Assessment of Cognitive Function Using the CogState Battery at 10-minute, One Week and One Month Test-retest Intervals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/13803390500205718
- The paper
- Falleti, M. G., Maruff, P., Collie, A., & Darby, D. G. (2006). Practice Effects Associated with the Repeated Assessment of Cognitive Function Using the CogState Battery at 10-minute, One Week and One Month Test-retest Intervals. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390500205718
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.
