The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Benton controlled oral word association test: Reliability and updated norms
Open accessAbstract
The aim of this paper is to update the over 20-year-old normative data for the Benton Controlled Word Association (COWA) Test. In a sample of 360 normal volunteers, the age ranged between 16-70 years, and the educational level ranged from 7-22 years. Care was taken to ensure that the population was heterogeneous, yet the two stratifications of gender, four age, and three educational groups led to 24 cells with 15 individuals in each. Test-retest reliability was established by testing 30% of the sample after a 6-month delay, which represents a typical follow up duration between testings in a clinical setting. The two forms of the COWA revealed significant test-retest reliability. Generally, our updated values fall above the original normative values, which were derived from a less well-educated and rural sample. No major gender or age trends were noted, but the COWA test performances were influenced by education, i.e., as the level of education increased, the performance on the COWA increased. The only gender differences that were found were for the women in the highest educational group ( > 16 years), who performed significantly better that men in the highest educational group. An error analysis of repetitions or perseverations is provided, with cut-off scores according to age levels. Finally, the updated COWA norms are compared to the original norms as well as to other measures of word fluency.
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
Cited by
Hachinski, V., Iadecola, C., Petersen, R. C., Breteler, M. M., Nyenhuis, D. L., Black, S. E., Powers, W. J., DeCarli, C., Merino, J. G., Kalaria, R. N., et al. (2006) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000237236.88823.47 · Cited by 1,722
ARFFA, S. (2007) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1016/j.acn.2007.08.001 · Cited by 303
Demetriou, E. A., DeMayo, M. M., & Guastella, A. J. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00753 · Cited by 274
Brandes, A. A., Carpentier, A. F., Kesari, S., Sepulveda-Sanchez, J. M., Wheeler, H. R., Chinot, O., Cher, L., Steinbach, J. P., Capper, D., Specenier, P., et al. (2016) · Neuro-Oncology · doi:10.1093/neuonc/now009 · Cited by 273
Kumthekar, P., Tang, S.-C., Brenner, A. J., Kesari, S., Piccioni, D. E., Anders, C., Carrillo, J., Chalasani, P., Kabos, P., Puhalla, S., et al. (2020) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-19-3258 · Cited by 250
Metadata
- Authors
- Ruff, R.
- Venue
- Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 329-338
- ISSN
- 0887-6177 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2074086852
- Cited by
- 617
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Benton controlled oral word association test: Reliability and updated norms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0887-6177(95)00033-x
- The paper
- Ruff, R. (1996). Benton controlled oral word association test: Reliability and updated norms. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0887-6177(95)00033-x
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.