Cited by 59Cognitive Functions and MemoryHistorical and Modern Theater StudiesDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

The Pillbox Test: An Ecological Measure of Executive Functioning and Estimate of Medication Management Abilities

Zartman, A. L., Hilsabeck, R. C., Guarnaccia, C. A., Houtz, A.·2013·Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

Abstract

Studies indicate that executive functioning (EF) is a strong predictor of everyday function. However, assessment can be problematic as no single standardized instrument is known to measure all EF domains simultaneously. Thus, the Pillbox Test was developed as a new measure tapping four EF factors through the real-time assessment of medication management, a complex instrumental activity of daily living. The Pillbox Test showed good criterion-related validity and was effective in differentiating graduated levels of executive dysfunction between a mixed neurological group, medical control group, and healthy community control group. This test also showed good convergent validity as it correlated significantly in expected directions with established EF measures in all four of selected EF domains and the Direct Assessment of Functional Status. Finally, a receiver operator characteristic curve found a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 87.5%, suggesting that the Pillbox Test is a promising new ecological measure of EF.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/arclin/act014

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zartman, A. L., Hilsabeck, R. C., Guarnaccia, C. A., & Houtz, A.
Affiliations
  • University of North Texas (US)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
Corresponding author
Zartman, A. L.
Venue
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
Published
2013-03-15
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
307-319
ISSN
  • 0887-6177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-5843
OpenAlex
W2138876260
Cited by
59
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Keywords
executive function, medication management, instrumental activities of daily living, ecological assessment, executive dysfunction, criterion validity, convergent validity, neurological patients, medical patients, functional status
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Age Factors, Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Analysis of Variance, Cardiovascular Diseases, Cognition Disorders, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, ROC Curve, Dementia, Vascular, Reproducibility of Results, Chi-Square Distribution, Case-Control Studies, Stroke, Executive Function

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