Cited by 26Down syndrome and intellectual disability researchCognitive Abilities and TestingDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Evaluating working memory outcome measures for children with Down syndrome

Open access
Schworer, E. K., Esbensen, A. J., Fidler, D. J., Beebe, D. W., Carle, A., Wiley, S.·2022·Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

Abstract

Background: There is a critical need for the psychometric evaluation of outcome measures to be used in clinical trials targeting cognition in Down syndrome (DS). This study examines a specific cognitive skill that is of particular importance in DS, working memory, and the psychometric properties of a set of standardised measurements to assess working memory in individuals with DS. Methods: Ninety children and adolescents ages 6 to 18 years old with DS were assessed on a selection of verbal and visuospatial working memory subtests of standardised clinical assessments at two time points to examine feasibility, distributional qualities, test–retest reliability and convergent validity against a priori criteria. Caregivers also completed an adaptive behaviour questionnaire to address working memory subtests' associations with broader developmental functioning. Results: The Stanford Binet‐5 Verbal Working Memory, Differential Ability Scales‐2 Recognition of Pictures, Stanford Binet‐5 Nonverbal Working Memory and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children‐5 Picture Span measures met the most psychometric criteria overall across the full age and IQ range of the study. Although Differential Ability Scales‐2 Recall of Sequential Order and Differential Ability Scales‐2 Recall of Digits Backward met the fewest a priori criteria, follow‐up analyses suggested greater feasibility in specific age and IQ ranges. Conclusions: Several working memory measures appear to be psychometrically sound and appropriate for use in clinical trials for children with DS, especially when focusing on raw scores. However, floor effects on standard scores and feasibility of some measures were problematic. Guidelines for use of the working memory subtests with this population are provided.

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 · 10.1111/jir.12833

Cites

57 of 57 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?

  • Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients with a priori descriptive categories of poor (<0.50), moderate (0.50−0.74), good (0.75−0.90), or excellent (>0.90), and good or excellent classifications were deemed suitable.

    “Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Descriptive categories for ICCs are poor (<0.50), moderate (0.50−0.74), good (0.75−0.90), or excellent (>0.90) [33,40], and a priori good or excellent classifications were deemed suitable.”

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: 3

  1. Cohen J (1988). The Effect Size Index: d. (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: L Erlbaum Associates.
  2. Elliott CD (2007). Differential Ability Scales, 2nd edition: Introductory and technical handbook. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
  3. Sparrow SS, Cicchetti DV, & Saulnier CA (2016). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schworer, E. K., Esbensen, A. J., Fidler, D. J., Beebe, D. W., Carle, A., & Wiley, S.
Affiliations
  • Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
  • Colorado State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-03-25
Volume
66
Issue
1-2
Pages
195-211
ISSN
  • 0964-2633 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2788
OpenAlex
W3135930466
Cited by
26
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4
FWCI
4.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Intellectual Disability Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD093754)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
Down syndrome, working memory, psychometric properties, outcome measures, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, children and adolescents, floor effect, adaptive behavior, clinical trial outcome measures
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Down Syndrome, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Wechsler Scales, Reproducibility of Results, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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