Cited by 823Developmental and Educational NeuropsychologyNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Abilities and Testing

II. NIH TOOLBOX COGNITION BATTERY (CB): MEASURING EXECUTIVE FUNCTION AND ATTENTION

Zelazo, Philip David, Anderson, Jacob E, Richler, Jennifer, Wallner-Allen, Kathleen, Beaumont, Jennifer L, Weintraub, Sandra·2013·Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss two measures designed to assess executive function (EF) as part of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB) and report pediatric data from the validation study. EF refers to the goal-directed cognitive control of thought, action, and emotion. Two measures were adapted for standardized computer administration: the Dimensional Change Card Sort (a measure of cognitive flexibility) and a flanker task (a measure of inhibitory control in the context of selective visual attention). Results reveal excellent developmental sensitivity across childhood, excellent reliability, and (in most cases) excellent convergent validity. Correlations between the new NIH Toolbox measures and age were higher for younger children (3–6 years) than for older children (8–15 years), and evidence of increasing differentiation of EF from other aspects of cognition (indexed by receptive vocabulary) was obtained.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/mono.12032

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • Together with pediatric data, these findings support the suggestion that EF becomes increasingly differentiated from general intellectual function over the course of childhood and adolescence.

    “Together with the results from the pediatric data from this validation study (Zelazo et al., 2013), which showed substantial age-related increases in discriminant validity during childhood, these findings support the suggestion that EF becomes increasingly differentiated from general intellectual function over the course of childhood and adolescence.”
  • The NIHTB-CB consists of seven tasks measuring different domains of cognitive function, including executive functioning, memory, processing speed, and language.

    “The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) consists of seven tasks measuring different domains of cognitive function, including EF, memory, processing speed, and language (Weintraub et al., 2014; Zelazo et al., 2013).”

    From NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery Feasibility in Individuals With Williams Syndrome (2022) · cites this paper as Zelazo et al., 2013

  • The Dimensional Change Card Sort Test and the Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test measure aspects of executive functioning, specifically cognitive flexibility (shifting) and inhibitory control/attention (inhibiting), respectively.

    “The Dimensional Card Change Sort Test and the Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test measure aspects of EF, specifically cognitive flexibility (shifting) and inhibitory control/attention (inhibiting) respectively.”

    From NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery Feasibility in Individuals With Williams Syndrome (2022) · cites this paper as Zelazo et al., 2013

  • As a measure of fluid intelligence, NVIQ is expected to correlate with EF ability, such as the Flanker and DCCS.

    “As a measure of fluid intelligence, it is expected that NVIQ correlates with EF ability, such as the Flanker and DCCS (Blair, 2006; Zelazo et al., 2013).”

    From NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery Feasibility in Individuals With Williams Syndrome (2022) · cites this paper as Zelazo et al., 2013

  • This variation is often normally distributed, for example in executive functions.

    “This variation is often normally distributed (Figure 1A), e.g., in executive functions (Zelazo et al., 2013).”

    From Top-Down Dysregulation—From ADHD to Emotional Instability (2016) · cites this paper as Zelazo et al., 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zelazo, P. D., Anderson, J. E., Richler, J., Wallner-Allen, K., Beaumont, J. L., & Weintraub, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Zelazo, Philip David
Venue
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development
Published
2013-08
Volume
78
Issue
4
Pages
16-33
ISSN
  • 0037-976X (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5834
OpenAlex
W1649192509
Cited by
823
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 81 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 87 · 2023: 74 · 2022: 126 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
32.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery, executive function, attention, Dimensional Change Card Sort, flanker task, cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, visual selective attention, computerized cognitive assessment, test validation, convergent validity, reliability statistics, age-related cognitive change
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Attention, Child, Humans, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Neuropsychological Tests, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Validation Studies as Topic, 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