Cited by 299Cognitive Abilities and TestingDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyPsychological Testing and Assessment

VIII. NIH toolbox cognition battery (CB): composite scores of crystallized, fluid, and overall cognition

Open access
Akshoomoff, Natacha, Beaumont, Jennifer L, Bauer, Patricia J, Dikmen, Sureyya S, Gershon, Richard C, Mungas, Dan, Slotkin, Jerry, Tulsky, David +3 more·2013·Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development

Abstract

The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB) includes 7 tests covering 6 cognitive abilities. This chapter describes the psychometric characteristics in children ages 3-15 years of a total summary score and composite scores reflecting two major types of cognition: "crystallized" (more dependent upon past learning experiences) and "fluid" (capacity for new learning and information processing in novel situations). Both types of cognition are considered important in everyday functioning, but are thought to be differently affected by brain health status throughout life, from early childhood through older adulthood. All three Toolbox composite scores showed excellent test-retest reliability, robust developmental effects across the childhood age range considered here, and strong correlations with established measures of similar abilities. Additional preliminary evidence of validity includes significant associations between all three Toolbox composite scores and maternal reports of children's health status and school performance.

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/mono.12038

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • In a sample of healthy children, the NIHTB-CB crystallized composite score correlated highly with composite scores of language abilities (r = 0.90) and fluid cognitive abilities (r = 0.71).

    “In a sample of healthy children, the NIHTB-CB crystallized composite score correlated highly with composite scores of language abilities (r = 0.90) and fluid cognitive abilities (e.g., tests of attention, processing speed, working memory, and executive functions) (r = 0.71), showing a strong correspondence between this score and performances on several cognitive domains (Akshoomoff et al., 2013).”

    From Cognitive weaknesses or impairments on the NIH toolbox cognition battery in children and adolescents: base rates in a normative sample and proposed methods for classification (2025) · cites this paper as Akshoomoff et al., 2013

    The Results > Construct Validity section reports a median correlation of r = .71 between the Toolbox Crystallized and gold-standard Fluid composites, supporting that part of the claim. It reports a median of r = .88—not r = .90—for the analogous Crystallized composites, and says the correlations were calculated separately for two child age groups rather than for the full sample. The Method > “Gold Standard” Cognitive Measures section identifies the crystallized comparison as reading and vocabulary measures. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

2 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Akshoomoff, N., Beaumont, J. L., Bauer, P. J., Dikmen, S. S., Gershon, R. C., Mungas, D., Slotkin, J., Tulsky, D., Weintraub, S., Zelazo, P. D., & Heaton, R. K.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Heaton, Robert K
Venue
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development
Published
2013-08
Volume
78
Issue
4
Pages
119-132
ISSN
  • 0037-976X (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5834
OpenAlex
W2098834660
Cited by
299
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5
FWCI
4.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG010129, R01AG010220)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (P30MH062512)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery, crystallized intelligence, fluid intelligence, child cognitive development, test-retest reliability, psychometric properties, academic performance
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Age Factors, Child, Child, Preschool, Cognition, Humans, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Neuropsychological Tests, Psychometrics, United States, Reproducibility of Results

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