The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 17 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Cognition assessment using the NIH Toolbox
Open accessAbstract
Cognition is 1 of 4 domains measured by the NIH Toolbox for the Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function (NIH-TB), and complements modules testing motor function, sensation, and emotion. On the basis of expert panels, the cognition subdomains identified as most important for health, success in school and work, and independence in daily functioning were Executive Function, Episodic Memory, Language, Processing Speed, Working Memory, and Attention. Seven measures were designed to tap constructs within these subdomains. The instruments were validated in English, in a sample of 476 participants ranging in age from 3 to 85 years, with representation from both sexes, 3 racial/ethnic categories, and 3 levels of education. This report describes the development of the Cognition Battery and presents results on test-retest reliability, age effects on performance, and convergent and discriminant construct validity. The NIH-TB Cognition Battery is intended to serve as a brief, convenient set of measures to supplement other outcome measures in epidemiologic and longitudinal research and clinical trials. With a computerized format and national standardization, this battery will provide a "common currency" among researchers for comparisons across a wide range of studies and populations.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery is a brief, computerized set of 7 measures covering 6 cognitive subdomains for ages 3–85, validated in 476 participants. It showed good-to-excellent test-retest reliability, expected age associations, and convergent/discriminant validity against gold-standard measures.
Key findings
- Test-retest reliability was strong: intraclass correlations for the entire sample ranged from 0.78 for the Picture Sequence Memory Test to 0.99 for the Oral Reading Recognition Test, with most other values above 0.90.
- Age associations were robust in children (ages 3–15; r = 0.58–0.87) and negative for most nonlanguage measures in adults (ages 20–85; r = −0.46 to −0.65); language measures showed little adult decline (Vocabulary r = 0.15; Reading r = −0.02).
- Convergent validity for ages 8–85 ranged from r = 0.48 to 0.93 (all p < 0.0001), while discriminant validity correlations ranged from r = 0.05 to 0.30.
- In children ages 3–6, all battery measures correlated with a general cognitive ability composite at r = 0.54 to 0.74.
Methods
- Subdomains were selected through expert surveys and panels (N = 102 experts); the battery includes Flanker, Dimensional Change Card Sort, List Sorting Working Memory, Picture Sequence Memory, Oral Reading Recognition, Picture Vocabulary, and Pattern Comparison Processing Speed tests.
- Validation sample: N = 476 community-dwelling participants ages 3–85, stratified by age, education, and race/ethnicity, recruited at Northwestern University and 5 additional sites; not all ages were sampled. One-third was randomly selected for retest 7–21 days later.
- Analyses included Pearson correlations between age and test performance separately for children and adults, intraclass correlations for test-retest reliability, and correlations with gold-standard measures for convergent and discriminant validity; for ages 3–6, only convergent validity with a general cognitive ability composite was assessed.
Limitations
- The paper states the battery was not developed as a clinical measure to screen for cognitive impairment or substitute for a full neuropsychological evaluation; future clinical-population studies are expected to provide additional validation.
- The paper states the validation sample was not population-based and participants tended to be highly educated, especially in the youngest and oldest groups; a more representative sampling strategy was used for the later NIH-TB norming study.
- The paper states gold-standard measures were scarce for ages 3–6, and no well-established measures were identified for attention, episodic memory, EF, and processing speed in that age group, so only convergent validity with general cognitive ability was measured.
- Evident from the text: age effects are cross-sectional correlations, so developmental and aging trajectories are inferred rather than directly observed longitudinally; test-retest reliability was assessed in only one-third of the sample.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
20 Own result · 10 Sources not found · 8 Own method · 5 Own interpretation · 5 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The nonlanguage subdomain tests in the battery, in contrast, conformed to the pattern expected with cognitive ability measures in that they peaked in early adulthood and then declined in later adulthood at different rates, depending on the measure.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many (57%) also listed a “Global Score” as important.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The expert panel rankings and self-reported familiarity of experts provide a valid basis for identifying the most important cognitive subdomains for health, school/work success, and independence.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In children from 3 to 6 years of age, all NIH-TB Cognition Battery measures were significantly correlated (ranging from r 5 0.54 to r 5 0.74) with our measure of general cognitive ability (“g”), indicating that they are sensitive to a range of different cognitive ability levels within this age cohort.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the basis of expert panels, the cognition subdomains identified as most important for health, success in school and work, and independence in daily functioning were Executive Function, Episodic Memory, Language, Processing Speed, Working Memory, and Attention.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The expert panel rankings and self-reported familiarity of experts provide a valid basis for identifying the most important cognitive subdomains for health, school/work success, and independence.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the exception of the language measures (Vocabulary and Reading, r 5 0.15 and 20.02, respectively), age and test scores (r 5 20.46 to 20.65) on the remaining NIH-TB Cognition Battery measures were negatively associated, with lower scores at higher age levels.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For all NIH-TB CB instruments, correlations for convergent validity measures ranged from r 5 0.48 to r 5 0.93 (all p , 0.0001), suggesting that the NIH-TB measures are tapping the desired constructs.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not surprisingly, Reading showed an especially steep improvement from age 3 to the early school years, when both formal and informal educational experiences ideally promote such development.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Reading and Vocabulary scores showed the expected associations with age, growing through adolescence and stabilizing in older adulthood.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(B) Results for NIH Toolbox Reading and Vocabulary scores (reported as a”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The correlations between the NIH-TB measures and general cognitive ability, our index of convergent validity in young children (ages 3-6 years), were high (0.54-0.74), possibly supporting such a notion.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 21
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(A) NIH Toolbox Picture Sequence Memory Test scores show improvement into early adulthood and then decline from the 50s on.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Language subdomain tests, as expected, are experience-based and peaked somewhat later than measures of other cognitive subdomains, and then remained relatively stable even into the ninth decade of life.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Test-retest reliability was strong for the entire sample and separately for children (ages 3-15 years) and adults (ages 20-85 years; table 3).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The gold standard tests are valid measures of the intended cognitive constructs.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“whereas Oral Reading Recognition showed a much sharper increase until early grade-school years (age 7-8) and then followed the same pattern of more gradual improvement and then stability in the older age groups (figure , B).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intraclass correlation coefficients for the entire sample on the NIH Toolbox measures ranged from 0.78 for the Picture Sequence Memory Test to 0.99 on the Oral Reading Recognition Test, with most other values falling above 0.90.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All NIH-TB Cognition Battery measures showed robust associations between test performance and age in the child group (r 5 0.58-0.87),where scores improved with age.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the participants in this study (or their parents, in the case of children) tended to be rather highly educated, particularly in the youngest and oldest groups (see table 1).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data are presented for 208 normal children (age 3-15 years) and 268 normal adults (age 20-85 years) on 3 important psychometric characteristics: test-retest reliability, sensitivity to cognitive growth during childhood and age-related decline during adulthood, and construct validity.”
plaincorrelationaln = 208 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, on the Picture Sequence Memory Test, performance improved during childhood and early adolescence, with gradual decline in scores across adult age ranges beginning in the 30s (figure , A).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 2 top-ranked subdomains were Executive Function (EF) (95%) and Episodic Memory (93%), followed by Language (55%), Processing Speed (52%), and Attention (50%).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The expert panel rankings and self-reported familiarity of experts provide a valid basis for identifying the most important cognitive subdomains for health, school/work success, and independence.
In the paper
“Language scores can predict occupational attainment and performance.29”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [29]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The instruments were validated in English, in a sample of 476 participants ranging in age from 3 to 85 years, with representation from both sexes, 3 racial/ethnic categories, and 3 levels of education.”
plainn = 476- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The validation sample of 476 community-dwelling individuals is adequate for drawing conclusions about the Cognition Battery's validity across the 3-85 age range.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Language subdomain tests, as expected, are experience-based and peaked somewhat later than measures of other cognitive subdomains, and then remained relatively stable even into the ninth decade of life.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Cognition Battery has 7 computerized instruments that measure 6 ability subdomains important for cognitive health from the ages of 3 to 85 years.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One-third of the sample was randomly selected to repeat testing 7 to 21 days later to assess test-retest reliability.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“PS measures are among the most sensitive indicators of cerebral dysfunction, 41 and slowed PS has been demonstrated in traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson disease, symptomatic HIV, chronic fatigue syndrome, dementia, and schizophrenia.42”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [41]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [42]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The subject sample for this study deliberately emphasized representation of ethnic minorities (almost 50%) and the oldest and youngest groups (3-6 years and 65-85 years; together, 48%) to ensure that the tests would perform as needed in these important segments of the population.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The validation sample of 476 community-dwelling individuals is adequate for drawing conclusions about the Cognition Battery's validity across the 3-85 age range.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Vocabulary represents the lexical component of language and is highly associated with general measures of “crystallized intelligence,” or “g c ,” 33 overall cognitive functioning, and success in school and work.29,34”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [33]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [29]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [34]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“WM improves significantly as children develop and WM span is thought to double in capacity between the ages of 5 and 10. 20”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Age associations reflect the validity of the tests for measuring cognitive development during childhood and age-related cognitive decline during adulthood.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-sectional age differences in test performance reflect developmental growth during childhood and aging-related decline during adulthood.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“EF is very vulnerable to aging, 4 and comparisons across the lifespan yield an inverted U-shaped pattern, with early age-related improvement followed by later age-related decline.5”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gold standard measures were scarce for 3-to 6-year-olds, and we were unable to identify well-established measures to test convergent or discriminant validity in this age group for the measures of attention, episodic memory, EF, and PS.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“It is one of the first cognitive functions to show age-related decline and the most susceptible to developmental disorders, 25 brain trauma, and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer disease.26”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [25]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [26]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The NIH-TB Cognition Battery was not developed as a clinical measure to either screen for cognitive impairment or to substitute for a full, competent neuropsychological evaluation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The lack of such measures may reflect the fact that different subdomains of cognition become more differentiated with experience and development.55”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [55]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sample (N 5 476) was based on a stratification plan to include adequate numbers of individuals within age bands, level of education, and racial/ethnic backgrounds.”
plainn = 476- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The validation sample of 476 community-dwelling individuals is adequate for drawing conclusions about the Cognition Battery's validity across the 3-85 age range.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Single-word reading recognition tasks are strong predictors of health and cognitive outcomes across the lifespan, and performance on these tasks is also an estimate of the quality of education, accounting for some of the racial/ethnic differences on neuropsychological test performance seen in older adults.31,32”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [31]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [32]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Based on factor-analytic work, there is an emerging consensus that EF can be divided into 3 partially independent subcomponents: set shifting, inhibitory control, and updating/working memory.6”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [6]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
The expert panel rankings and self-reported familiarity of experts provide a valid basis for identifying the most important cognitive subdomains for health, school/work success, and independence.
“On the basis of expert panels, the cognition subdomains identified as most important for health, success in school and work, and independence in daily functioning were Executive Function, Episodic Memory, Language, Processing Speed, Working Memory, and Attention.”
“Information was requested from experts (N 5 102) who reported sufficient familiarity with cognition to make recommendations for specific subdomains of importance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cross-sectional age differences in test performance reflect developmental growth during childhood and aging-related decline during adulthood.
“Age associations reflect the validity of the tests for measuring cognitive development during childhood and age-related cognitive decline during adulthood.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The gold standard measures used for convergent and discriminant validity are valid criterion measures of the intended constructs.
“Convergent validity was assessed by correlations between each NIH-TB measure and a well-established “gold standard” measure of the same construct; evidence of discriminant validity was assessed by correlations with gold standards of a different cognitive construct.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The validation sample of 476 community-dwelling individuals is adequate for drawing conclusions about the Cognition Battery's validity across the 3-85 age range.
“The sample (N 5 476) was based on a stratification plan to include adequate numbers of individuals within age bands, level of education, and racial/ethnic backgrounds.”
“The subject sample for this study deliberately emphasized representation of ethnic minorities (almost 50%) and the oldest and youngest groups (3-6 years and 65-85 years; together, 48%) to ensure that the tests would perform as needed in these important segments of the population.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Adequate test-retest reliability is essential for a cognitive battery intended for longitudinal studies.
“Adequate test-retest reliability was considered essential for the NIH-TB Cognition Battery, particularly because of its anticipated use in longitudinal studies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cross-sectional age differences in Cognition Battery performance reflect developmental or aging changes rather than cohort effects.
“We presented the relationship of Cognition Battery performance with age in cognitively normal children and adults.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The gold standard tests are valid measures of the intended cognitive constructs.
“The”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) measures attention, working memory, language, processing speed, and executive functioning.”
From NIH toolbox cognition tests following traumatic brain injury: Frequency of low scores. (2017) · cites this paper as Weintraub et al., 2013
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Age effects.
“Thus, on the Picture Sequence Memory Test, performance improved during childhood and early adolescence, with gradual decline in scores across adult age ranges beginning in the 30s (figure , A).”
§ Age effects.
“(A) NIH Toolbox Picture Sequence Memory Test scores show improvement into early adulthood and then decline from the 50s on.”
Citations
Cites
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
The attention system of the human brain
Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.13.030190.000325 · Cited by 8,070
Variability in Early Communicative Development
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. J., Pethick, S. J., Tomasello, M., Mervis, C. B., & Stiles, J. (1994) · Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development · doi:10.2307/1166093 · Cited by 2,790
A cortical network for directed attention and unilateral neglect
Mesulam, M. ‐. (1981) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.410100402 · Cited by 2,498
The Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS): A method of assessing executive function in children
Zelazo, P. D. (2006) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2006.46 · Cited by 1,579
Self-citationThe anatomy of language: contributions from functional neuroimaging
Price, C. J. (2000) · Journal of Anatomy · doi:10.1046/j.1469-7580.2000.19730335.x · Cited by 1,352
Development of attentional networks in childhood
Rueda, M. R., Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Halparin, J. D., Gruber, D. B., Lercari, L. P., & Posner, M. I. (2004) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.12.012 · Cited by 1,339
Diamond, A. (2002) · Principles of Frontal Lobe Function · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195134971.003.0029 · Cited by 1,248
General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162 · Cited by 1,238
Handbook of Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
(2008) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/7437.001.0001 · Cited by 1,191
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Daniels K, Toth J, Jacoby L. The aging of executive functions. In: , Bialystok E, Craik FIM, editors. Lifespan Cognition: Mechanisms of Change. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006:96–111.
- Gleason JB, Ratner NB, editors. The Development of Language, 7th ed. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon; 2009.
- DeLuca J, Kalmar JH. Information Processing Speed in Clinical Populations. London: Psychology Press; 2007.
- Wechsler D. WPPSI-III Wechsler Preschool Primary Scale of Intelligence, 3rd ed. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation; 2002.
- Zelazo PD Anderson JE Richler J Wallner-Allen K Beaumont JL Weintraub S. NIH Toolbox cognitive function battery (CFB): measuring executive function and attention. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev (in press).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fry, T. J., Shah, N. N., Orentas, R. J., Stetler‐Stevenson, M., Yuan, C. M., Ramakrishna, S., Wolters, P. L., Martin, S. C., Delbrook, C., Yates, B., et al. (2017) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm.4441 · Cited by 1,363
“52”
NIH Toolbox for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function
Gershon, R. C., Wagster, M. V., Hendrie, H. C., Fox, N. A., Cook, K. F., & Nowinski, C. J. (2013) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e3182872e5f · Cited by 895
Self-citationBarch, D. M., Albaugh, M. D., Avenevoli, S., Chang, L., Clark, D. B., Glantz, M. D., Hudziak, J. J., Jernigan, T. L., Tapert, S. F., Yurgelun-Todd, D., et al. (2018) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2017.10.010 · Cited by 814
Persistent neurologic symptoms and cognitive dysfunction in non-hospitalized COVID-19 “long haulers”
Graham, E. L., Clark, J. R., Orban, Z. S., Lim, P. H., Szymanski, A. L., Taylor, C., DiBiase, R. M., Jia, D. T., Balabanov, R., Ho, S. U., et al. (2021) · Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology · doi:10.1002/acn3.51350 · Cited by 693
Targeted enhancement of cortical-hippocampal brain networks and associative memory
Wang, J. X., Rogers, L. M., Gross, E. Z., Ryals, A. J., Dokucu, M. E., Brandstatt, K. L., Hermiller, M. S., & Voss, J. L. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1252900 · Cited by 615
The Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Spectrum
Atri, A. (2019) · Medical Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.mcna.2018.10.009 · Cited by 623
What is the association between sedentary behaviour and cognitive function? A systematic review
Falck, R. S., Davis, J. C., & Liu-Ambrose, T. Y. L. (2016) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095551 · Cited by 482
Reliability and validity of the UK Biobank cognitive tests
Fawns-Ritchie, C., & Deary, I. J. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231627 · Cited by 396
“Test-retest interval range 7 to 21 days, n = 89 [13].”
MethodInfluentialReliability and Validity of Composite Scores from the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery in Adults
Heaton, R. K., Akshoomoff, N., Tulsky, D., Mungas, D., Weintraub, S., Dikmen, S., Beaumont, J., Casaletto, K. B., Conway, K., Slotkin, J., et al. (2014) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617714000241 · Cited by 437
Self-citationPhysical Activity and Cognitive Vitality
Prakash, R. S., Voss, M. W., Erickson, K. I., & Kramer, A. F. (2015) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015249 · Cited by 376
“For example, the National Institutes of Health Cognitive Toolbox (Weintraub et al. 2013) is one attempt to identify theoretically driven cognitive measures that could be used to facilitate comparisons across studies.”
MethodTrial of the MIND diet for prevention of cognitive decline in older persons
Barnes, L. L., Dhana, K., Liu, X., Carey, V. J., Ventrelle, J., Johnson, K., Hollings, C. S., Bishop, L., Laranjo, N., Stubbs, B. J., et al. (2023) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2302368 · Cited by 366
The ABCD study: understanding the development of risk for mental and physical health outcomes
Karcher, N. R., & Barch, D. M. (2021) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-020-0736-6 · Cited by 351
“The base of the neurocognitive assessment for ABCD Study is the NIH Toolbox [26, 27], with the complete cognitive Toolbox administered at baseline, and the majority of tasks administered every 2 years.”
MethodNIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): Validation of Executive Function Measures in Adults
Zelazo, P. D., Anderson, J. E., Richler, J., Wallner-Allen, K., Beaumont, J. L., Conway, K. P., Gershon, R., & Weintraub, S. (2014) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617714000472 · Cited by 350
“An initial publication (Weintraub et al., 2013) introduced the Cognition Battery along with the rest of the NIH Toolbox and provided an overview and summary data from the entire validation sample, including both children and adults.”
MethodSelf-citationThe evolution of episodic memory
Allen, T. A., & Fortin, N. J. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1301199110 · Cited by 350
Weintraub, S., Dikmen, S. S., Heaton, R. K., Tulsky, D. S., Zelazo, P. D., Slotkin, J., Carlozzi, N. E., Bauer, P. J., Wallner-Allen, K., Fox, N., et al. (2014) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617714000320 · Cited by 342
Self-citationThe Human Connectome Project: A retrospective
Elam, J. S., Glasser, M. F., Harms, M. P., Sotiropoulos, S. N., Andersson, J., Burgess, G. C., Curtiss, S. W., Oostenveld, R., Larson‐Prior, L. J., Schoffelen, J., et al. (2021) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118543 · Cited by 340
Childhood maltreatment and its effect on neurocognitive functioning: timing and chronicity matter
Cowell, R. A., Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., & Toth, S. L. (2015) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579415000139 · Cited by 307
“Self-control is a concept encompassing top-down neurocognitive processes involved in explicit, goal-directed processes (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundAkshoomoff, N., Beaumont, J. L., Bauer, P. J., Dikmen, S. S., Gershon, R. C., Mungas, D., Slotkin, J., Tulsky, D., Weintraub, S., Zelazo, P. D., et al. (2013) · Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development · doi:10.1111/mono.12038 · Cited by 299
“We expected all three summary scores to increase fairly rapidly with age, in contrast to results obtained during adulthood (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Self-citationCasaletto, K. B., Umlauf, A., Beaumont, J., Gershon, R., Slotkin, J., Akshoomoff, N., & Heaton, R. K. (2015) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617715000351 · Cited by 271
“Detailed descriptions of the individual Toolbox Cognition measures are provided in Weintraub et al. (2013), and Heaton et al. (2014) describes the validation of the Composite Scores.”
MethodSelf-citationNIH EXAMINER: Conceptualization and Development of an Executive Function Battery
Kramer, J. H., Mungas, D., Possin, K. L., Rankin, K. P., Boxer, A. L., Rosen, H. J., Bostrom, A., Sinha, L., Berhel, A., & Widmeyer, M. (2013) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617713001094 · Cited by 279
Self-citationRelation between Speech-in-Noise Threshold, Hearing Loss and Cognition from 40–69 Years of Age
Moore, D., Edmondson-Jones, M., Dawes, P., Fortnum, H., McCormack, A., Pierzycki, R. H., & Munro, K. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107720 · Cited by 257
Improving Methodological Standards in Behavioral Interventions for Cognitive Enhancement
Green, C. S., Bavelier, D., Kramer, A. F., Vinogradov, S., Ulrich Ansorge, A., Ball, K., Bingel, U., Chein, J. M., Colzato, L. S., Edwards, J. D., et al. (2019) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-018-0115-y · Cited by 257
Current advances in digital cognitive assessment for preclinical Alzheimer's disease
Öhman, F., Hassenstab, J., Berron, D., Schöll, M., & Papp, K. V. (2021) · Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring · doi:10.1002/dad2.12217 · Cited by 214
The roles of patterning and spatial skills in early mathematics development
Rittle‐Johnson, B., Zippert, E. L., & Boice, K. L. (2018) · Early Childhood Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.03.006 · Cited by 225
Karcher, N. R., Barch, D. M., Avenevoli, S., Savill, M., Huber, R. S., Simon, T. J., Leckliter, I. N., Sher, K. J., & Loewy, R. L. (2018) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.1334 · Cited by 198
Human Connectomics across the Life Span
Zuo, X., He, Y., Betzel, R. F., Colcombe, S. J., Sporns, O., & Milham, M. P. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.10.005 · Cited by 217
Taylor, R. L., Cooper, S. R., Jackson, J. J., & Barch, D. M. (2020) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.23774 · Cited by 231
The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery: Results from a large normative developmental sample (PING).
Akshoomoff, N. A., Newman, E. R., Thompson, W. K., McCabe, C. J., Bloss, C. S., Chang, L., Amaral, D. G., Casey, B. J., Ernst, T. M., Frazier, J. A., et al. (2013) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/neu0000001 · Cited by 215
Rentz, D. M., Parra, M. A., Amariglio, R. E., Stern, Y., Sperling, R. A., & Ferris, S. H. (2013) · Alzheimer s Research & Therapy · doi:10.1186/alzrt222 · Cited by 212
“More research is needed to determine whether tasks such as the Flanker Inhibitory Control Test and the Dimensional Change Card Sort Task from the National Institutes of Health Toolbox [78] would be sensitive to changes in executive function in the preclinical stages of AD.”
Brunt, V. E., LaRocca, T. J., Bazzoni, A. E., Sapinsley, Z. J., Miyamoto-Ditmon, J., Gioscia-Ryan, R. A., Neilson, A. P., Link, C. D., & Seals, D. R. (2021) · GeroScience · doi:10.1007/s11357-020-00257-2 · Cited by 197
Language Measures of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery
Gershon, R. C., Cook, K. F., Mungas, D., Manly, J. J., Slotkin, J., Beaumont, J. L., & Weintraub, S. (2014) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617714000411 · Cited by 189
“The NIH Toolbox Picture Vocabulary Test and NIH Toolbox Oral Reading Recognition Test were released by the National Institutes of Health for royalty-free use by health and education researchers in late 2012 (see www.nihtoolbox. org for current information).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationNIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB): List Sorting Test to Measure Working Memory
Tulsky, D. S., Carlozzi, N., Chiaravalloti, N. D., Beaumont, J. L., Kisala, P. A., Mungas, D., Conway, K., & Gershon, R. (2014) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s135561771400040x · Cited by 196
“The participants in the validation phase are described in detail in Weintraub et al. (2013).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationBrain–phenotype models fail for individuals who defy sample stereotypes
Greene, A. S., Shen, X., Noble, S., Horien, C., Hahn, C. A., Arora, J., Tokoglu, F., Spann, M. N., Carrión, C. I., Barron, D. S., et al. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05118-w · Cited by 167
Digital neuropsychology: challenges and opportunities at the intersection of science and software
Germine, L., Reinecke, K., & Chaytor, N. S. (2019) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2018.1535662 · Cited by 171
“…— companies such as the nonprofit Center for Open Science (Foster & Deardorff, 2017; Nosek et al., 2015) and Sage Bionetworks (Bot et al., 2016; Wilbanks & Friend, 2016) — have demonstrated it is possible to build viable business models around open source software in ways that could be…”
BackgroundJonklaas, J., Bianco, A. C., Cappola, A. R., Celi, F. S., Fliers, E., Heuer, H., McAninch, E. A., Moeller, L. C., Nygaard, B., Sawka, A. M., et al. (2021) · Thyroid® · doi:10.1089/thy.2020.0720 · Cited by 172
Vitamin C Status and Cognitive Function: A Systematic Review
Travica, N., Ried, K., Sali, A., Scholey, A. B., Hudson, I. L., & Pipingas, A. (2017) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu9090960 · Cited by 180
Fathers matter: The role of father parenting in preschoolers’ executive function development
Meuwissen, A. S., & Carlson, S. M. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.010 · Cited by 175
The home math environment: More than numeracy
Zippert, E. L., & Rittle‐Johnson, B. (2018) · Early Childhood Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.07.009 · Cited by 174
Effects of Mindfulness Training and Exercise on Cognitive Function in Older Adults
Lenze, E. J., Voegtle, M. L., Miller, J. P., Ances, B. M., Balota, D. A., Barch, D. M., Depp, C. A., Diniz, B. S., Eyler, L. T., Foster, E. R., et al. (2022) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2022.21680 · Cited by 188
Bernier, A., Beauchamp, M. H., Carlson, S. M., & Lalonde, G. (2015) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0000032 · Cited by 183
Cohen, J. F. W., Gorski, M. T., Gruber, S. A., Kurdziel, L. B. F., & Rimm, E. B. (2016) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114516002877 · Cited by 171
“This age range was selected as this is an important time period of neurogenesis related to EF, and EF skills would have typically developed sufficiently to measure by this time period((6)).”
BackgroundAssociation of lead-exposure risk and family income with childhood brain outcomes
Marshall, A. T., Betts, S., Kan, E. C., McConnell, R., Lanphear, B. P., & Sowell, E. R. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0713-y · Cited by 164
Romer, A. L., & Pizzagalli, D. A. (2021) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2021.100994 · Cited by 165
“org) (Weintraub et al., 2013) were administered to children on computer tablets monitored by an experimenter at baseline (Luciana et al.”
MethodMoore, R. C., Swendsen, J. D., & Depp, C. A. (2017) · International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1002/mpr.1562 · Cited by 147
“Studies that used cognitive assessments delivered by research staff on mobile devices (e.g. the NIH Toolbox; Weintraub et al., 2013), regardless of the setting, or administered on a tablet (e.g. iPad) instead of an ambulatory mobile device, were excluded.”
MethodCroarkin, P. E., Elmaadawi, A. Z., Aaronson, S. T., Schrodt, G. R., Holbert, R. C., Verdoliva, S., Heart, K. L., Demitrack, M. A., & Strawn, J. R. (2020) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-020-00829-y · Cited by 133
Hessl, D., Sansone, S. M., Berry-Kravis, E., Riley, K., Widaman, K. F., Abbeduto, L., Schneider, A., Coleman, J., Oaklander, D., Rhodes, K. C., et al. (2016) · Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders · doi:10.1186/s11689-016-9167-4 · Cited by 126
Self-citationBerry-Kravis, E. M., Harnett, M. D., Reines, S. A., Reese, M. A., Ethridge, L. E., Outterson, A. H., Michalak, C., Furman, J., & Gurney, M. E. (2021) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01321-w · Cited by 131
Karcher, N. R., O’Brien, K. J., Kandala, S., & Barch, D. M. (2019) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.01.013 · Cited by 128
“(70) for descriptions of individual NIHTB-CB tests] (71).”
BackgroundMeasuring the development of inhibitory control: The challenge of heterotypic continuity
Petersen, I. T., Hoyniak, C. P., McQuillan, M. E., Bates, J. E., & Staples, A. D. (2016) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2016.02.001 · Cited by 140
“Future studies might also develop measures that maintain construct validity invariance across lengthy spans of development (for attempts, see Bauer & Zelazo, 2014; Carlson & Zelazo, 2014; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMarek, S. A., Tervo‐Clemmens, B., Nielsen, A. N., Wheelock, M. D., Miller, R. L., Laumann, T. O., Earl, E., Foran, W., Cordova, M., Doyle, O. J., et al. (2019) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100706 · Cited by 127
Novel Cognitive Paradigms for the Detection of Memory Impairment in Preclinical Alzheimer’s Disease
Loewenstein, D., Curiel, R. E., Duara, R., & Herman Buschke, L. (2017) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191117691608 · Cited by 139
“This was developed in 2004 to supplement outcome measures in epidemiologic and longitudinal research and clinical trials (Beaumont et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodMahinrad, S., Kurian, S., Garner, C. R., Sedaghat, S., Nemeth, A. J., Moscufo, N., Higgins, J. P., Jacobs, D. R., Hausdorff, J. M., Lloyd‐Jones, D. M., et al. (2019) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.119.042502 · Cited by 126
Measuring cognition and function in the preclinical stage of Alzheimer's disease
Weıntraub, S., Carrillo, M. C., Farias, S. T., Goldberg, T. E., Hendrix, J. A., Jaeger, J., Knopman, D. S., Langbaum, J. B. S., Park, D. C., Ropacki, M. T., et al. (2018) · Alzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.trci.2018.01.003 · Cited by 129
“For example, markers of AD neuropathology were associated with a decline in episodic memory, semantic memory, and working memory [16].”
BackgroundMethodNeville, R. D., McArthur, B. A., Eirich, R., Lakes, K. D., & Madigan, S. (2021) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.13425 · Cited by 109
The NIH Toolbox Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test: Normative Data
Carlozzi, N. E., Beaumont, J. L., Tulsky, D. S., & Gershon, R. C. (2015) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acv031 · Cited by 115
Self-citationViterbori, P., Usai, M. C., Traverso, L., & Franchis, V. D. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.014 · Cited by 131
III. NIH toolbox cognition battery (CB): measuring episodic memory
Bauer, P. J., Dikmen, S. S., Heaton, R. K., Mungas, D., Slotkin, J., & Beaumont, J. L. (2013) · Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development · doi:10.1111/mono.12033 · Cited by 128
Self-citationClifford, S. A., Davies, S., & Wake, M. A. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020261 · Cited by 115
Machine learning prediction of cognition from functional connectivity: Are feature weights reliable?
Tian, Y., & Zalesky, A. (2021) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118648 · Cited by 109
Acoustic enhancement of sleep slow oscillations in mild cognitive impairment
Papalambros, N. A., Weıntraub, S., Chen, T. Y., Grimaldi, D., Santostasi, G., Paller, K. A., Zee, P. C., & Malkani, R. G. (2019) · Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology · doi:10.1002/acn3.796 · Cited by 114
“(NIHTB, Data S1), which includes a brief set of measures of working memory, picture memory, language and executive attention.(37,38) The NIHTB was administered in the morning in both stim and sham conditions.”
MethodSpeech-in-noise representation in the aging midbrain and cortex: Effects of hearing loss
Presacco, A., Simon, J. Z., & Anderson, S. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0213899 · Cited by 114
Bidwell, L. C., Ellingson, J. M., Karoly, H. C., YorkWilliams, S. L., Hitchcock, L. N., Tracy, B., Klawitter, J., Sempio, C., Bryan, A. D., & Hutchison, K. E. (2020) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.0927 · Cited by 119
Genome‐wide association study of shared components of reading disability and language impairment
Eicher, J. D., Powers, N. R., Miller, L. L., Akshoomoff, N. A., Amaral, D. G., Bloss, C. S., Libiger, O., Schork, N. J., Darst, B. F., Casey, B. J., et al. (2013) · Genes Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1111/gbb.12085 · Cited by 108
“Subjects completed the validated study version of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery, in which two language- and reading-related tasks were completed: the Oral Reading Recognition Test and Picture Vocabulary Test (Akshoomoff et al. in press; Weintraub et al. 2013).”
MethodAdvances in applications of item response theory to clinical assessment.
Thomas, M. L. (2019) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000597 · Cited by 106
“Cognition assessment using the NIH Toolbox.”
MethodInfluentialWalker, W. C., Carne, W. F., Franke, L. M., Nolen, T. L., Dikmen, S. D., Cifu, D. X., Wilson, K. E., Belanger, H. G., & Williams, R. L. (2016) · Brain Injury · doi:10.1080/02699052.2016.1219061 · Cited by 105
“battery takes 30 minutes to administer [32].”
Self-citationPatterns of Social Determinants of Health and Child Mental Health, Cognition, and Physical Health
Xiao, Y., Mann, J. J., Chow, J. C., Brown, T. T., Snowden, L. R., Yip, P. S.-F., Tsai, A. C., Hou, Y., Pathak, J., Wang, F., et al. (2023) · Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.4218 · Cited by 114
European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia Longitudinal Cohort Study (EPAD LCS): study protocol
Solomon, A., Kivipelto, M., Molinuevo, J. L., Tom, B. D. M., & Ritchie, C. W. (2018) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021017 · Cited by 105
The Role of Resting-State Network Functional Connectivity in Cognitive Aging
Hausman, H. K., O’Shea, A. M., Kraft, J. N., Boutzoukas, E. M., Evangelista, N. D., Etten, E. J. V., Bharadwaj, P. K., Smith, S. G., Porges, E. C., Hishaw, G. A., et al. (2020) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2020.00177 · Cited by 105
Guest Editorial: Auditory Processing Disorder
Moore, D. R. (2018) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000582 · Cited by 100
Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairments and Responsiveness to Motor Rehabilitation: A Review
VanGilder, J. L., Hooyman, A., Peterson, D. S., & Schaefer, S. Y. (2020) · Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports · doi:10.1007/s40141-020-00283-3 · Cited by 104
Improving high school students' executive functions through digital game play
Homer, B. D., Plass, J. L., Raffaele, C., Ober, T. M., & Ali, A. (2017) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.011 · Cited by 112
The long-term effects of cocaine use on cognitive functioning: A systematic critical review
Frazer, K. M., Richards, Q., & Keith, D. R. (2018) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2018.04.005 · Cited by 105
Effect of informational content of noise on speech representation in the aging midbrain and cortex
Presacco, A., Simon, J. Z., & Anderson, S. (2016) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00373.2016 · Cited by 92
Pfister, K. M., Zhang, L., Miller, N. C., Ingolfsland, E. C., Demerath, E. W., & Ramel, S. E. (2018) · Pediatric Research · doi:10.1038/s41390-018-0158-x · Cited by 94
“Data Analysis Multiple linear regression was performed to assess the relationship between body composition and anthropometric measurements and SOP (using latency to P100 on the VEP, where shorter (smaller) latency indicates faster processing, and raw score from NTPST, where a higher score means faster processing) in a…”
MethodInfluentialImpacts of dance on cognition, psychological symptoms and quality of life in Parkinson’s disease
Haputhanthirige, N. K. H., Sullivan, K. A., Moyle, G., Brauer, S., Jeffrey, E. R., & Kerr, G. (2019) · Neurorehabilitation · doi:10.3233/nre-192788 · Cited by 105
“Some cognitive functions may be relatively resistant to decline (for example in highly educated groups (Lei-bovici, Ritchie, Ledesert, & Touchon, 1996)), or that – unlike TMT B-A - did not include a correction for reaction time but were dependent on it (i.e., the Flanker inhibitory control test, Dimensional change car…”
InfluentialSmith, M. J., Sherwood, K. L., Ross, B., Smith, J. D., DaWalt, L. S., Bishop, L., Humm, L. B., Elkins, J., & Steacy, C. (2021) · Autism · doi:10.1177/1362361321989928 · Cited by 93
Kindergarten components of executive function and third grade achievement: A national study
Nguyen, T., & Duncan, G. J. (2018) · Early Childhood Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.05.006 · Cited by 116
“Though lower than the test-retest reliability of other EF tasks, this measure of cognitive flexibility is widely used in studies predicting achievement in young children and is now a standardized measure in the NIH Toolbox (Weintraub et al., 2013) and has also been used in several studies also examining children’s EF…”
MethodThe developmental relationship between specific cognitive domains and grey matter in the cerebellum
Moore, D. M., D’Mello, A. M., McGrath, L. M., & Stoodley, C. J. (2016) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2016.12.001 · Cited by 90
Soorya, L. V., Leon, J., Trelles, M. P., & Thurm, A. E. (2017) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2017.1413211 · Cited by 91
The Dual Mechanisms of Cognitive Control Project
Braver, T. S., Kizhner, A., Tang, R., Freund, M. C., & Etzel, J. A. (2021) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01768 · Cited by 103
Maschan, M., Caimi, P. F., Reese-Koc, J., Sanchez, G. P., Sharma, A. A., Molostova, O., Shelikhova, L., Pershin, D., Stepanov, A., Muzalevskii, Y., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27312-6 · Cited by 88
Apple, A. C., Schroeder, M. P., Ryals, A. J., et al. (2018) · NeuroImage Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2018.07.010 · Cited by 88
Shalabi, H., Wolters, P. L., Martin, S. C., Toledo‐Tamula, M. A., Roderick, M. C., Struemph, K. L., Kane, E., Yates, B., Delbrook, C., Mackall, C. L., et al. (2018) · Journal of Immunotherapy · doi:10.1097/cji.0000000000000241 · Cited by 88
Casaletto, K. B., Umlauf, A., Marquine, M. J., Beaumont, J. L., Mungas, D., Gershon, R. C., Slotkin, J., Akshoomoff, N. A., & Heaton, R. K. (2016) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s135561771500137x · Cited by 87
“See Weintraub et al. (2013) for more detailed descriptions of each measure and Heaton et al. (2014) for validation of the Composite Scores.”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationSanborn, V. E., Azcárate-Peril, M. A., Updegraff, J. A., Manderino, L. M., & Gunstad, J. (2020) · Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment · doi:10.2147/ndt.s270035 · Cited by 89
Gray matter maturation and cognition in children with different APOE ε genotypes
Chang, L., Douet, V., Bloss, C. S., Lee, K., Pritchett, A., Jernigan, T. L., Akshoomoff, N. A., Murray, S. S., Frazier, J. A., Kennedy, D. N., et al. (2016) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000002939 · Cited by 81
Vargas, T., Damme, K. S. F., & Mittal, V. A. (2020) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117086 · Cited by 83
Walhovd, K. B., Fjell, A. M., Wang, Y., Amlien, I. K., Mowinckel, A. M., Lindenberger, U., Düzel, S., Bartrés‐Faz, D., Ebmeier, K. P., Drevon, C. A., et al. (2021) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhab248 · Cited by 83
“The cognitive measures from the NIH toolbox have shown good short term reliability (Weintraub et al. 2013).”
MethodKarcher, N. R., Loewy, R. L., Savill, M., Avenevoli, S., Huber, R. S., Makowski, C., Sher, K. J., & Barch, D. M. (2021) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41380-021-01373-x · Cited by 81
“Neuropsychological test battery The current study utilized uncorrected National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognitive Battery scores from the 7 individual tests and fluid and crystallized composite scores [46].”
MethodGettens, K. M., & Gorin, A. A. (2017) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-017-9831-5 · Cited by 77
Jonklaas, J., Bianco, A. C., Cappola, A. R., Celi, F. S., Fliers, E., Heuer, H., McAninch, E. A., Moeller, L. C., Nygaard, B., Sawka, A. M., et al. (2021) · European Thyroid Journal · doi:10.1159/000512970 · Cited by 78
Long-Term Treatment of Niemann-Pick Type C1 Disease With Intrathecal 2-Hydroxypropyl-β-Cyclodextrin
Berry‐Kravis, E., Chin, J. A., Hoffmann, A., Winston, A., Stoner, R., LaGorio, L. A., Friedmann, K., Hernández, M., Ory, D. S., Porter, F. D., et al. (2018) · Pediatric Neurology · doi:10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2017.12.014 · Cited by 78
Sekiyama, M., Yamazaki, S., Michikawa, T., et al. (2020) · Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.2188/jea.je20200448 · Cited by 75
Harris, C., Tang, Y., Birnbaum, E., Cherian, C., Mendhe, D., & Chen, M. H. (2024) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acae016 · Cited by 84
Preschoolers' Executive Function: Importance, Contributors, Research Needs and Assessment Options
Ackerman, D. J., & Friedman‐Krauss, A. H. (2017) · ETS Research Report Series · doi:10.1002/ets2.12148 · Cited by 103
Pindus, D. M., Drollette, E. S., Scudder, M. R., Khan, N. A., Raine, L. B., Sherar, L. B., Esliger, D., Kramer, A. F., & Hillman, C. H. (2016) · The Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.02.045 · Cited by 82
Exercise Intensity Influences Prefrontal Cortex Oxygenation during Cognitive Testing
Moriarty, T. A., Bourbeau, K., Bellovary, B. N., & Zuhl, M. (2019) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs9080083 · Cited by 78
Validation of the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery in intellectual disability
Shields, R. H., Kaat, A. J., McKenzie, F. J., Drayton, A., Sansone, S. M., Coleman, J., Michalak, C., Riley, K., Berry-Kravis, E., Gershon, R. C., et al. (2020) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000009131 · Cited by 73
Self-citationValidation of the NIH Toolbox in Individuals with Neurologic Disorders
Carlozzi, N. E., Goodnight, S. M., Casaletto, K. B., Goldsmith, A., Heaton, R. K., Wong, A., Baum, C. M., Gershon, R. C., Heinemann, A. W., & Tulsky, D. S. (2017) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acx020 · Cited by 74
Self-citationHome-based Cognitive Prehabilitation in Older Surgical Patients: A Feasibility Study
Vlisides, P. E., Das, A. R., Thompson, A. M., Kunkler, B. S., Zierau, M., Cantley, M. J., McKinney, A., & Giordani, B. (2018) · Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/ana.0000000000000569 · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- Weintraub, S., Dikmen, S. S., Heaton, R. K., Tulsky, D. S., Zelazo, P. D., Bauer, P. J., Carlozzi, N. E., Slotkin, J., Blitz, D., Wallner-Allen, K., Fox, N. A., Beaumont, J. L., Mungas, D., Nowinski, C. J., Richler, J., Deocampo, J. A., Anderson, J. E., Manly, J. J., Borosh, B., Havlik, R., Conway, K., Edwards, E., Freund, L., King, J. W., Moy, C., Witt, E., & Gershon, R. C.
- Affiliations
- From the Cognitive Neurology and Alzheimer's Disease Center (S.W., B.B.), Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.S.D.), University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Department of Psychiatry (R.K.H.), University of California, San Diego, CA; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (D.S.T., N.E.C.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Institute of Child Development (P.D.Z., J.E.A.), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; Department of...
- University of Minnesota (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Neurology
- Published
- 2013-03-12
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 11_supplement_3
- Pages
- S54-64
- ISSN
- 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-632X
- PMC
- PMC3662346
- OpenAlex
- W4296295377
- Semantic Scholar
- ad1bf29d236b7efc7939f4798eb18300052b81c2
- Cited by
- 1,287
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 106 · 2025: 140 · 2024: 162 · 2023: 143 · 2022: 157 · 2021: 163 · 2020: 130 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 11
- FWCI
- 33.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Neurology (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Kessler Foundation
- Brown University
- Ohio State University
- Northwestern University
- University of Washington
- Temple University
- National Institutes of Health (5ul1rr025761-04)
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (HHSN260200600007C)
- U.S. Public Health Service (NIDRR H133G090022, NIDRR H133A080035, H133A070037-08A, H133B090024, H133G070138, HHSN260200600007, H133A980023, H133N060022, B6237R)
- University of California, San Diego
- University of California, San Francisco
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (201963)
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG028786, R01 AG016206, U01 AG14282, R01AG037212, RC2AG036498, U01AG014260, N01-AG-6-0007, U01AG14260, 1RC2AG036498-01, U01AG014263, U01AG014276, R01AG010220, U01AG014289, P30AG013854, AG-260-06-01, U01AG014282)
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23HL085766 NIA, K23HL085766)
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH074454, U01MH083506, R01MH058076, R01MH078748, R01 MH060720, R01MH081861, U01MH074454, P50MH078105, R01 MH073433, R01MH083552, U01MH080759, R01MH078737, R01MH080759, R01MH091363, R01MH074454, P30MH062512)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (P50DA026306, P01DA012065)
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC008552)
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U01DK082342, 1U01DK082342-01)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (HHSN 2652004236-01C, R03NS065194, U01 NS 056 975 02, R01 NS058302, NIH R01 NS058302)
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (U01 AR057929, U54AR057943, 1U5AR057943-01)
- National Center for Research Resources (UL1-RR025761)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R37 HD017899, P01HD064653, R01HD061400, HHSN267200700027C, HD05469, R01HD054659, R01HD067359)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- NIH Toolbox, cognitive assessment, executive function, episodic memory, language, processing speed, working memory, attention, test-retest reliability, construct validity, age effects, computerized cognitive assessment, cognitive outcome measures
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attention, Child, Child, Preschool, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Language, Middle Aged, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Neuropsychological Tests, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
