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
Items 901–1,000 of 1,289
Diachek, E., Brown‐Schmidt, S., & Duff, M. C. (2024) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2024_jslhr-23-00385 · Cited by 3
Guo, K., Huang, J., Chen, X., & He, L. (2024) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-024-02817-0 · Cited by 3
“(Weintraub et al. 2013 ).”
Elsayed, M., Owens, M. M., Balodis, I. M., & MacKillop, J. M. (2024) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2024.115217 · Cited by 3
“The NIH toolbox [36] was administered in both the HCP and ABCD studies, as they are validated for an age range of 3 – 85 years, and it includes the list sorting task.”
MethodSmith, M. J., Merle, J. L., Baker-Ericzén, M. J., Sherwood, K. L., Bornheimer, L. A., Ross, B., Harrington, M. M., Sharma, A., Brown, C., Gordon, T. (., et al. (2024) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101384 · Cited by 3
Lim, M., Gaudreau, J., & Logan, N. E. (2024) · Exercise Sport and Movement · doi:10.1249/esm.0000000000000032 · Cited by 6
Amandola, M., Farber, K., Kidambi, R., & Leung, H. (2025) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0821-24.2025 · Cited by 3
Obenauf, C., Ravi, K. E., & Kamper, J. E. (2025) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acaf024 · Cited by 3
Relyea, J. E. (2025) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102690 · Cited by 3
Working memory capacity and rumination in adults who stutter
Coalson, G. A., Croft, R. L., & Byrd, C. T. (2025) · Journal of Fluency Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2025.106119 · Cited by 2
A Systematic Review of the Relation between Complementary Feeding and Children’s Development
Prete, A. D., Galloway, A. T., Farrow, C. V., et al. (2025) · Current Nutrition Reports · doi:10.1007/s13668-025-00692-7 · Cited by 3
The national institute of health toolbox
Narayan, S. K., & Khilari, M. L. (2014) · Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology · doi:10.4103/0972-2327.138464 · Cited by 4
“[1,10] This toolbox assesses executive function, episodic memory, language, processing speed, working memory and a (cid:308) ention as the most important constructs in use in day-to-day life, schooling and at work.”
BackgroundMethodRifkin‐Graboi, A., Khng, K. H., Cheung, P., Tsotsi, S., Sun, H. Q., Kwok, F. Y., Yu, Y., Xie, H., Yang, Y., Chen, M., et al. (2019) · Learning Research and Practice · doi:10.1080/23735082.2019.1674907 · Cited by 3
Plantinga, L., Xu, G., Hoge, C. E., Vandenberg, A. E., Dunlop-Thomas, C. M., Jones, B. D., Johnson, J. M., Drenkard, C., Lim, S. S., & Bowling, C. B. (2021) · Arthritis Care & Research · doi:10.1002/acr.24756 · Cited by 3
“‡ Overall National Institutes of Health Toolbox fluid cognition score (24) measures the capacity to reason and solve novel problems.”
Mindfulness in Early Childhood: Developing 21st Century Competencies
Khng, K. H. (2022) · Empowering teaching and learning through policies and practice · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-7405-1_9 · Cited by 3
Cumming, M. M., Criado, C., Park, J., Arango, A., Rodriguez, M. L., & Ali, M. (2022) · Teaching Exceptional Children · doi:10.1177/00400599221093393 · Cited by 4
Wilk, V. C., McGuire, S., & Roe, A. J. (2022) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu14214497 · Cited by 7
“The fluid cognition assessment battery of the National Institute of Health Toolbox for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function (NIHTB-CB) was used to assess cognition in children 3–5 years of age [33].”
MethodComputerized Cognitive Function Does Not Correlate With Choice Reaction Time During a Hopping Task
Porter, K. H., Morelli, N., Heebner, N. R., et al. (2023) · Journal of Sport Rehabilitation · doi:10.1123/jsr.2022-0345 · Cited by 3
Biomarkers for rapid H-reflex operant conditioning among females
Johnson, K. A., Petrie, M. A., & Shields, R. K. (2023) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00188.2022 · Cited by 5
Shapiro, A. L. B., Bellatorre, A. C., Dabelea, D., Stafford, J. M., D’Agostino, R., SHAH, A. S., Urbina, E. M., Barrett, C. E., Pihoker, C., Marcovina, S. M., et al. (2023) · Pediatric Diabetes · doi:10.1155/2023/4860831 · Cited by 3
“In brief, the NIHTB-CB assesses individual fuid and crystal-lized cognitive subdomains and generates composite scores for overall fuid cognition and overall crystallized cognition that represents performance across all subdomain tests [25].”
Bhatia, U., Bond, D. S., Gunstad, J., Carroll, I. M., Crosby, R. D., Mitchell, J. E., Peat, C. M., Steffen, K. J., & Heinberg, L. J. (2023) · Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.soard.2023.06.004 · Cited by 3
Funções executivas e saúde mental em estudantes durante a pandemia de COVID-19
de Campos, A. P. S., Seabra, A. G., & Carreiro, L. R. R. (2023) · Revista Psicopedagogia · doi:10.51207/2179-4057.20230014 · Cited by 5
“Therefore, EF are fundamental to organizing behavior in the face of environmental demands (Diamond, 2013) and play a fundamental role in solving problems and making decisions flexibly and creatively (Diamond & Ling, 2019; Miyake & Friedman, 2012; Weintraub et al., 2013; Zelazo & Carlson, 2012).”
BackgroundZhang, J., Ren, Y., Deng, Y., & Huang, S. (2023) · Applied Developmental Science · doi:10.1080/10888691.2023.2271868 · Cited by 4
“…by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) toolbox Cognition Batteries (http://www.nihtoolbox. org), a clinically validated iPad-based application that has already established a standard approach to assessing cognitive function (Badaly et al., 2020; Hodes et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Lai, H. C., Treisman, G. J., Celentano, D. D., Gerstenblith, G., Mandler, R. N., Khalsa, J. H., Charurat, M. E., Lai, S., & Pearson, G. (2023) · International Journal of STD & AIDS · doi:10.1177/09564624231218762 · Cited by 3
NIH Toolbox performance of persons with Parkinson's disease according to GBA1 and STN‐DBS status
Almelegy, A., Gunda, S., Buyske, S. G., Rosenbaum, M., Sani, S., Afshari, M., Metman, L. V., Goetz, C. G., Hall, D. A., Mouradian, M. M., et al. (2024) · Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology · doi:10.1002/acn3.52005 · Cited by 3
Subcortical volume in middle-aged adults with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders
Bischoff‐Grethe, A., Stoner, S. A., Riley, E. P., & Moore, E. M. (2024) · Brain Communications · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcae273 · Cited by 3
Feasibility of the MIND+SOUL Culturally Tailored Brain Healthy Diet: A Pilot Study
Shaw, A. R., Honea, R. A., Mudaranthakam, D. P., Young, K. J., Vidoni, E. D., Morris, J. K., Billinger, S. A., Key, M. N., Berkley‐Patton, J., & Burns, J. M. (2024) · American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine · doi:10.1177/15598276241296052 · Cited by 3
Liu, T., Lo, W., Chen, J., Wang, J., & Li, C. (2024) · Geriatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2024.10.038 · Cited by 3
Bhavnani, S., Ranjan, A., Mukherjee, D., Divan, G., Prakash, A., Yadav, A., Lal, C., Gajria, D., Irfan, H., Sharma, K. K., et al. (2025) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000824 · Cited by 3
“This scoring method will also allow, in the longer term, the use of adaptive testing, i.e., only asking items which are pertinent to a test-taker, to shorten the duration of assessment [25], to further improve its acceptability, feasibility and scalability.”
Nix, C. A., Mackenstadt, D., & Dozier, M. E. (2025) · Clinical Case Studies · doi:10.1177/15346501251349171 · Cited by 3
Chabal, S. A., Hayakawa, S. L., & Marian, V. (2021) · Cognitive Research Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-020-00268-9 · Cited by 3
Cognitive Assessments in Critical Care Patient Populations: Methodological Considerations
Agarwal, S., & Pavol, M. A. (2021) · Neurocritical Care · doi:10.1007/s12028-020-01187-9 · Cited by 3
Potvin, M.-J., Brayet, P., Paradis, V., Overbeek, C., Therrien, É., Dion, L., Bernard, F., Gosselin, N., Rouleau, I., Boucher, O., et al. (2022) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2022.02.015 · Cited by 3
Won, J., Ranadive, S. M., Callow, D. D., Chen, S., & Smith, J. C. (2021) · Physiological Reports · doi:10.14814/phy2.14819 · Cited by 3
Bail, J. R., & Demark‐Wahnefried, W. (2019) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.32171 · Cited by 3
Design of the Play & Grow Cohort: A prospective study of parent-child mealtime interactionsPreprint
Parrott, A., Zvara, B. J., Keim, S. A., Andridge, R., & Anderson, S. E. (2020) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2020.06.11.20128637 · Cited by 3
“…measurements, trained staff administer a series of standardized executive function tasks including delay of gratification in food and nonfood settings, inhibitory control, attention and emotion-regulation (Kochanska, Murray, Jacques, Koenig, & Vandegeest, 1996; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodNorbom, L. B., Hanson, J. L., van der Meer, D., Ferschmann, L., Røysamb, E., von Soest, T., Andreassen, O. A., Agartz, I., Westlye, L. T., & Tamnes, C. K. (2022) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/a4hwr · Cited by 3
Alasmar, Z., Tremblay, S. A., Baumeister, T. R., Carbonell, F., Gauthier, C. J., Iturria‐Medina, Y., & Steele, C. J. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.06.05.597645 · Cited by 3
Ramduny, J., Uddin, L. Q., Vanderwal, T., Feczko, E., Fair, D., Kelly, C., & Baskin-Sommers, A. (2024) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1101/2024.06.22.600221 · Cited by 1
“In youth, the test-retest reliability indexed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is excellent for NIH Toolbox (ICC > 0.76) 55 as well as CBCL externalizing and internalizing (ICC > 0.95) 53 .”
MethodInfluentialZekelman, L., Karayumak, S. C., Chen, Y., Almeida, M., Legarreta, J. H., Rushmore, J., Pieper, S., Lan, Z., Desmond, J. E., Baird, L. C., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.02.05.636737 · Cited by 3
“Finally, maturational differences between pre-adolescent children (ABCD) and young adults (HCP-YA) may further explain variations in significance and effect size, as cerebellar and cognitive development continue through adolescence 35–39 .”
Auditory Cortex Asymmetry Associations with Individual Differences in Language and Cognition
Eckert, M. A., Vaden, K. I., & Paracchini, S. (2023) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci14010014 · Cited by 2
“The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery [24] is a widely used assessment tool and was used in the current study to examine the extent to which cognitive variables were related to PTA.”
MethodRinne, G. R., Podosin, M., Mahrer, N. E., Shalowitz, M. U., Ramey, S. L., & Schetter, C. D. (2024) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579424000920 · Cited by 5
“…Child inhibitory control, or the ability to inhibit or block automatic or inappropriate responses (Posner & Rothbart, 2000; Zelazo, 2020), was measured using the Early Childhood version of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (ages 3–6; Weintraub et al., 2013) at the second early childhood visit.”
InfluentialZhou, Q., Zhao, X., Chen, J., Xu, J., Yang, A., Xiong, Y., Yin, X., Zhao, X., & Li, X. (2024) · European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1007/s00787-024-02515-6 · Cited by 2
“…(abcd_tbss01) module, consisting of seven subscale scores for seven tasks measuring a range of cognitive abilities, and three summary scores including crystal, fluid and total intelligence, which were assessed by the NIH Toolbox [20] (details described in the eMethods in the supplementary files).”
Language experience influences performance on the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery: A cluster analysis
Chung-Fat-Yim, A., Hayakawa, S., & Marian, V. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-04360-7 · Cited by 4
“Reliability and validity were previously assessed by Weintraub et al. (2013).”
InfluentialSlotkin, J., Kaat, A. J., Young, S. R., Dworak, E. M., Novack, M. A., Shono, Y., Adam, H., Nowinski, C. J., Pila, S., Hosseinian, Z., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1497816 · Cited by 2
Self-citationSubstance use and mental health symptoms in adults with prenatal alcohol exposure
Hunnicutt-Ferguson, K., Stoner, S. A., Kable, J. A., Grant, T. M., & Coles, C. D. (2025) · Neurotoxicology and Teratology · doi:10.1016/j.ntt.2025.107436 · Cited by 2
Convery, R. S., Adams-Carr, K. L., Nicholas, J. M., Moore, K. M., Goldsmith, S., Bocchetta, M., Russell, L. L., & Rohrer, J. D. (2025) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/neu0001005 · Cited by 4
Scalar inference is supported by Theory of Mind networks in adults and children
Kampa, A., Anna Papafragou, A., & Jasińska, K. K. (2025) · Language Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2025.2489602 · Cited by 2
“…children feel more comfortable in the lab space, followed by a behavioural test battery, which consisted of a ToM task, a vocabulary task, and an EF task in that order (the last two tasks were completed from the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery using the NIH Toolbox iPad app; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
The measurement of self-regulation in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study
Marek, M. J., Heep, A., & Hildebrandt, A. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0322795 · Cited by 4
“Additionally, three behavioral tasks from the NIH Cognition Assessment Toolbox [43] were selected as indicators of EF.”
Baraya, N., Thibodaux, L. K., Martin, A., Stone, C., Strahle, J. M., Patel, K. B., & Chapman, L. A. (2025) · The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal · doi:10.1177/10556656251339879 · Cited by 2
“23,26 Meanwhile, caregiver-reported measures like the ABAS-3 provide a comprehensive understanding of adaptive functioning and how skills generalize into daily life.”
Utecht, S., Gómez-Acevedo, H., Bona, J. P., van der Plas, E. A. A., Prior, F., & Larson‐Prior, L. J. (2025) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers17101684 · Cited by 2
“…compared to age-matched controls, which correlated with worse composite scores on the National Institute of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery [54], particularly on the picture vocabulary tests, which supports their previous study finding alterations in the connectivity of the precuneus and…”
Burke, I., Chesser, C., Brown, C. P. K., Watkins, R., Butterworth, P., Olofsson, J., Laver, K., Hampstead, B. M., & Bahar‐Fuchs, A. (2025) · Alzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical Interventions · doi:10.1002/trc2.70120 · Cited by 2
Kochvar, A. P., Laviolette, S. R., Khan, A. S., Grin, B. M., & Dai, H. D. (2025) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2025.115741 · Cited by 2
Curtis, M. G., Reck, A., Collins, C., Kwon, E., Pinson, N. M., Koss, K. J., & Kogan, S. M. (2025) · Journal of Adolescent Health · doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2025.05.026 · Cited by 4
Jutten, R. J., Burling, J. E., Slade, E., Thompson, J. C., Fu, J. F., Birkenbihl, C., Properzi, M. J., Marshall, G. A., Amariglio, R. E., Papp, K. V., et al. (2025) · Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring · doi:10.1002/dad2.70160 · Cited by 2
Huang, L., Huang, R., Sui, G., Du, W., Zhou, L., Luo, Q., Ren, T., & Li, F. R. (2025) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-025-03648-1 · Cited by 2
“The pubertal score was the average of self-and parent-reported score on a scale from 1 (prepuberty) to 5 (post puberty) [55].”
Hyat, M., Zhu, J., Boltz, T. A., Conomos, M. P., Hughes, D., Fohner, A. E., Foster, K. T., Bigdeli, T. B., & Forsyth, J. K. (2025) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291725102304 · Cited by 2
“Cognitive functioning across multiple domains was assessed with the NIH Toolbox (Gershon et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Burnett, J., Cobden, A. L., Burmester, A., Akhlaghi, H., D, J. F. D., & Caeyenberghs, K. (2025) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.70394 · Cited by 2
“Processing speed was assessed using the Pattern Comparison Processing Speed task (PCPST) of the computerised National Institute of Health (NIH) Toolbox Cognition Battery (Weintraub et al. 2013) on an iPad 6th Gen (9.7 in.).”
Influentialvan Rentergem, J. A. A., Li, Y., & Small, B. J. (2025) · Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/13803395.2025.2573782 · Cited by 2
“The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery provides standardized metrics (Weintraub et al., 2013) which are also used in studies of cancer-related cognitive impairment (Daniel et al., 2024; Sinha et al., 2018).”
Long COVID: lung pathophysiology and its relationship with cognitive dysfunction
Staab, K. R., McIntosh, M. J., Puliyakote, A. S. K., Hahn, A. D., AlArab, N., Percy, J. L., Lanning, T., Theeler, J., Linkenmeyer, C., Wharff, C. J., et al. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-26568-y · Cited by 2
Carvalho, C., & Ravindran, N. (2025) · Journal of Research on Adolescence · doi:10.1111/jora.70125 · Cited by 3
Boccia, G., Brustio, P. R., Mulasso, A., Tufo, F., & Rainoldi, A. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0343122 · Cited by 2
“The physical capacities domain of the NIH Toolbox assesses an individual’s motor function, sensory abilities, and physical fitness [28].”
InfluentialEffects of One Season of Rugby on the Neurological Integrity of Male Adolescent Players
Henley, S., Spriggs, N., Kabaliuk, N., Stitt, D., Heward-Swale, A. G., Xu, C., Mangan, K., Hamlin, M., Masters, R. S. W., Melzer, T. R., et al. (2026) · Sports Medicine - Open · doi:10.1186/s40798-026-00987-1 · Cited by 2
“…score encompasses six cognitive subdomains: executive function, episodic memory, language, processing speed, attention, and working memory [43] The Movement Specific Reinvestment Scale (MSRS) and Decision Specific Reinvestment Scale (DSRS) were utilised to assess changes in conscious…”
Pan, X., Pollitt, K. J. G., Liu, S., Armstrong, F., & Amin, B. (2026) · Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology · doi:10.1038/s41370-026-00861-y · Cited by 3
“…Cognitive Battery is a computerized (iPad-based administration) neurobehavioral assessment consisting of multiple tests to measure cognitive domains including executive function, attention, episodic memory, language, processing speed, and working memory for a wide range of ages (7 – 85) [37, 38].”
Adkinson, B. D., Rosenblatt, M., Sun, H., Dadashkarimi, J., Tejavibulya, L., Horien, C. L., Westwater, M. L., Rodriguez, R. X., Noble, S., & Scheinost, D. (2026) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-026-02447-y · Cited by 3
“We created functional and structural models for the 6,271 ABCD participants with both fMRI and diffusion data to predict NIH Toolbox age-corrected fluid, crystallized and composite intelligence scores.”
Zhao, C., Jing Sui （Beijing Normal University）， my correct affiliation is beijing normal university, N. Q. U. O. S. A. T., Jiang, R., Zhang, D., Calhoun, V. D., & Qi, S. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp55912.2026.11461812 · Cited by 2
Neurologic Manifestations of Long COVID Affect Adult Females More Severely Than Males
Kopinsky, H., Lopez, M., Miller, J., Jimenez, M., Liotta, E. M., & Koralnik, I. J. (2026) · Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology · doi:10.1002/acn3.70468 · Cited by 2
“1 as previously reported [19–21].”
Prenatal exposure to fluoride in public water and child cognition in the US ECHO cohort, 2006-2019
Simon, K. R., Bloomquist, T. R., Rajeev, T., Hernandez, A., Kulali, S., Burjak, M., Kress, A., Palmore, M., Akbaryan, A., Sanchez, T., et al. (2026) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwag186 · Cited by 2
Obesity, Cytokines and Cognition across the Lifespan among People Living with HIV
Míguez, M. J., & Bueno, D. (2016) · Journal of AIDS & Clinical Research · doi:10.4172/2155-6113.1000593 · Cited by 2
Farrell, C. B., Gilpin, A. T., Nancarrow, A. F., & Brown, M. M. (2019) · International Journal of Developmental Science · doi:10.3233/dev-190269 · Cited by 2
“Thetaskused computeradaptivetestingtoquicklyidentifythepar-ticipant’sskilllevel(Weintraubetal.,2013).”
InfluentialWalker, W. C., O’Rourke, J. J. F., Wilde, E. A., Pugh, M. J., Kenney, K., Dismuke, C., Ou, Z., Presson, A. P., Werner, J. K., Kean, J. T., et al. (2022) · Brain Injury · doi:10.1080/02699052.2022.2033849 · Cited by 2
Haas, S. S., Doucet, G. E., Antoniades, M., Modabbernia, A., Corcoran, C. M., Kahn, R. S., Kambeitz, J. P., Kambeitz‐Ilankovic, L., Borgwardt, S., Brambilla, P., et al. (2022) · Schizophrenia Research Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.scog.2022.100252 · Cited by 2
Wallace, A. L., Swartz, A. M., Cho, C. C., Kaiver, C. M., Sullivan, R. M., & Lisdahl, K. M. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19095684 · Cited by 2
Karr, J. E., Mindt, M. R., & Iverson, G. L. (2022) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acac042 · Cited by 2
A matter of habit? Stressful life events and cognitive flexibility in 15-month-olds
Tisborn, K., Kumsta, R., Zmyj, N., & Seehagen, S. (2023) · Infant Behavior and Development · doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2023.101810 · Cited by 2
Ranger, J., König, C., Domingue, B. W., et al. (2023) · Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986231184153 · Cited by 2
“The Flanker task used here is part of the NIH Toolbox (Weintraub et al., 2013), specifically the Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention task.”
MethodDigital Technologies in Cognitive Disorders
Padovani, A., & Pilotto, A. (2023) · Practical issues in geriatrics · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-32246-4_7 · Cited by 2
Sop, D. M., Steinberg, J. L., Jordan, J. H., Crouch, T. B., Zhang, Y. M., & Smith, W. R. (2023) · Journal of Neurology and Experimental Neural Science · doi:10.29011/2577-1442.100050 · Cited by 2
Inactivity May Identify Older Intensive Care Unit Survivors at Risk for Post–Intensive Care Syndrome
Elias, M. N., Ahrens, E. A., Tsai, C.-S., Liang, Z., & Munro, C. L. (2024) · American Journal of Critical Care · doi:10.4037/ajcc2024785 · Cited by 2
Wiguna, T., Minayati, K., Kaligis, F., Teh, S. D., Krishnandita, M., Fitri, N. M. A., Ismail, R. I., Fasha, A. H., Steven, S., & Bahana, R. (2024) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/10731911241234734 · Cited by 2
“Weintraub et al. (2013) .”
Kringle, E. A., Kersey, J., Lewis, M. A., Gibbs, B. B., & Skidmore, E. R. (2024) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2024.2341867 · Cited by 2
“The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox - Cognition Battery was used to characterize cognitive function [22].”
Bieber, R. E., & Gordon-Salant, S. M. (2024) · Auditory Perception & Cognition · doi:10.1080/25742442.2024.2345568 · Cited by 3
Cognitive outcomes of children and adults with sickle cell anaemia: A contemporary cohort
Turner, A. D., Power, L. C., Yan, Y., Binkley, M. M., Hood, A., Guilliams, K. P., Ford, A. L., King, A. A., & Fields, M. E. (2024) · British Journal of Haematology · doi:10.1111/bjh.19642 · Cited by 2
Validation of the ND-PAE Diagnosis in Children with Heavy Prenatal Alcohol Exposure
Veziris, C. R., Hyland, M. T., Kable, J. A., Wozniak, J. R., Coles, C. D., May, P. A., Kalberg, W. O., Sowell, E. R., Jones, K. L., Riley, E. P., et al. (2024) · Child Psychiatry & Human Development · doi:10.1007/s10578-024-01740-z · Cited by 2
“…the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS) [32], the Delis-Rating of Executive Function (D-REF) [33], NEPSY-II [34], the NIH Toolbox [35, 36], the Teacher Report Form (TRF) [30], the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III) [37], and the WISC-IV/V. Self-Regulation…”
Tchetchenian, A., Zekelman, L., Chen, Y., Rushmore, J., Zhang, F., Yeterian, E. H., Makris, N., Yogesh Rathi, A., Meijering, E. H. W., Song, Y., et al. (2024) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.70008 · Cited by 3
“Regarding the NIH Toolbox measures, we studied all age-adjusted motor and cognitive NIH Toolbox measures (Table 1) (Gershon et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodWang, L., Liu, M., Zhang, S., & Wang, X. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72069-7_5 · Cited by 2
Szabo‐Reed, A. N., Watts, A. S., Vidoni, E. D., Mahnken, J. D., Sciver, A. R. V., Finley, K., Clutton, J. E., Holden, R., Key, M. N., & Burns, J. M. (2024) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2024.107729 · Cited by 4
“[58] This information may prove useful in powering a larger future study if needed.”
Chan, A., Au, C. T., Reyna, M. E., Robertson, A., Walker, K., Westmacott, R., Shroff, M. M., Mertens, L., Dlamini, N., & Narang, I. (2024) · Sleep Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2024.11.005 · Cited by 3
Jutten, R. J., Ho, E., Karpouzian‐Rogers, T., Hulle, C. V., Carlsson, C. M., Dodge, H. H., Nowinski, C. J., Gershon, R. C., Weıntraub, S., & Rentz, D. M. (2025) · Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring · doi:10.1002/dad2.70046 · Cited by 2
Self-citationLiu, Z., Mitchell, T. J., Luo, C., Park, K. Y., Shimony, J. S., Fucetola, R. P., Leuthardt, E. C., Perkins, S. M., Snyder, A. Z., Zhu, T., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2025.03.017 · Cited by 3
Lynch, K. M., Custer, R. M., Sepehrband, F., Toga, A. W., & Choupan, J. (2025) · Imaging Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/imag_a_00549 · Cited by 4
“All subjects in the HCP-D and HCP-A were administered the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Function Battery (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Developmental Invariance in the Statistical Learning of Target Location Probability
Lee, S., Hong, I., & Jeong, S. K. (2020) · THE KOREAN JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY · doi:10.35574/kjdp.2020.12.33.4.19 · Cited by 2
Intergenerational transmission of appetite self-regulation
Giuliani, N. R., Harrington, E. M., & Trevino, S. D. (2021) · Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101330 · Cited by 2
Maerlender, A., Smith, E. P., Brolinson, P. G., Urban, J. E., Rowson, S., Ajamil, A., Campolettano, E. T., Gellner, R. A., Bellamkonda, S., Kelley, M. E., et al. (2020) · Applied Neuropsychology Child · doi:10.1080/21622965.2020.1726746 · Cited by 4
“The Picture Vocabulary test was used as a proxy for level of cognitive development and not included in outcome analyses except as a covariate (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodElias, M. N., Munro, C. L., & Liang, Z. (2021) · Journal of Gerontological Nursing · doi:10.3928/00989134-20210107-03 · Cited by 2
Ssewanyana, D., Knight, J. A., Matthews, S. G., Wong, J., Khani, N. A., Lye, J., Murphy, K. E., Foshay, K., Okeke, J. C., Lye, S. J., et al. (2022) · Pediatric Research · doi:10.1038/s41390-022-02003-0 · Cited by 2
El consumo de omega 3 y su relación con el rendimiento académico de los estudiantes.
Yánez, Á. S. A. (2023) · MENTOR revista de investigación educativa y deportiva · doi:10.56200/mried.v2i5.5648 · Cited by 2
Wray, C., Kowalski, A. J., Mpondo, F., Ochaeta, L., Belleza, D., DiGirolamo, A. M., Waford, R., Richter, L., Lee, N., Scerif, G., et al. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290238 · Cited by 2
Vrantsidis, D. M., Klebanoff, M. A., Yeates, K. O., Murnan, A., Fried, P. A., Boone, K. M., Rausch, J. R., & Keim, S. A. (2024) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579424000890 · Cited by 3
Paul, S. S., Porciuncula, F., Cavanaugh, J. T., Rawson, K. S., Nordahl, T. J., Baker, T. C., Duncan, R. P., Earhart, G. M., & Ellis, T. D. (2024) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2024.10.012 · Cited by 2
IMPACT OF ANTIEPILEPTIC DRUGS ON COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS
Gamirova, R., Gorobets, E. A., Akhutina, T. V., & Esin, R. G. (2018) · Rossiyskiy Vestnik Perinatologii i Pediatrii (Russian Bulletin of Perinatology and Pediatrics) · doi:10.21508/1027-4065-2018-63-5-130-134 · Cited by 2
“В зарубежной практике в настоящее время наибольшей популярностью пользуются такие компьютеризированные тесты, как NIH Cognitive Toolbox [24], NIH PROMIS [25], русскоязычных версий этих инструментов нет, поэтому достаточно трудно проводить сравнение результатов российских и зарубежных авторов.”
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
