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 1,201–1,289 of 1,289
Projection pursuit Bayesian regression for symmetric matrix predictors
Ju, X., Park, H., & Tarpey, T. (2025) · Journal of Multivariate Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.jmva.2025.105539
“The response variable is the age-adjusted early childhood composite score (CogEarlyComp AgeAdj), which summarizes measures of cognitive functions evaluated by the NIH Toolbox for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function [21, 64].”
Cognitive Flexibility is Critical for Postural Control in Parkinson Disease
Leedom, M., Berg-Poppe, P. J., Espinoza, A. I., & Singh, A. P. (2025) · Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology · doi:10.1097/wnn.0000000000000414
Palombo, P., Akana, N., Bowen, A., Schmidt, A., Ryan, R., Hovland, S. E., Stark, B. C., Rodin, N. M., Chaytor, N. S., McDonell, M. G., et al. (2025) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2025.108189
Vallabh, S. M., Minikel, E. V., Williams, V. J., Carlyle, B. C., McManus, A. J., Wennick, C., Bolling, A. M., Trombetta, B. A., Urick, D., Nobuhara, C. K., et al. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12503138
Plank, J. R., Glover, S. C., Moloney, B. D., Hoeh, N. R., Sundram, F., Sumner, R. L., Muthukumaraswamy, S. D., & Lin, J. C. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21251678
Kim, S. Y., Song, J., Wen, W., Chen, S., Zhang, M., Yan, J., Lopez, B. G., Arredondo, M. M., & Ip, K. I. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.16928867
HbA1c Variability as a Predictor of Neurocognitive Decline in Children With Type 1 Diabetes
Yar, M. A., Abid, F. H., Manan, A., Bahar, S., Majeed, J., khan, M. A., Akram, F., Siddiqui, A., Rauf, M., & Elahi, S. (2025) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.99141
“For children aged six to 12 years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Cognition Battery (Child Version) [11] was utilized, while for adolescents aged 13 to 18 years, the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (Adolescent Version) [12] was employed.”
Neurobiological Signatures of Endometriosis: Characterizing Pain, Cognition, and Brain MorphologyPreprint
Murata, E. M., Natividad, G., Gabay, A., Grotzinger, H., Santander, T., Giudicessi, A., Fitzgerald, M., Iadipaolo, A. S., Agarwal, S. K., Panizzon, M. S., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.01.05.696004
Srivatsa, S., Sujanthan, S., Paleczny, S. G., Ripsman, D., de Rivera, S. N., Dimagli, A., Taghdiri, F., Cheng, P., Lou, W., Farkouh, M. E., et al. (2026) · Journal of the American Heart Association · doi:10.1161/jaha.125.041946
Effect of a non-energy restricted ketogenic diet on cognition in sedentary healthy young adults
Khattak, M., Habib, S. H., & Irfan, M. (2026) · Physiology International · doi:10.1556/2060.2025.00743
Fu, Z., Hutchison, K. E., Guha, A., Jing Sui （Beijing Normal University）， my correct affiliation is beijing normal university, N. Q. U. O. S. A. T., & Calhoun, V. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8545326/v1
Hong, Y., Michel, C. B., Gassner, G. M., Accorsi, C., Ances, B. M., Antonucci, L. M., Arnold, S. E., Babulal, G. M., Bookheimer, S. Y., Buckner, R. L., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.01.21.700887
“The third factor was weighted principally on NIH Toolbox Picture Vocabulary Test and Oral Reading Recognition Test 47 .”
Study protocol for the Champaign-Urbana population study
Camacho, P., Anderson, A. T., Guo, R., Chai, Y., Tafti, S., Hall, I. R., Pindus, D. M., Lockwood, C., Arnold, P. M., Anteraper, S. A., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Neuroimaging · doi:10.3389/fnimg.2026.1728970
Liu, Z., Zhao, S., Mitchell, T. J., Luo, C., Shimony, J. S., Fucetola, R. P., Park, K. Y., Stavroulaki, K., Snyder, A. Z., Zhu, T., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2026.02.200
Saugar, E. E., Liang, Z., Alamian, A., Ferreira, T., & Downs, C. A. (2026) · Clinical Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/10547738261417632
“Assessments from the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (Weintraub et al., 2013) Affective Measures.”
Thomas, V. F. U., Cruz, S. M., Huang, S., & Marinković, K. (2026) · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/acer.70252
“Participants also completed the Self-Report of the Effects of Alcohol (SRE; Schuckit et al., 1997 ), the Drinking Motive Questionnaire Revised (DMQ-R SF; Kuntsche & Kuntsche, 2009 ), the Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST; Selzer et al., 1975 ), and the NIH-Toolbox Cognitive Battery (Weintraub et al., 201…”
Daniel, E., Young, J. R., Deng, F., Patel, S. K., Sedrak, M. S., Kim, H., Razavi, M., Sun, C.-L., Root, J. C., Ahles, T. A., et al. (2026) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci16030266
“Cognitive function was assessed using the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery [31,32].”
Hoad, K. L., Ton, C., Williamson, D., Subar, D. A., Nuttall, H. E., & Gaffney, C. J. (2026) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341996
Effect of Ayò Ọlọ́pọ́n on Children’s Executive Functions and Processing SpeedPreprint
Ezeugwu, C. R., Onoriode-Afunezie, O., Oyekola, A. O., & Majebi, O. I. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9060705/v1
Ahmed, S. F., Waters, N. E., & Skibbe, L. E. (2026) · Early Childhood Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2026.03.012 · Cited by 2
“The DCCS task exhibits excellent test-retest reliability (Beck et al., 2011) and convergent and discriminant construct validity (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Pozuelo, J. R., Kessler, R. C., Patel, V., Lahiri, A., Parashar, Y., Herzallah, M. M., Khanduri, M., O’Neill, K., Martinez, A., Bhan, A., et al. (2026) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2026.121674
Marek, M. J., Quinones, J. F., Heep, A., & Hildebrandt, A. (2026) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.231980 · Cited by 1
Votruba, K., Rozwadowski, M., Braun, T., et al. (2026) · Pediatric Blood & Cancer · doi:10.1002/1545-5017.70259
“The NIH Toolbox is a valid and reliable computerized assessment of cognitive functioning [ 23 ] that provides a fluid composite of cognitive functioning as well as individual subtests that measure visual attention/inhibitory control (Flanker), episodic memory (picture sequence memory; PSM),…”
Li, T. Y., Yu, A. P., Hui, S. S., Chan, D. K. C., Cheng, C. P., Fong, D., Irwin, M. R., & Siu, P. M. (2026) · Mental health and physical activity · doi:10.1016/j.mhpa.2026.100768 · Cited by 1
Harkness, K., Wilms, M., Godfrey, K., Bray, S., & Murias, K. (2026) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/10870547261419585
“…that requires an individual to indicate the direction of a central arrow that is surrounded, or flanked, by arrows either pointing the same direction as the target (congruent trials), or the opposite direction of the target (incongruent trials; Weintraub et al., 2013; Zelazo et al., 2013).”
Palombo, P., Schmidt, A., Akana, N., Ryan, R., Hovland, S. E., Stark, B. C., Rodin, N. M., Chaytor, N. S., McDonell, M. G., Burduli, E., et al. (2026) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2026.108312
Xiao, H., Warner, E., Ryan, J. D., Sabiston, C. M., Ghazinour, G., O'Rourke, S. K., Moore, D., Welsh, T. N., & Trinh, L. (2026) · Cancer Causes & Control · doi:10.1007/s10552-026-02165-w
Quality Diversity Time-Use Optimisation for Health
Nikfarjam, A., Stanford, T., Neumann, A., Dumuid, D., & Neumann, F. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Evolutionary Learning and Optimization · doi:10.1145/3808693
“…performance from nationally administered tests (NAPLAN [National Assessment Program 2020], cognition from the vocabulary test in the NIH Toolbox, [Weintraub et al. 2013], psychosocial well-being [Varni et al. 2006] and life satisfaction [Seligson et al. 2003] from validated instruments, VO2max…”
VanNostrand, M., Ehde, D. M., Murphy, S. L., Alschuler, K. N., Kratz, A. L., & Fritz, N. E. (2026) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2026.04.019
Marks, R. A., Thesken, H., Norton, R. T., Kaminsky, A. J., Mastrangelo, C., Cardinaux, A. L., Wade, K., Azor, A. M., Tabori, A. T., Doyle, A. E., et al. (2026) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1080/10888438.2026.2672100
“Intraclass correlation of the Picture Vocabulary Test is 0.84 in children (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
InfluentialKotoski, A., Wiafe, S.-L., Adalı, T., & Calhoun, V. D. (2026) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi61048.2026.11515437
How Do Spatial Skills Take Shape? Examining Preschoolers’ Performance on 2D and 3D Assembly Tasks
Closser, A. H., Westerberg, L., Geer, E. A., Vest, N. A., Duncan, R. J., Schmitt, S. A., & Purpura, D. J. (2026) · Journal of Cognition and Development · doi:10.1080/15248372.2026.2667517
Charting age-related change in the architecture of fluid cognition
Phaneuf-Hadd, C. V., Heffer, T., Mair, P., & Somerville, L. H. (2026) · Child Development · doi:10.1093/chidev/aacag100
Marshall, A. T., Kan, E., Adise, S., König, M., McConnell, R., Martinez, M., Midya, V., Arora, M., & Sowell, E. R. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.05.26.26354134
Palombo, P., Hovland, S. E., Schmidt, A., Akana, N., Ryan, R., Stark, B. C., Rodin, N. M., White, S., Kogan, C., Noto, A. R., et al. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.102363
Kropf, J., Zapparoli, B., Tseng, J., Finn, A. S., Wheeler, A. L., Dlamini, N., & Mabbott, D. (2026) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2026.101751
“General cognitive ability was measured using the NIH Toolbox, which has been validated as a cognitive battery for ages 3 ‑ 85 and across sexes, racial categories, and education levels (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Nichols, S., Huo, Y., Garvie, P. A., Caniglia, S., Smith, R. K., Malee, K., McHenry, M. S., Paul, M. E., Moscicki, A., Avendano, G. M., et al. (2026) · AIDS and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10461-026-05133-2
Deutsch, G., Klein, E., Cadle, C. E., Simon, K. C., Taylor, H. G., Kalra, M., & Malerba, P. (2026) · Frontiers in Sleep · doi:10.3389/frsle.2026.1771860
Neighborhood opportunity, white matter, and cognition in a large pediatric neuroimaging study
Yildiz-Ozhan, N., Ku, B. S., Zekelman, L., Zurrin, R., Zhang, F., O’Donnell, L. J., Yogesh Rathi, A., Seitz‐Holland, J., & Karayumak, S. C. (2026) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-026-04143-x
“1c) [44 – 46].”
Lee, E., Whitmer, R. A., Gilsanz, P., Meunier, C. C., Lor, Y., Chen, N. X., & George, K. M. (2026) · Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities · doi:10.1007/s40615-026-03031-w
Aging and metabolism contribute separately to brain–body health
Farahani, A., Liu, Z.-Q., Morys, F., Moqadam, R., Zeighami, Y., Dadar, M., Dagher, A., & Mišić, B. (2026) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003856
“In this study, composite scores were used in place of individual test scores due to their enhanced reliability and reduced measurement error [230].”
Jis, J. K., Chen, K., Chen, Z., Chen, L., Pouriyeh, S., Xie, Z., & Xie, Y. (2026) · Bioengineering · doi:10.3390/bioengineering13060698
“These systems help reduce manual scoring errors, support remote screening, capture response time, and facilitate standardized data export for ML pipelines [57–60].”
Neema, M., Halabi, N. M., Nopoulos, P., Freedberg, M., & the ChANGE-HD investigators, C. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0336088
“However, in alignment with new NIH guidelines seeking to improve the inter-rater reliability of multi-site cognitive outcomes, a protocol change was implemented to use the NIH Toolbox (Version 2) [45].”
Cognitive Control in Pediatric Cancer Survivors: A task-fMRI studyPreprint
Nayak, S., Nandi, S., McKenna, F., Henry, S. S., & Duong, T. Q. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.23.734009
“Cognitive performance was assessed using the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (Weintraub et al. 2013), which included the Fluid Intelligence and Early Childhood composite scores, the Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention test, and the Pattern Comparison Processing Speed tests.”
Neural Sensitivity to Conversational Inter‐Speaker Gaps in the Broad Autism Phenotype
Neo, W. S., Witkowiak, K. M., Roberts, F., Kelleher, B., Yamamoto, M., & Foti, D. (2026) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.70355
Physical function domain associations with cognitive domains in community-dwelling older adultsPreprint
Kim, J. G., Herrera, B. M., Wessinger, C. M., Armstrong, B. D., Etnier, J. L., & Park, K. S. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.06.29.26356840
“…list sort working memory (LSWM) task to assess working memory, the picture sequence memory (PSM) task to assess episodic memory, the flanker task to assess attentional inhibition, and the dimensional change card sort (DCCS) task to assess cognitive flexibility on an iPad (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Early Adulthood Signatures of Motherhood in Brain Aging
Peng, W., & Rilling, J. K. (2026) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.70591
“Cognitive performance was assessed using measures from the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery included in the HCP-YA behavioral dataset (Weintraub et al. 2013).”
Altuna, M. (2026) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2026.1870463
Dhana, K., Aggarwal, N. T., Ventrelle, J., Voigt, R. M., Liu, X., Agarwal, P., Tangney, C., Arfanakis, K., Sacks, F. M., & Barnes, L. L. (2026) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2026.101433 · Cited by 1
Seeger, A., Kinzel, A., Matthiae, K., Schmitt, R., Shevchenko, Y., Gerhardt, S., Kiefer, F., Rolland, B., Montero, J. A., Weber, T., et al. (2026) · Neuropsychological Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09602011.2026.2702561 · Cited by 2
Martens, C. R., Decker, K., DeConne, T. M., Sanjana, F., Horvat, F. M., Rizzi, N., Awad, C., Habash, E. M., Hobson, J. C., Kramer, M. K., et al. (2026) · Alzheimer s & Dementia · doi:10.1002/alz.71605
Tao, C., Cui, S., Shen, Y., Cheng, Y., Zhu, J., & Yu, Y. (2026) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2026.116903
Murgia, S., Flaherty, M., & Bottalico, P. (2026) · Journal of Voice · doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2026.06.058
Bekena, S., Singh, R. K., Pal, S., Zhu, Y., Trani, J., McClannahan, K., & Babulal, G. M. (2026) · Journal of Alzheimer s Disease · doi:10.1177/13872877261470816
“39 The WIN Test assesses the ability to recognize spoken words presented in background noise, a critical aspect of real-world communication.”
Sajjadi, E., Gordon-Salant, S. M., Goupell, M. J., Presacco, A., Smith, E., & Anderson, S. (2026) · Hearing Research · doi:10.1016/j.heares.2026.109765
Music participation, global cortical morphometry, and later language outcomes in the ABCD study
Wang, A., Altaye, M., Lu, Z., Wang, J., Athertya, J., Chung, C. B., & Du, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1852932
“These language measures have demonstrated strong reliability and validity in school-aged populations and are appropriate for assessing developmental variation in language-related skills (Gershon et al., 2014; Akshoomoff et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Brain-wide spontaneous neural avalanches: Definition, functional dynamics and cognitive relevance
Kong, J., Jia, Y., Wang, Z., Yang, Y., Huang, Z., Zhu, H., & Yin, D. (2026) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2026.122168
Ece, B., Shono, Y., Davis, D., LaForte, E. M., Han, Y. C., Kaat, A. J., Gershon, R. C., & Ho, E. H. (2026) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2026.2717171
Self-citationValentino, K., & Edler, K. (2026) · Child Development · doi:10.1093/chidev/aacag155
Petley, L., Wicks, T. R., Miller, L. M., et al. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.08.13.26360392
Cognition-Linked Monocyte State Reveals Altered Myeloid–Lymphoid Coordination in Neuro-PASC
Hanson, B. A., Cogswell, A. C., Lopez, M., Miller, J., Knutson, K. L., Carnethon, M. R., & Koralnik, I. J. (2026) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms27167474
Dawar, D., Turkstra, L. S., Pandian, J. D., Kamalakannan, S., Verma, S., & Bosch, J. (2026) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.115067
“Tools included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) [12], Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) [13], National Institutes of Health (NIH) Cognitive Toolbox [14], and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) [15].”
Moarefi, M., Martinez, K., Gameiro, G. R., Hoover, A. H., Fitzgerald, B., Rich, C., Signorile, J. F., Ebner, N. C., Wang, J., & Jiang, H. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0357464
“Episodic memory was evaluated using the Picture Sequence Memory Test, which required participants to recall the correct temporal order of a series of pictured events [24].”
Martin‐Willett, R., Melendez, S. N., Hutchison, K. E., Bryan, A. D., & Bidwell, L. C. (2026) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-026-07157-x
A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF THE NIH TOOLBOX® VERSION 3 COGNITION DOMAIN
Kairys, A. E., & Giordani, B. (2026) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394310784.ch5
CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE NIH TOOLBOX® COGNITION TESTS
Hook, J. N., Giella, A. K., & Sivan, A. B. (2026) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394310784.ch6
CLINICAL AND RESEARCH CASE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS USING THE NIH TOOLBOX® COGNITION TESTS
Hook, J. N., Giella, A. K., & Sivan, A. B. (2026) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394310784.ch7
Using Technology to Enhance Neuropsychological Tests
Delis, D. C., Drozdick, L. W., Holdnack, J., et al. (2026) · doi:10.1093/9780197814116.003.0005
Kim, W., Whittle, S., Zalesky, A., & Tian, Y. (2026) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · doi:10.1073/pnas.2600520123
Veziris, C. R., Kelm, M. R., Connely, D., Chockalingham, G., Wozniak, J. R., & Mattson, S. N. (2026) · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/acer.70414
“…and Kamphaus 2015); Grooved Pegboard (Reitan and Wolfson 1985); NIH Toolbox Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test (Gershon et al. 2013; Weintraub et al. 2013); NEPSY-II Memory for Designs subtest (Korkman et al. 2007); California Verbal Learning Test, Children's Version (CVLT-C; Delis…”
Gimbel, B. A., Ontiveros, F., Mattson, W. I., Keim, S. A., Klebanoff, M. A., Boone, K. M., Yeates, K. O., Fried, P. A., & Nelson, E. E. (2026) · Discover Neuroscience · doi:10.1186/s13064-026-00327-9
“At age 7–8, children completed the NIH Toolbox Early Childhood Cognition Battery [37] to measure several aspects of attention and executive function.”
Gur, N., Peleg, T. P., Hoofien, D., & Ganelin‐Cohen, E. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings · doi:10.1007/s10880-026-10172-x
Brown, O., Smith, A., Cairncross, M., Dodd, A. B., Goldfield, G. S., Gray, C., Harris, A. D., Jaworska, N., Saab, B. J., Sicard, V., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2026.1771767
“At the 4-weeks neuroimaging follow-up, participants completed the cognitive testing using the NIH toolbox (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Shaughnessy, S., & Evans, S. C. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · doi:10.1080/15374416.2026.2724276
Operationalizing Alzheimer's disease trials in the era of targeted therapies
Pillai, J. A., Alladi, S., Appleby, B. S., Brosch, J. R., Frederiksen, K. S., Galasko, D. R., López, O. L., Leverenz, J. B., Saykin, A. J., Schott, J. M., et al. (2026) · Alzheimer s & Dementia · doi:10.1002/alz.71829
Hong, Y., Michel, C. B., Gassner, G. M., Zhang, Y., Accorsi, C., Ances, B. M., Antonucci, L. M., Arnold, S. E., Babulal, G. M., Bookheimer, S. Y., et al. (2026) · Neurobiology of Aging · doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2026.09.007 · Cited by 1
Zhang, L., Qiu, B., Chen, Z., Xu, X., Zhao, R., Chen, Y., Ning, C., Chen, R., Li, M., Wang, D., et al. (2026) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.111663
Zhang, L., Qiu, B., Chen, Z., Xu, X., Zhao, R., Chen, Y., Ning, C., Chen, R., Li, M., Wang, D., et al. (2026) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.111663.1
Tang, A., Leung, C., Prasad, R., Busso, C., & Warren, S. L. (2026) · Journal of Adolescent Health · doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2026.07.025
Yang, B., Villaume, S. C., Ellison, R. L., Russak-Pribble, A., Umaña‐Taylor, A. J., & Adam, E. K. (2026) · Journal of Adolescence · doi:10.1002/jad.70278
DeConne, T. M., Sanjana, F., Habash, E. M., Decker, K., Nichols, W., Hobson, J. C., Rizzi, N., & Martens, C. R. (2026) · Physiological Reports · doi:10.14814/phy2.71120
Palombo, P., Hovland, S. E., Schmidt, A., Akana, N., Ryan, R., Stark, B. C., Rodin, N. M., White, S., Kogan, C. J., Noto, A. R., et al. (2026) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/102363
Cox, E., Tahbaz, M., Matarese, E., Wilson, R. L., Castro, L. G., Uno, H., Cooney, T., Lane, J., Norris, M. K., Bona, K., et al. (2026) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/88718
“The NIH Toolbox is a validated digital neuropsychological assessment tool used to measure various cognitive domains [55].”
Filbey, F. M., Short, C. T., Leazure, A., Nekoui, N. E., Brown, T., Kroener, S., & Liu, C. (2026) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2026.1801066
“While the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery structurally separates Working Memory into a distinct subdomain for scoring purposes (Weintraub et al., 2013), the developers explicitly designed the battery to include measures of these three aspects identified in the tripartite model (Zelazo et al., 2014).”
Jiao, Y., Tong, X., Fonzo, G. A., Gotlib, I. H., Pohl, K. M., Satterthwaite, T. D., Jiang, J., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · Nature Mental Health · doi:10.1038/s44220-026-00740-3
Tardiff, C. T., Christ, S. E., White, D. A., Dixon, M. M., Goodlett, B. D., Janzen, D. M., Kivel, M., Martin, A., Sutcliffe, M. S., & Harding, C. O. (2026) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617726102264
Bawa, A. P., Lopez, M., Miller, J., Sala, M. A., Maas, M. B., Liotta, E. M., & Koralnik, I. J. (2026) · GeroScience · doi:10.1007/s11357-026-02604-1
Robinette, L. M., Taylor, H. G., Boone, K. M., Rogers, L. K., Rausch, J., Bartlett, C. W., Klebanoff, M. A., & Keim, S. A. (2026) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-026-07566-z
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
