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 101–200 of 1,289
Keller, A. S., Pines, A. R., Shanmugan, S., Sydnor, V. J., Cui, Z., Bertolero, M. A., Barzilay, R., Alexander‐Bloch, A. F., Byington, N., Chen, A. A., et al. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-44087-0 · Cited by 77
Early Childhood and Digital Media
Barr, R., Kirkorian, H. L., Coyne, S. M., & Radesky, J. S. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108885751 · Cited by 83
Scott, E. P., Sorrell, A., & Benitez, A. (2019) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617719000614 · Cited by 69
“Initial studies indicated that these composites have strong test–retest reliability (i.e., ICCs ranging from .78 to .99) and moderate to strong convergent validity (r’s ranging from .48 to .93) with traditional neuropsychological tests (Heaton et al., 2014; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialWhich Psychosocial Factors Best Predict Cognitive Performance in Older Adults?
Zahodne, L. B., Nowinski, C. J., Gershon, R. C., & Manly, J. J. (2014) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617714000186 · Cited by 77
“Specific details of the NIH Toolbox Cognition module, including evaluation of its psychometric properties, are available elsewhere (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
InfluentialSelf-citationIodine Deficiency and the Brain: Effects and Mechanisms
Redman, K., Ruffman, T., Fitzgerald, P. C. E., & Skeaff, S. A. (2015) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2014.922042 · Cited by 73
Sandroff, B. M., Balto, J. M., Klaren, R. E., Sommer, S., DeLuca, J., & Motl, R. W. (2016) · Neurocase · doi:10.1080/13554794.2016.1237658 · Cited by 68
“, interference control) and attention (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodBiological Aging and the Future of Geriatric Psychiatry
Rutherford, B. R., Taylor, W. D., Brown, P. J., Sneed, J. R., & Roose, S. P. (2016) · The Journals of Gerontology Series A · doi:10.1093/gerona/glw241 · Cited by 75
Paradigm Shifts in the Neuropsychology of Epilepsy
Hermann, B. P., Loring, D. W., & Wilson, S. J. (2017) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617717000650 · Cited by 69
Pagliaccio, D., Alqueza, K. L., Marsh, R., & Auerbach, R. P. (2019) · Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2019.09.032 · Cited by 73
Ritchie, C. W., Terrera, G. M., Kivipelto, M., et al. (2020) · The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease · doi:10.14283/jpad.2019.46 · Cited by 69
Brito, N. H., Piccolo, L. D. R., & Noble, K. G. (2017) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2017.03.007 · Cited by 71
“Performance on vocabulary, reading, working memory, attention/ inhibition and cognitive flexibility tasks were evaluated using NIH Toolbox® Cognitive Function Battery (Weintraub et al., 2013), as described below.”
InfluentialExercise enhances memory consolidation in the aging brain
Snigdha, S., de Rivera, C., Milgram, N. W., & Cotman, C. W. (2014) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2014.00003 · Cited by 69
Restoration of sensory input may improve cognitive and neural function
Karawani, H., Jenkins, K. A., & Anderson, S. (2018) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.04.041 · Cited by 68
Rudd, J., Crotti, M., Fitton-Davies, K., O’Callaghan, L., Bardid, F., Utesch, T., Roberts, S., Boddy, L., Cronin, C. J., Knowles, Z., et al. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01228 · Cited by 68
Using the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) in individuals with traumatic brain injury.
Tulsky, D. S., Carlozzi, N. E., Holdnack, J., Heaton, R. K., Wong, A., Goldsmith, A., & Heinemann, A. W. (2017) · Rehabilitation Psychology · doi:10.1037/rep0000174 · Cited by 67
Self-citationSun, Y.-J., Sahakian, B. J., Langley, C., Yang, A., Jiang, Y., Kang, J., Zhao, X., Li, C., Cheng, W., & Feng, J. (2024) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291723001381 · Cited by 68
“It also evaluates the neurocognition of the following seven major subdomain components (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundSidana, S., Dueck, A. C., Thanarajasingam, G., Griffin, J. M., Thompson, C. A., Durani, U., Burtis, M., Warsame, R. M., Paludo, J., Gertz, M. A., et al. (2022) · Transplantation and Cellular Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.jtct.2022.05.004 · Cited by 66
Murphy, R. J., Sumner, R. L., Evans, W., Ponton, R., Ram, S., Godfrey, K., Forsyth, A., Cavadino, A., Naga, V. K., Smith, T., et al. (2023) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2023.03.013 · Cited by 71
“Cognitive tasks were all from the NIH Cognitive Battery (47).”
Bauer, J.-R., & Booth, A. E. (2018) · Early Childhood Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.09.007 · Cited by 77
Cancer Rehabilitation in the Pediatric and Adolescent/Young Adult Population
Tanner, L. R., Keppner, K., Lesmeister, D., Lyons, K., Rock, K., & Sparrow, J. (2020) · Seminars in Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.soncn.2019.150984 · Cited by 67
Tahmasian, M., Samea, F., Khazaie, H., Zarei, M., Masouleh, S. K., Hoffstaedter, F., Camilleri, J. A., Kochunov, P., Yeo, B. T. T., Eickhoff, S. B., et al. (2020) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-020-0892-6 · Cited by 67
Goldilocks Days: optimising children’s time use for health and well-being
Dumuid, D., Olds, T., Lange, K., Edwards, B., Lycett, K., Burgner, D. P., Simm, P. J., Dwyer, T., Le, H., & Wake, M. A. (2021) · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech-2021-216686 · Cited by 64
Hausman, H. K., Hardcastle, C., Albizu, A., Kraft, J. N., Evangelista, N. D., Boutzoukas, E. M., Langer, K. G., O’Shea, A. M., Etten, E. J. V., Bharadwaj, P. K., et al. (2021) · GeroScience · doi:10.1007/s11357-021-00503-1 · Cited by 69
Nutrition, lifestyle, and cognitive performance in esport athletes
Goulart, J. B., Aitken, L. S., Siddiqui, S., Cuevas, M., Cardenas, J., Beathard, K. M., & Riechman, S. E. (2023) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2023.1120303 · Cited by 64
Interpreting Patterns of Low Scores on the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery
Holdnack, J. A., Tulsky, D. S., Brooks, B. L., Slotkin, J., Gershon, R. C., Heinemann, A. W., & Iverson, G. L. (2017) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acx032 · Cited by 67
Self-citationWord-finding difficulty is a prevalent disease-related deficit in early multiple sclerosis
Brandstadter, R., Fabian, M. T., Leavitt, V. M., Krieger, S. C., Yeshokumar, A. K., Sand, I. K., Klineova, S., Riley, C., Lewis, C., Pelle, G., et al. (2019) · Multiple Sclerosis Journal · doi:10.1177/1352458519881760 · Cited by 73
Beyond the Bayley: Neurocognitive Assessments of Development During Infancy and Toddlerhood
Brito, N. H., Fifer, W. P., Amso, D., Barr, R., Bell, M. A., Calkins, S. D., Flynn, A., Montgomery‐Downs, H. E., Oakes, L. M., Richards, J. E., et al. (2019) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/87565641.2018.1564310 · Cited by 72
Çankaya, Ö., Rohatyn-Martin, N., Leach, J., Taylor, K., & Bulut, O. (2023) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence11080151 · Cited by 139
Cogniphobia in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
Silverberg, N. D., Iverson, G. L., & Panenka, W. J. (2017) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/neu.2016.4719 · Cited by 76
“To investigate whether the relationship between Cogniphobia-Avoidance and the NIHTB-CB fluid cognition tests held in participants without performance validity concerns, we reran the correlations after excluding participants who failed the MSVT (performed below established cutoffs for credible performance; n = 20).”
InfluentialWong, A., Ng, S. H.-X., Dashner, J. L., Baum, M. C., Hammel, J. M., Magasi, S. R., Lai, J., Carlozzi, N. E., Tulsky, D. S., Mišković, A., et al. (2017) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1586-5 · Cited by 63
“Participants completed the NIH Toolbox cognitive battery as part of assessment protocol [38].”
Self-citationSuboptimal phenotypic reliability impedes reproducible human neurosciencePreprint
Nikolaidis, A., Chen, A. A., He, X., Shinohara, R. T., Vogelstein, J. T., Milham, M. P., & Shou, H. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.1101/2022.07.22.501193 · Cited by 60
Parsons, T. D., & Duffield, T. C. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/23777 · Cited by 70
Grumbach, P., Opel, N., Martin, S., Meinert, S., Leehr, E. J., Redlich, R., Enneking, V., Goltermann, J., Baune, B. T., Dannlowski, U., et al. (2020) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.25132 · Cited by 60
“…the NIH Toolbox, whereas the Cognition Battery consists of seven subscales (Flanker Inhibitory, Picture Sequence Memory, List Sorting and Pattern Comparison, Picture Vocabulary and Oral Reading Recognition, Dimensional Change Card Sort) with an overall duration of 30 min (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodApple, A. C., Ryals, A. J., Alpert, K. I., Wagner, L. I., Shih, P.-A. B., Dokucu, M. E., Cella, D. F., Penedo, F. J., Voss, J. L., & Wang, L. (2017) · NeuroImage Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2017.03.004 · Cited by 61
“This battery targets several cognitive domains, including attention, language, processing speed, episodic memory, executive function, and working memory (Weintraub et al. 2013) which are measured by seven subtests.”
Changes in executive function over time in bilingual and monolingual school-aged children.
Park, J., Weismer, S. E., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2018) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0000562 · Cited by 60
Sirolimus Treatment in Sturge-Weber Syndrome
Sebold, A. J., Day, A. M., Ewen, J. B., Adamek, J. H., Byars, A. W., COHEN, B. A., Kossoff, E. H., Mizuno, T., Ryan, M., Sievers, J. W., et al. (2020) · Pediatric Neurology · doi:10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2020.10.013 · Cited by 59
Hanson, B. A., Visvabharathy, L., Ali, S. T., Kang, A. K., Patel, T. R., Clark, J. R., Lim, P. H., Orban, Z. S., Hwang, S., Mattoon, D., et al. (2022) · Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation · doi:10.1212/nxi.0000000000001151 · Cited by 64
Buckley, R. F., Sparks, K. P., Papp, K. V., Dekhtyar, M., Martin, C., Burnham, S. C., Sperling, R. A., & Rentz, D. M. (2017) · The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease · doi:10.14283/jpad.2017.1 · Cited by 60
“Participant characteristics and cognitive performance Full group n = 50 Subtle cognitive impairment n = 13 Typical performance n = 37 p Sex (% F) 62 46 67 .30 Age (yrs) 68.5 (7.5) 70.2 (9.1) 68.0 (7.0) .46 Education (yrs) 15.6 (3.1) 14.8 (3.1) 15.9 (2.7) .28 Race (% Black) 46 69 38 .10 Ethnicity (% Hispanic) 4 15 0 -*…”
InfluentialA Core Outcome Measurement Set for Pediatric Critical Care*
Pinto, N. P., Maddux, A. B., Dervan, L. A., Woodruff, A. G., Jarvis, J. M., Nett, S. T., Killien, E. Y., Graham, R. J., Choong, K. L. M., Luckett, P. M., et al. (2022) · Pediatric Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/pcc.0000000000003055 · Cited by 59
Effects of Age, Cognition, and Neural Encoding on the Perception of Temporal Speech Cues
Roque, L., Karawani, H., Gordon-Salant, S. M., & Anderson, S. (2019) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00749 · Cited by 60
Karcher, N., Niendam, T., & Barch, D. (2020) · Schizophrenia Research · doi:10.1016/j.schres.2020.05.045 · Cited by 53
Neurologic Manifestations of Long COVID Differ Based on Acute COVID ‐19 Severity
Perez-Giraldo, G., Ali, S. T., Kang, A. K., Patel, T. R., Budhiraja, S., Gaelen, J. I., Lank, G. K., Clark, J. R., Mukherjee, S., Singer, T., et al. (2023) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.26649 · Cited by 59
Shenoy, S. S., Gaziev, J., Angelucci, E., King, A. A., Bhatia, M., Smith, A. R., Bresters, D., Haight, A. E., Duncan, C., de la Fuente, J., et al. (2018) · Transplantation and Cellular Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.04.002 · Cited by 58
Janz, P., Dawe, S., & Wyllie, M. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02052 · Cited by 74
“Convergent and construct validity with other measures of EF have been established (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundAnokhin, A. P., Luciana, M. M., Banich, M. T., Barch, D. M., Bjork, J. M., Gonzalez, M. R., González, R., Haist, F., Jacobus, J., Lisdahl, K. M., et al. (2022) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2022.101078 · Cited by 57
“The present analyses utilized only those measures for which longitudinal assessments were available, i.e. at baseline and two-year follow-up including 5 tests from the NIH Toolbox (Picture Vocabulary, Flanker Inhibitory Control & Attention test, Picture Sequence Memory, Pattern Comparison Processing Speed, Oral Readin…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBrito, N. H., Noble, K. G., & the Pediatric Imaging, N. (2018) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.12688 · Cited by 56
Sibley, M. H., Graziano, P. A., Ortiz, M., Rodriguez, L., & Coxe, S. (2019) · Journal of School Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2019.10.005 · Cited by 57
Brain aging in temporal lobe epilepsy: Chronological, structural, and functional
Hwang, G., Hermann, B. P., Nair, V. A., Conant, L. L., Dabbs, K., Mathis, J., Cook, C. J., Rivera-Bonet, C. N., Mohanty, R., Zhao, G., et al. (2020) · NeuroImage Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102183 · Cited by 59
“TLE patients were administered subtests from the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) (Gershon et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Flores, I., Casaletto, K. B., Marquine, M. J., Umlauf, A., Moore, D. J., Mungas, D., Gershon, R. C., Beaumont, J. L., & Heaton, R. K. (2017) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2016.1276216 · Cited by 58
Self-citationNorbom, L. B., Rokicki, J., Alnæs, D., Kaufmann, T., Doan, N. T., Andreassen, O. A., Westlye, L. T., & Tamnes, C. K. (2020) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.25149 · Cited by 54
Karcher, N. R., Paul, S. E., Johnson, E. C., Hatoum, A. S., Baranger, D. A. A., Arpana Agrawal, A., Thompson, W. K., Barch, D. M., & Bogdan, R. (2020) · Biological Psychiatry Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2021.06.012 · Cited by 55
Resting-state EEG measures cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease
Anjum, M. F., Espinoza, A. I., Cole, R. C., Singh, A. P., May, P., Uc, E. Y., Dasgupta, S., & Narayanan, N. S. (2024) · npj Parkinson s Disease · doi:10.1038/s41531-023-00602-0 · Cited by 55
“Computer-based cognitive tests provided by the NIH-Toolbox are also commonly used as standardized measures of cognition for insights into different cognitive domains 16 .”
MethodCorrelates of Cognitive Function in Sickle Cell Disease: A Meta-Analysis
Prussien, K. V., Siciliano, R. E., Ciriegio, A. E., Anderson, A. S., Sathanayagam, R., DeBaun, M. R., Jordan, L. C., & Compas, B. E. (2019) · Journal of Pediatric Psychology · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsz100 · Cited by 56
Mind-Body Therapies for Late-Life Mental and Cognitive Health
Laird, K. T., Paholpak, P., Roman, M., Rahi, B., & Lavretsky, H. (2018) · Current Psychiatry Reports · doi:10.1007/s11920-018-0864-4 · Cited by 54
Hood, A., King, A. A., Fields, M. E., Ford, A. L., Guilliams, K. P., Hulbert, M. L., Lee, J., & White, D. A. (2019) · Pediatric Blood & Cancer · doi:10.1002/pbc.27899 · Cited by 55
Cerebrospinal fluid and plasma biomarkers in individuals at risk for genetic prion disease
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) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-020-01608-8 · Cited by 57
Listening Difficulties in Children With Normal Audiograms: Relation to Hearing and Cognition
Petley, L., Hunter, L. L., Zadeh, L. M., Stewart, H. J., Sloat, N. T., Perdew, A., Lin, L., & Moore, D. R. (2021) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000001076 · Cited by 55
“The convergent validity of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery instruments has been assessed against a range of published tests used in clinical practice that measure similar cognitive capacities (Weintraub et al. 2013a).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPerceived stress is associated with smaller hippocampal volume in adolescence
Piccolo, L. D. R., Noble, K. G., & for the Pediatric Imaging, N. (2017) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.13025 · Cited by 61
“Performance on episodic memory, working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility tasks were evaluated using the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Function Battery (Weintraub et al., 2013), as described below.”
MethodBridging executive function and disinhibited eating among youth: A network analysis
Byrne, M. E., Tanofsky‐Kraff, M., Lavender, J. M., Parker, M. N., Shank, L. M., Swanson, T. N., Ramirez, E., LeMay‐Russell, S., Yang, S. B., Brady, S. M., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Eating Disorders · doi:10.1002/eat.23476 · Cited by 57
“Executive Dysfunction labels: DCSION = decision-making, Iowa Gambling Task; SST = inhibitory control, Stop-Signal task reaction time; GNG_F = inhibitory control Food-Go commission errors, Food Go/No-Go task; GNG_N = inhibitory control Neutral-Go commission errors, Food Go/No-Go task; DLYGRAT = ability to delay gratifi…”
InfluentialUses of the NIH Toolbox® in Clinical Samples
Fox, R. S., Zhang, M., Amagai, S., Bassard, A. M., Dworak, E. M., Han, Y.-H., Kassanits, J. E., Miller, C. H., Nowinski, C. J., Giella, A. K., et al. (2022) · Neurology Clinical Practice · doi:10.1212/cpj.0000000000200060 · Cited by 50
Self-citationShomaker, L. B., Berman, Z., Burke, M., Annameier, S. K., Pivarunas, B., Sánchez, N., Smith, A. D., Hendrich, S. G., Riggs, N. R., Legget, K. T., et al. (2019) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.05.022 · Cited by 54
Taylor, B. K., Frenzel, M. R., Eastman, J. A., Wiesman, A. I., Wang, Y., Calhoun, V. D., Stephen, J. M., & Wilson, T. W. (2020) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291720003487 · Cited by 48
“…Institutes of Health (NIH), in collaboration with over 200 field-specific experts, developed the NIH Toolbox (NIH-TB), which is an assessment of cognitive, motor, and emotional functioning that is standardized for persons 3 – 85 years of age (Beaumont et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013a, b).”
InfluentialMethylphenidate on Cognitive Improvement in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury: A Meta-Analysis
Huang, C.-H., Huang, C.-C., Sun, C., Lin, G., & Hou, W. (2015) · Current Neuropharmacology · doi:10.2174/1570159x13666150514233033 · Cited by 50
“Although no theory or hierarchical structure could explain all domains of cognition so far, these variables were selected for outcome measurements on the basis of MATRICS developed by the National Institute of Mental Health (US) [22-24].”
Effect of depression on cognition after mild traumatic brain injury in adults
Terry, D. P., Brassil, M. E., Iverson, G. L., Panenka, W. J., & Silverberg, N. D. (2018) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2018.1459853 · Cited by 54
Uiterwijk, D., Stargatt, R., Humphrey, S., & Crowe, S. F. (2021) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-021-09524-1 · Cited by 60
Neurologic Manifestations of Long COVID Disproportionately Affect Young and Middle‐Age Adults
Choudhury, N. A., Mukherjee, S., Singer, T., Venkatesh, A., Perez-Giraldo, G., Jimenez, M., Miller, J. L., Lopez, M., Hanson, B. A., Bawa, A. P., et al. (2024) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.27128 · Cited by 51
Karcher, N. R., Loewy, R. L., Savill, M., Avenevoli, S., Huber, R. S., Simon, T. J., Leckliter, I. N., Sher, K. J., & Barch, D. M. (2020) · Schizophrenia Bulletin Open · doi:10.1093/schizbullopen/sgaa009 · Cited by 49
Symbolic Magnitude Understanding Predicts Preschoolers’ Later Addition Skills
Scalise, N. R., & Ramani, G. B. (2021) · Journal of Cognition and Development · doi:10.1080/15248372.2021.1888732 · Cited by 51
“Each task was administered on a tablet computer using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Cognition Battery (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodWalker, W. C., Hirsch, S., Carne, W., Nolen, T., Cifu, D. X., Wilde, E. A., Levin, H. S., Brearly, T. W., Eapen, B. C., & Williams, R. (2018) · Brain Injury · doi:10.1080/02699052.2018.1479041 · Cited by 48
“computerized cognition battery is intended to capture important cognitive constructs sensitive to brain functions, including the effects of TBI, in a highly efficient manner (30 min to administer) (34).”
BackgroundFranchis, V. D., Usai, M. C., Viterbori, P., & Traverso, L. (2017) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2017.01.026 · Cited by 58
Reimann, Z., Miller, J., Dahle, K. M., Hooper, A. P., Young, A. M., Goates, M. C., Magnusson, B. M., & Crandall, A. (2018) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/1359105318800829 · Cited by 48
“The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox is a strong example of efforts made to develop and standardize executive function measurement (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Self-Efficacy Buffers the Relationship between Educational Disadvantage and Executive Functioning
Zahodne, L. B., Nowinski, C. J., Gershon, R. C., & Manly, J. J. (2015) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617715000193 · Cited by 45
“Convergent validity for each task was demonstrated through significant, moderately sized correlations with gold-standard measures, ranging from 0.48 (Flanker Inhibitory Control & Attention) to 0.69 (Picture Sequence Memory) (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
InfluentialSelf-citationGlycemia, Diabetes Status, and Cognition in Hispanic Adults Aged 55–64 Years
Luchsinger, J. A., Cabral, R., Eimicke, J. P., Manly, J. J., & Teresi, J. A. (2015) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/psy.0000000000000208 · Cited by 46
“Although our neuropsychological battery was comprehensive, it could have benefitted from complementary tests such as those from the National Institutes of Health toolbox (92).”
MethodSelf-citationDeveloping brain asymmetry shapes cognitive and psychiatric outcomes in adolescence
Wu, X.-R., Zhang, K., Kuang, N.-Y., Kong, X., Cao, M., Lian, Z., Liu, Y., Fan, H., Yu, G.-C., Liu, Z.-W., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-59110-9 · Cited by 54
“Enrichment analysis based on Functional Mapping and Annotation (FUMA) platform (https://fuma.ctglab.nl/) 39 show that both baseline and longitudinal structural asymmetry are related to synapse-related processes and neuron projection (Fig.”
Emotional Understanding, Reactivity, and Regulation in Young Children with ADHD Symptoms
Lugo-Candelas, C. I., Flegenheimer, C., McDermott, J. M., & Harvey, E. A. (2016) · Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology · doi:10.1007/s10802-016-0244-7 · Cited by 45
Positive Psychosocial Factors and Cognition in Ethnically Diverse Older Adults
Zahodne, L. B., Watson, C. W.-M., Seehra, S., & Martinez, M. N. (2017) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617717000935 · Cited by 45
“These results are not consistent with those in a previous sample that was approximately 90% non-Hispanic White (Boyle, Buchman, Barnes, & Bennett, 2010; Wilson et al., 2013).”
ResultMeneses, K., Benz, R. L., Bail, J. R., et al. (2017) · Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4564-2 · Cited by 45
Examining the Relations Among Emerging Adult Coping, Executive Function, and Anxiety
O’Rourke, E. J., Halpern, L. F., & Vaysman, R. (2018) · Emerging Adulthood · doi:10.1177/2167696818797531 · Cited by 57
“This measure has good 2-week test–retest reliability (.88) in adult samples (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundTozzi, L., Staveland, B. R., Holt-Gosselin, B., Chesnut, M., Chang, S. E., Choi, D., Shiner, M., Wu, H., Lerma‐Usabiaga, G., Sporns, O., et al. (2020) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116715 · Cited by 48
Snitz, B. E., Tudorascu, D., Yu, Z., Campbell, E., Lopresti, B. J., Laymon, C. M., Minhas, D. S., Nadkarni, N. K., Aizenstein, H. J., Klunk, W. E., et al. (2020) · Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring · doi:10.1002/dad2.12018 · Cited by 46
Self-citationAdvances in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and its applications in resistant depression
Koutsomitros, T., Evagorou, O., Schuhmann, T., Zamar, A. C., & Sack, A. T. (2021) · Psychiatriki · doi:10.22365/jpsych.2021.054 · Cited by 45
Early childhood working memory forecasts high school dropout risk
Fitzpatrick, C., Archambault, I., Janosz, M., & Pagani, L. S. (2015) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.10.002 · Cited by 49
Developing a Cognition Endpoint for Traumatic Brain Injury Clinical Trials
Silverberg, N. D., Crane, P. K., Dams-O’Connor, K., Holdnack, J. A., Ivins, B. J., Lange, R. T., Manley, G. T., McCrea, M., & Iverson, G. L. (2016) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/neu.2016.4443 · Cited by 44
Bott, N. T., Madero, E. N., Glenn, J. M., et al. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/11143 · Cited by 44
“…assessment composites targeting relevant cognitive domains sensitive to AD pathologies, such as the Preclinical Alzheimer’s Cognitive Composite (PACC) [5] and National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognitive Battery (NIHTB-CB) [6,7], have shown efficacy in stratifying preclinical AD populations.”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationChen, B. T., Jin, T., Patel, S. K., et al. (2018) · Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · doi:10.1007/s10549-018-4911-y · Cited by 44
Troller‐Renfree, S. V., Buzzell, G. A., & Fox, N. A. (2020) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.12959 · Cited by 49
Self-citationAssessing Cognitive Performance Using Physiological and Facial Features
Sharma, K., Niforatos, E., Giannakos, M. N., & Kostakos, V. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3411811 · Cited by 48
“As previous findings suggest, cognitive performance relies on the state of the many underlying cognitive processes [140], and it is affected by a plethora of factors [2, 5, 20, 58, 60, 79, 108, 137, 150].”
BackgroundThe Burden of Reliability: How Measurement Noise Limits Brain-Behaviour PredictionsPreprint
Gell, M., Eickhoff, S. B., Omidvarnia, A., Küppers, V., Patil, K. R., Satterthwaite, T. D., Müller, V. I., & Langner, R. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.02.09.527898 · Cited by 44
National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery
DenBoer, J. W., Nicholls, C., Corte, C., & Chestnut, K. (2014) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acu033 · Cited by 45
Hanno, E. C., & Surrain, S. (2019) · Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10567-019-00283-3 · Cited by 53
Jirsaraie, R. J., Kaufmann, T., Bashyam, V., Erus, G., Luby, J. L., Westlye, L. T., Davatzikos, C. A., Barch, D. M., & Sotiras, A. (2022) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.26144 · Cited by 42
Johnstone, A., Hughes, A. R., Bonnar, L., Booth, J. N., & Reilly, J. J. (2019) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-019-0427-4 · Cited by 43
“The Flanker Test consisted of a mix of congruent (all stimuli facing in the same direction) and incongruent trials (the middle stimulus is facing in the opposite direction to the flanker stimuli) and participants were asked to select the button on the screen that matched the direction of the middle stimulus [41].”
MethodThe association of white matter free water with cognition in older adults
Gullett, J. M., O’Shea, A. M., Lamb, D. G., Porges, E. C., O’Shea, D. M., Pasternak, O., Cohen, R. A., & Woods, A. J. (2020) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117040 · Cited by 48
Behavioral and cognitive differences in early childhood related to prenatal marijuana exposure
Murnan, A., Keim, S. A., Yeates, K. O., Boone, K. M., Sheppard, K. W., & Klebanoff, M. A. (2021) · Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101348 · Cited by 43
Baum, C. M., Wolf, T., Wong, A., Chen, C., Walker, K., Young, A. C., Carlozzi, N. E., Tulsky, D. S., Heaton, R. K., & Heinemann, A. W. (2016) · Neuropsychological Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09602011.2016.1176934 · Cited by 45
Self-citationLeading and Managing the Workplace: The Role of Executive Functions
Chan, T., Wang, I., & Ybarra, O. (2018) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2017.0215 · Cited by 51
Anxiety and anhedonia in depression: Associations with neuroticism and cognitive control
Liao, A., Walker, R., Carmody, T. J., Cooper, C. M., Shaw, M. A., Grannemann, B. D., Adams, P., Bruder, G. E., McInnis, M. G., Webb, C. A., et al. (2018) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2018.11.072 · Cited by 41
Norman, L. J., Sudre, G., Price, J., & Shaw, P. (2024) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.20230026 · Cited by 37
Sullivan, J. A., Dumont, J. R., Memar, S., Skirzewski, M., Wan, J., Mofrad, M. H., Ansari, H. Z., Li, Y., Muller, L., Prado, V. F., et al. (2020) · Genes Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1111/gbb.12705 · Cited by 39
Chan, J. Y., & Scalise, N. R. (2022) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2022.101154 · Cited by 41
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
