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 301–400 of 1,289
Converse, A. K., Barrett, B. P., Chewning, B. A., & Wayne, P. M. (2020) · Complementary Therapies in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2020.102538 · Cited by 33
“Participants completed 12-item excerpts from the verbal reasoning section of a practice Graduate Record Exam (GRE) as well as the Flanker test of attention and inhibitory control and the Dimensional Change Card Sort test of executive function (NIH Toolbox) [75].”
MethodZhu, X., Yan, W., Lin, X., Que, J., Huang, Y., Zheng, H., Liu, L., Deng, J., Lü, L., & Chang, S. (2022) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-022-01929-7 · Cited by 32
“The specific description of the NIH Toolbox cognition assessment scale is provided in the Supplementary Methods.”
MethodInfluentialPalmer, J. A., Morris, J. K., Billinger, S. A., Lepping, R. J., Martin, L. E., Green, Z. D., & Vidoni, E. D. (2022) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhac418 · Cited by 30
Early postnatal defects in neurogenesis in the 3xTg mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease
Liu, Y., Bilen, M., McNicoll, M.-M., Harris, R. A., Fong, B. C., Iqbal, M. A., Paul, S., Mayne, J., Walker, K., Wang, J., et al. (2023) · Cell Death and Disease · doi:10.1038/s41419-023-05650-1 · Cited by 28
Chaturvedi, S., Yu, J. M., Brown, J., Wei, A., Selvakumar, S., Gerber, G. F., Moliterno, A. R., Streiff, M. B., Kraus, P. S., Logue, C., et al. (2023) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood.2023019663 · Cited by 27
Personality and local brain structure: Their shared genetic basis and reproducibility
Valk, S. L., Hoffstaedter, F., Camilleri, J. A., Kochunov, P., Yeo, B. T. T., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2020) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117067 · Cited by 31
“As a proxy for IQ we used the NIH Toolbox Cognition (Weintraub et al., 2013), ‘total composite score’.”
MethodInfluentialFalck, R. S., Best, J. R., LI, L. C., Chan, P., Feehan, L. M., & Liu-Ambrose, T. Y. L. (2018) · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12891-018-2369-z · Cited by 27
“We measured cognitive function using the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) [45].”
MethodInfluentialAdverse childhood experiences and cognitive function among adults with excess adiposity
Hawkins, M. A. W., Ciciolla, L. M., Colaizzi, J. M., Keirns, N. G., Smith, C. E., Stout, M. E., Addante, S., Armans, M., & Erato, G. (2019) · Obesity Science & Practice · doi:10.1002/osp4.385 · Cited by 26
Vila‐Castelar, C., Papp, K. V., Amariglio, R. E., Torres, V. L., Baena, A. Y., Gómez, D., Rendón, J., Samaroo, A. H., Lopera, F. J., Rentz, D. M., et al. (2019) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2019.1690050 · Cited by 26
“The LAS-FNAME will be freely available as part of the National Institute of Health (NIH) Toolbox Cognition Battery (Weintraub et al., 2013) for Spanish-speaking individuals.”
MethodLACY, M. E., Gilsanz, P., Eng, C. W., Beeri, M. S., Karter, A. J., & Whitmer, R. A. (2020) · BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care · doi:10.1136/bmjdrc-2020-001173 · Cited by 30
On Language and Thought: Bilingual Experience Influences Semantic Associations
Ning, S.-Q., Hayakawa, S., Bartolotti, J., & Marian, V. (2020) · Journal of Neurolinguistics · doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100932 · Cited by 23
Exaggerated cortical representation of speech in older listeners: mutual information analysis
Zan, P., Presacco, A., Anderson, S., et al. (2020) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00002.2020 · Cited by 26
Measuring Cognitive Health in Ethnically Diverse Older Adults
Saucedo, H. H., Whitmer, R. A., Glymour, M. M., DeCarli, C. S., Mayeda, E. R., Gilsanz, P., Miles, S. Q., Bhulani, N., Farias, S. T., Olichney, J., et al. (2021) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbab062 · Cited by 26
Self-citationCortical and Cerebellar Oscillatory Responses to Postural Instability in Parkinson's Disease
Bosch, T. J., Kammermeier, S., Groth, C. L., Leedom, M., Hanson, E. K., Berg-Poppe, P. J., & Singh, A. (2021) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.752271 · Cited by 26
Norbom, L. B., Hanson, J. L., van der Meer, D., Ferschmann, L., Røysamb, E., von Soest, T., Andreassen, O. A., Agartz, I., Westlye, L. T., & Tamnes, C. K. (2022) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2022.101132 · Cited by 26
Nashiro, K., Yoo, H. J., Cho, C., Min, J., Feng, T., Nasseri, P., Bachman, S. L., Lehrer, P. M., Thayer, J. F., & Mather, M. (2022) · Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback · doi:10.1007/s10484-022-09558-y · Cited by 32
Eichen, D. M., Matheson, B. E., Liang, J., Strong, D. R., Rhee, K. E., & Boutelle, K. N. (2018) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2018.03.010 · Cited by 26
Balsamo, L. M., Mitchell, H., Ross, W. L., Metayer, C., Hardy, K. K., & Kadan‐Lottick, N. S. (2019) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-019-0302-3 · Cited by 26
Measles, mumps and rubella: control by vaccination.
Ja, V. D., de Boo, T., & Plantinga, A. D. (1986) · PubMed · Cited by 26
The State of Young Children in the United States
Sabol, T. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2017) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118937334.ch1 · Cited by 26
Maternal Tobacco Use During Pregnancy and Child Neurocognitive Development
Puga, T. B., Dai, H. D., Wang, Y., & Theye, E. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.55952 · Cited by 31
Guler, O. E., & Mackovichova, S. (2018) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2018.1513040 · Cited by 29
“This score is based on the NIH Toolbox nationally representative normative sample within the same age range, where a score of 100 indicates the national average for the participant’s age and the standard deviation is 15.”
MethodInfluentialRest-activity rhythm disturbance in liver cirrhosis and association with cognitive impairment
Kim, M., Liotta, E. M., Maas, M. B., Braun, R., Garcia-Canga, B., Ganger, D. R., Ladner, D. P., Reid, K. J., & Zee, P. C. (2020) · SLEEP · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsaa288 · Cited by 25
Koopowitz, S., Maré, K. T., Zar, H. J., Stein, D. J., & Ipser, J. (2021) · Brain and Behavior · doi:10.1002/brb3.1950 · Cited by 25
French, M. A., Cohen, M. L., Pohlig, R. T., & Reisman, D. S. (2021) · Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · doi:10.1177/15459683211001025 · Cited by 26
Ahmed, S. F., Skibbe, L. E., McRoy, K. Z., Tatar, B. H., & Scharphorn, L. (2022) · Early Childhood Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.03.002 · Cited by 32
Do hearing loss interventions prevent dementia?
Dawes, P., & Völter, C. (2023) · Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie · doi:10.1007/s00391-023-02178-z · Cited by 30
Rollins, C. K., Calderon, J., Wypij, D., Taylor, A. M., Kanjiker, T. S. D., Rohde, J. S., Maiman, M., Zambrano, L. D., Newhams, M. M., Rodriguez, S., et al. (2023) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.24369 · Cited by 25
Pagliaccio, D., Durham, K., Fitzgerald, K. D., & Marsh, R. (2020) · Biological Psychiatry Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2020.10.019 · Cited by 32
“Linear mixedeffects models probed associations between OCS (Child Behavior Checklist) and cognition (NIH Toolbox), brain structure (subcortical volume, cortical thickness), white matter (diffusion tensor imaging), and resting-state functional connectivity.”
MethodInfluentialBignardi, G., Dalmaijer, E. S., Anwyl-Irvine, A. L., & Astle, D. E. (2020) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-020-01503-3 · Cited by 28
“The NIH Toolbox is designed for testing cognition across the lifespan, initially tested in a large sample aged between 3 and 85 years (Weintraub et al., 2013), and has since been incorporated into other large research cohorts (Akshoomoff et al., 2014; Thompson et al., 2019).”
MethodCheimariou, S., Farmer, T. A., & Gordon, J. (2018) · Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition · doi:10.1080/13825585.2018.1529733 · Cited by 24
“In terms of cognitive testing, participants were administered three tests from the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (Weintraub et al., 2013), selected to represent three domains that have been frequently associated with age-related decline: working memory, processing speed, and inhibitory control (Hasher & Zacks, 1988; P…”
MethodInfluentialThe NIH Toolbox: Overview of Development for Use with Hispanic Populations
Gershon, R. C., Fox, R. S., Manly, J. J., Mungas, D., Nowinski, C. J., Roney, E. M., & Slotkin, J. (2020) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617720000028 · Cited by 25
Self-citationLinks between language and executive functions in Swedish preschool children: A pilot study
Tonér, S., & Gerholm, T. N. (2020) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716420000703 · Cited by 29
“It is suitable from age 3 (Gershon et al., 2013; Rueda et al., 2004; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodRieck, J. R., Baracchini, G., & Grady, C. L. (2021) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01685 · Cited by 26
Patel, Y., Parker, N., Salum, G. A., Pausová, Z., & Paus, T. (2022) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.781554 · Cited by 27
“NIH Total composite measure included the following cognitive tests: flanker, dimensional change card, picture sequence memory, list sorting, pattern, oral reading, and picture vocabulary (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodEffects of the physical and social environment on youth cognitive performance
Meredith, W. J., Cardenas‐Iniguez, C., Berman, M. G., & Rosenberg, M. D. (2022) · Developmental Psychobiology · doi:10.1002/dev.22258 · Cited by 24
Young, S. R., Lattie, E. G., Berry, A. B. L., Bui, L., Byrne, G. J., Benavente, J. Y., Bass, M., Gershon, R. C., Wolf, M. S., & Nowinski, C. J. (2022) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/42416 · Cited by 24
Self-citationGe, R., Sassi, R. B., Yatham, L. N., & Frangou, S. (2022) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41380-022-01925-9 · Cited by 24
“Non-imaging Measures Participants’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors were assessed with the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) [33] and their crystallized and fluid intelligence were evaluated using the NIH Toolbox [34].”
MethodBrooks, S. J., Smith, C., & Stamoulis, C. (2023) · International Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1038/s41366-023-01303-7 · Cited by 27
Racial Differences in Neurocognitive Outcomes Post-Stroke: The Impact of Healthcare Variables
Johnson, N. X., Marquine, M. J., Flores, I., Umlauf, A., Baum, C. M., Wong, A., Young, A. C., Manly, J. J., Heinemann, A. W., Magasi, S. R., et al. (2017) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617717000480 · Cited by 24
“The details of the battery have been described elsewhere (Casaletto et al., 2015; Heaton et al 2014; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Self-citationLundine, J. P., Harnish, S. M., McCauley, R. J., Zezinka, A., Blackett, D. S., & Fox, R. A. (2017) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2017_ajslp-16-0131 · Cited by 24
The NIH Toolbox for cognitive surveillance in Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Thangarajh, M., Kaat, A. J., Bibat, G., Mansour, J., Summerton, K., Gioia, A. R., Berger, C., Hardy, K. K., & Wagner, K. R. (2019) · Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology · doi:10.1002/acn3.50867 · Cited by 24
Požar, R., Giordani, B., & Kavcic, V. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0230099 · Cited by 25
“A recent report [38] describes the development of the Toolbox in addition to results on test-retest reliability, age effects on performance, and convergent and discriminant construct validity.”
MethodIndividual Differences in Phonetic Plasticity Across Native and Nonnative Contexts
Heffner, C. C., & Myers, E. B. (2021) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2021_jslhr-21-00004 · Cited by 24
Kavanaugh, B. C., Cancilliere, M. K., Fryc, A., Tirrell, E., Oliveira, J., Oberman, L. M., Wexler, B. E., Carpenter, L. L., & Spirito, A. (2020) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2019.1708295 · Cited by 25
Lamb, J. J., Stone, M., D’Adamo, C. R., Volkov, A., Metti, D., Aronica, L., Minich, D. M., Leary, M., Class, M., Carullo, M., et al. (2022) · Journal of Personalized Medicine · doi:10.3390/jpm12010115 · Cited by 23
Moore, R. C., Parrish, E. M., Patten, R. V., Paolillo, E. W., Filip, T. F., Bomyea, J. A., Lomas, D., Twamley, E. W., Eyler, L. T., & Depp, C. A. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/36665 · Cited by 24
Kartheiser, G., Cormier, K., Bell-Souder, D., Dye, M., & Sharma, A. (2024) · Hearing Research · doi:10.1016/j.heares.2024.109074 · Cited by 25
Practice and retest effects in longitudinal studies of cognitive functioning
Jones, R. N. (2015) · Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring · doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2015.02.002 · Cited by 23
“[18] Weintraub S, Dikmen SS, Heaton RK, Tulsky DS, Zelazo PD,”
BackgroundMethodSensorimotor lateralization scaffolds cognitive specialization
Gonzalez, C. L. R., van Rootselaar, N. A., & Gibb, R. L. (2018) · Progress in brain research · doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2018.06.011 · Cited by 23
Clark, D. J., Chatterjee, S. A., Skinner, J. W., Lysne, P. E., Sumonthee, C., Wu, S. S., Cohen, R. A., Rose, D. K., & Woods, A. J. (2020) · Neuromodulation Technology at the Neural Interface · doi:10.1111/ner.13250 · Cited by 25
Cognitive Impairment and Driving Skills in Youth After Concussion
Rivara, F. P., Ebel, B. E., Binjolkar, M., Wang, J., Hanron, A. E., Kroshus, E., Boyle, L. N., & Patrick, K. E. (2022) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/neu.2022.0308 · Cited by 23
“23 The other subtests, which make up a Fluid Composite, assess executive function and memory, skills important for driving, 25–28 which may be impacted in the acute phase following concussion.”
Interplay of socioeconomic status, cognition, and school performance in the ABCD sample
Langensee, L., Rumetshofer, T., & Mårtensson, J. (2024) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-024-00233-x · Cited by 25
“Detailsabouttheindividualtaskshavebeen describedelsewhere 19,73 .”
Brockmann, M., Beyer, D., & Bohlender, J. E. (2014) · International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology · doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.09.020 · Cited by 23
Woods, D. L., Wyma, J. M., Yund, E. W., & Herron, T. J. (2015) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00595 · Cited by 23
Hayden, K. M., Baker, L. D., Bray, G. A., Carvajal, R., Demos, K. E., Hergenroeder, A. L., Hill, J. O., Horton, E. S., Jakicic, J. M., Johnson, K., et al. (2017) · Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring · doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2017.09.002 · Cited by 24
Karcher, N. R., Perino, M. T., & Barch, D. M. (2020) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/abn0000502 · Cited by 21
“The crystallized composite consists of Picture Vocabulary and Oral Reading Recognition test (see Weintraub et al., 2013, for descriptions of individual NIHTB-CB tests).”
BackgroundMethodMarcopulos, B. A., & Łojek, E. (2019) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2018.1560502 · Cited by 23
NIH toolbox cognition tests following traumatic brain injury: Frequency of low scores.
Holdnack, J. A., Iverson, G. L., Silverberg, N. D., Tulsky, D. S., & Heinemann, A. W. (2017) · Rehabilitation Psychology · doi:10.1037/rep0000145 · Cited by 23
Self-citationCan mild traumatic brain injury alter cognition chronically? A LIMBIC-CENC multicenter study.
Walker, W. C., O'Neil, M. E., Ou, Z., Pogoda, T. K., Belanger, H. G., Scheibel, R. S., Presson, A. P., Miles, S. R., Wilde, E. A., Tate, D. F., et al. (2023) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/neu0000855 · Cited by 22
Moore, D. R., Hugdahl, K., Stewart, H. J., et al. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00675 · Cited by 22
Foy, J. G., & Foy, M. R. (2020) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.00158 · Cited by 23
“The DCCS is a measure of cognitive flexibility (Weintraub et al., 2013), also an executive function (Miyake et al., 2000).”
InfluentialCaffeine intake and cognitive functions in children
Zhang, H., Lee, Z. X., & Qiu, A. (2020) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-020-05596-8 · Cited by 24
“The scoring method for the NIH toolbox cognitive instruments can be found in the overview of the NIH cognition battery and NIH Scoring and Interpretation guide (Weintraub et al. 2013; Luciana et al. 2018).”
MethodYamada, Y., Frith, E., Wong, V. H. Y., Spitz, R. W., Bell, Z. W., Chatakondi, R. N., Abe, T., & Loenneke, J. P. (2021) · Medical Hypotheses · doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2021.110586 · Cited by 23
Murphy, R. J., Sumner, R. L., Evans, W., Menkes, D. B., Lambrecht, I., Ponton, R., Sundram, F., Hoeh, N. R., Ram, S., Reynolds, L., et al. (2021) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05243-3 · Cited by 25
Santiago‐Torres, M., Contento, I. R., Koch, P. A., Tsai, W., Brickman, A. M., Gaffney, A. O., Thomson, C. A., Crane, T. E., Dominguez, N., Sepulveda, J., et al. (2021) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2021.106524 · Cited by 22
Cognitive Function and Sleep in Caregivers of Persons Living with Dementia
Brewster, G. S., Molinari, V., McCrae, C. S., Beckstead, J. W., D’Aoust, R., & Rowe, M. A. (2021) · Western Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/01939459211041163 · Cited by 22
“The fluid cognition composite consists of five measures (Heaton et al., 2014; Slotkin, Kallen, et al., 2012; Weintraub et al., 2013, 2014).”
BackgroundVermeent, S., Spaltman, M., van Elswijk, G., Miller, J. B., & Schmand, B. A. (2021) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2021.1974565 · Cited by 22
“These findings are in line with those found for other digital cognitive test batteries (e.g., Björngrim et al., 2019; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
ResultARMADA: Assessing reliable measurement in Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive aging project methods
Weıntraub, S., Karpouzian‐Rogers, T., Peipert, J. D., Nowinski, C. J., Slotkin, J., Wortman, K., Ho, E., Rogalski, E. J., Carlsson, C. M., Giordani, B., et al. (2021) · Alzheimer s & Dementia · doi:10.1002/alz.12497 · Cited by 23
Self-citationLau, S. C. L., Connor, L. T., & Baum, C. M. (2021) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2021.2012845 · Cited by 23
Memory Perfectionism is Associated with Persistent Memory Complaints after Concussion
Picon, E. L., Todorova, E., Palombo, D. J., Perez, D. L., Howard, A. K., & Silverberg, N. D. (2022) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acac021 · Cited by 27
Cannabidiol Treatment for Neurological, Cognitive, and Psychiatric Symptoms in Sturge-Weber Syndrome
Smegal, L. F., Vedmurthy, P., Ryan, M., Eagen, M., Andrejow, N. W., Sweeney, K. L., Reidy, T. G., Yeom, S., Lin, D. D. M., Suskauer, S. J., et al. (2022) · Pediatric Neurology · doi:10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2022.10.014 · Cited by 24
Nakua, H., Yu, J., Abdi, H., Hawco, C. S., Voineskos, A. N., Hill, S., Lai, M., Wheeler, A. L., McIntosh, A. R., & Ameis, S. H. (2024) · Network Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/netn_a_00363 · Cited by 24
Effect of Retrieval Practice on Short-Term and Long-Term Retention in HIV+ Individuals
Avci, G., Woods, S. P., Verduzco, M., Sheppard, D. P., Sumowski, J. F., Chiaravalloti, N. D., & DeLuca, J. (2017) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617716001089 · Cited by 24
“The participants were asked to recall the sequence of pictures that were presented over two learning trials (for a detailed description of the test, see Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundQuantitative prediction of individual cognitive flexibility using structural MRI
Zhu, J., Zhu, D., Zhang, C., Wang, Y., Yang, Y., & Yu, Y. (2018) · Brain Imaging and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11682-018-9905-1 · Cited by 21
Body mass variability is represented by distinct functional connectivity patterns
Sadler, J. R., Shearrer, G. E., & Burger, K. S. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.06.082 · Cited by 22
Cognitive Control at Age 3: Evaluating Executive Functions in an Equitable Montessori Preschool
Phillips-Silver, J., & Daza, M. T. (2018) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2018.00106 · Cited by 33
Szabo‐Reed, A. N., Vidoni, E. D., Binder, E. F., Burns, J. M., Cullum, C. M., Gahan, W. P., Gupta, A., Hynan, L. S., Kerwin, D. R., Rossetti, H. C., et al. (2019) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2019.02.007 · Cited by 23
“The NIH-Toolbox Cognition Battery [66] is an omnibus assessment that tests various cognitive domains.”
MethodChildhood Metabolic Biomarkers Are Associated with Performance on Cognitive Tasks in Young Children
Shapiro, A. L. B., Wilkening, G. N., Aalborg, J., Ringham, B. M., Glueck, D. H., Tregellas, J. R., & Dabelea, D. (2019) · The Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.03.043 · Cited by 24
What is the role of executive function in the school readiness of Latino students?
Greenfader, C. M. (2019) · Early Childhood Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.02.011 · Cited by 23
Wray, C., Kowalski, A. J., Mpondo, F., Ochaeta, L., Belleza, D., DiGirolamo, A. M., Waford, R., Richter, L., Lee, N., Scerif, G., et al. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242936 · Cited by 25
“In addition, these measures have been well validated, showing good convergent and discriminant validity and good testretest reliability among both adults and children in the US [19, 20].”
BackgroundAssari, S., Boyce, S., Bazargan, M., Thomas, A., Cobb, R. J., Hudson, D., Curry, T. J., Nicholson, H. L., Cuevas, A. G., Mistry, R., et al. (2021) · Children · doi:10.3390/children8050412 · Cited by 23
“These measures are highly reliable and valid [97] and widely used to assess reading [98] and other cognitive function aspects of children and adults [99].”
BackgroundBurrows, E. L., May, C., Hill, T., Churliov, L., Johnson, K. A., & Hannan, A. J. (2021) · Genes Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1111/gbb.12757 · Cited by 20
“studies, attentional paradigms are apparatus driven to ensure the patient must be actively engaged in the task.(30) The rCPT was implemented to remove the visuospatial and experimenter driven ele-”
MethodInner Hemispheric and Interhemispheric Connectivity Balance in the Human Brain
Krupnik, R., Yovel, Y., & Assaf, Y. (2021) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1074-21.2021 · Cited by 24
Mungas, D., Shaw, C. L., Hayes‐Larson, E., DeCarli, C. S., Farias, S. T., Olichney, J., Saucedo, H. H., Gilsanz, P., Glymour, M. M., Whitmer, R. A., et al. (2021) · Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring · doi:10.1002/dad2.12265 · Cited by 22
Self-citationParsons, T. D., & Duffield, T. C. (2019) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2018.1523465 · Cited by 31
Fu, Z., Jing Sui （Beijing Normal University）， my correct affiliation is beijing normal university, N. Q. U. O. S. A. T., Iraji, A., Liu, J., & Calhoun, V. D. (2024) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41380-024-02683-6 · Cited by 22
“To investigate the relationships between DFC and cognition, we used the uncorrected raw scores from the National Institutes of Health Cognition Battery Toolbox (NIHTBX) [28, 29].”
Associations Between Preschooler Screen Time Trajectories and Executive Function
Fitzpatrick, C., Florit, E., Lemieux, A., Garon‐Carrier, G., & Masón, L. (2024) · Academic Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.acap.2024.102603 · Cited by 33
Decker, D. D., Patel, R., Cheavens, J. S., Hayes, S. M., Whitted, W. M., Lee, A. J., Buga, A., Robinson, B. T., Crabtree, C. D., Kackley, M. L., et al. (2025) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-025-03544-8 · Cited by 22
“The normality of continuous variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test.”
Wang, L., Lin, F. V., Cole, M., & Zhang, Z. (2020) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117493 · Cited by 21
Darling, A. M., Richey, R. E., Akins, J. D., Saunders, E. F. H., Brothers, R. M., & Greaney, J. L. (2021) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2021.08.061 · Cited by 21
Baxter, M. G., Mincer, J. S., Brallier, J. W., Schwartz, A., Ahn, H., Nir, T., McCormick, P. J., Ismail, M., Sewell, M., Allore, H. G., et al. (2021) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000005824 · Cited by 22
Optimal spindle detection parameters for predicting cognitive performance
Adra, N., Sun, H., Ganglberger, W., Ye, E. M., Dummer, L., Tesh, R. A., Westmeijer, M., Cardoso, M. D. S., Kitchener, E. G., Ouyang, A., et al. (2022) · SLEEP · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsac001 · Cited by 22
Executive functioning moderates neural mechanisms of irritability during reward processing in youth
Kryza‐Lacombe, M., Palumbo, D., Wakschlag, L. S., Dougherty, L. R., & Wiggins, J. L. (2022) · Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2022.111483 · Cited by 25
Validity of the NIH toolbox cognitive battery in a healthy oldest-old 85+ sample
Nolin, S. A., Cowart, H., Merritt, S. S., McInerney, K., Bharadwaj, P., Franchetti, M. K., Raichlen, D. A., Jessup, C. J., Hishaw, G. A., Etten, E. J. V., et al. (2022) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617722000443 · Cited by 21
Moore, T. M., Sandro, A. D., Scott, J. C., Lopez, K. C., Ruparel, K., Njokweni, L. J., Santra, S., Conway, D. S., Port, A. M., D’Errico, L., et al. (2023) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2023.109795 · Cited by 21
Sakib, M., Best, J. R., & Hall, P. A. (2023) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.55631 · Cited by 20
van den Heuvel, M. P., Ardesch, D. J., Scholtens, L. H., de Lange, S. C., van Haren, N. E. M., Sommer, I. E., Dannlowski, U., Repple, J., Preuss, T. M., Hopkins, W. D., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2218565120 · Cited by 21
“We focused our analysis on aspects of nonverbal and nonsocial cognition (NIHTB-CB tasks testing for executive functioning, relational reasoning, processing speed, see Materials and Methods ) to best match the cognitive tasks in the chimpanzee population (see for chimpanzee test-battery below).”
InfluentialDudley‐Javoroski, S., Lee, J., & Shields, R. K. (2020) · Physiotherapy Theory and Practice · doi:10.1080/09593985.2020.1712755 · Cited by 21
Ma, Y., Carlsson, C. M., Wahoske, M. L., Blazel, H. M., Chappell, R. J., Johnson, S. C., Asthana, S., & Gleason, C. E. (2020) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617720000922 · Cited by 23
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
