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 401–500 of 1,289
Cardenas‐Iniguez, C., Moore, T. M., Kaczkurkin, A. N., Meyer, F. A. C., Satterthwaite, T. D., Fair, D. A., White, T. J. H., Blok, E., Applegate, B. E., Thompson, L. M., et al. (2020) · Biological Psychiatry Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2020.11.007 · Cited by 25
“Three tests of executive functioning (45) from the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery were administered on computer tablets monitored by an interviewer (46): Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test (47), Dimensional Change Card Sort Task (48), and the Flanker Task (49).”
MethodTideman, P., Karlsson, L., Strandberg, O. T., Calling, S., Smith, R. A., Midlöv, P., Verghese, P. B., Braunstein, J. B., Mattsson, N., Stomrud, E., et al. (2025) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-025-03965-4 · Cited by 36
“Our study did not evaluate all available digital tablet solutions, such as Cognivue 24 , NIH Toolbox 25 , cCOG 26 , Cogstate 27 or TabCAT 28 , considering the load this would impose on participants, and to avoid learning biases.”
Fisher, P. A., Barker, T. V., & Blaisdell, K. N. (2020) · Annual Review of Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-devpsych-121318-084958 · Cited by 23
Bomyea, J. A., Parrish, E. M., Paolillo, E. W., Filip, T. F., Eyler, L. T., Depp, C. A., & Moore, R. C. (2021) · Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/13803395.2021.1975656 · Cited by 22
Mindfulness as an Adjunct to Behavior Modification for Elementary-aged Children with ADHD
Ramos, M. C., Macphee, F. L., Merrill, B. M., Altszuler, A. R., Raiker, J. S., Gnagy, E. M., Greiner, A. R., Parent, J. M., Coles, E. K., Burger, L., et al. (2022) · Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology · doi:10.1007/s10802-022-00947-9 · Cited by 21
“To evaluate executive functioning (EF), children completed three tasks from the NIH Cognitive Toolbox (NIH-TB; Weintraub et al., 2013; Zelazo & Lyons, 2012) at baseline (week 2 of STP) and post-treatment (week 8 of STP).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRoebers, C. M. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.923615 · Cited by 25
“In contrast, researchers usually use response times (RT) on correct trials to map individual differences in older children and adolescents (Davidson et al., 2006; Weintraub et al., 2013; Brod et al., 2019).”
Oshri, A., Cui, Z., Owens, M. M., Carvalho, C., & Sweet, L. H. (2022) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108354 · Cited by 25
The combination of autism and exceptional cognitive ability increases risk for suicidal ideation
Casten, L. G., Thomas, T., Doobay, A. F., Foley‐Nicpon, M., Kramer, S., Nickl‐Jockschat, T., Abel, T. G., Assouline, S. G., & Michaelson, J. J. (2022) · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory · doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2022.107698 · Cited by 22
Oscillatory dynamics serving visual selective attention during a Simon task
Son, J. J., Arif, Y., Schantell, M. D., Willett, M. P., Johnson, H. J., Okelberry, H. J., Embury, C. M., & Wilson, T. W. (2023) · Brain Communications · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcad131 · Cited by 21
“In addition, following enrolment, participants were also assessed using the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery and were required to score in the normative range to be included in the study.(37-39) The Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this investigation, and written informed consent was obtained from each pa…”
MethodRetinal perfusion is linked to cognition and brain MRI biomarkers in Black Americans
Abdolahi, F., Yu, V., Varma, R., Zhou, X., Wang, R. K., D’Orazio, L. M., Zhao, C., Jann, K., Wang, D. J. J., Kashani, A. H., et al. (2023) · Alzheimer s & Dementia · doi:10.1002/alz.13469 · Cited by 20
Special Series Introduction: NIH EXAMINER and the Assessment of Executive Functioning
Kramer, J. H. (2013) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617713001185 · Cited by 22
Williams, A. M., van Wijngaarden, E., Seplaki, C. L., et al. (2020) · Leukemia & lymphoma/Leukemia and lymphoma · doi:10.1080/10428194.2020.1728748 · Cited by 20
“Cognition (NIH-TB [14]), Comprehensive Trail Making”
MethodRetrieval Practice in Memory- and Language-Impaired Populations: A Systematic Review.
de Lima, M. D., Cavendish, B., de Deus, J. S., & Buratto, L. (2020) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acaa035 · Cited by 17
Wetherell, J. L., Ripperger, H. S., Voegtle, M. L., Ances, B. M., Balota, D. A., Bower, E. S., Depp, C. A., Eyler, L. T., Foster, E. R., Head, D. M., et al. (2020) · Clinical Trials · doi:10.1177/1740774520931864 · Cited by 24
Uncovering a Role for the Dorsal Hippocampal Commissure in Recognition Memory
Postans, M., Parker, G. D., Lundell, H., Ptito, M., Hamandi, K., Gray, W., Aggleton, J. P., Dyrby, T. B., Jones, D. K., & Winter, M. (2019) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhz143 · Cited by 21
“For both the PSMT and LSWMT, HCP subjects’ raw scores have been standardized against the NIH Toolbox normative sample (Weintraub et al. 2013).”
MethodEtzel, J. A., Brough, R. E., Freund, M. C., Kizhner, A., Lin, Y., Singh, M. F., Tang, R., Tay, A., Wang, A., & Braver, T. S. (2022) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01226-4 · Cited by 23
Wong, A., Lau, S. C. L., Cella, D. F., et al. (2017) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1590-9 · Cited by 19
Patel, A. R., Hsu, A., Perez, I. A., Wren, T. A. L., & Edison, B. R. (2020) · Research in Sports Medicine · doi:10.1080/15438627.2020.1716229 · Cited by 21
Rung, J. M., Horta, M., Tammi, E. M., Perez, E., Ojeda, M., Lin, T., Harris, G., Somerville, J. E. T., Salmeron, D., Beltz, S. E., et al. (2021) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-021-05862-3 · Cited by 19
Hall, P. A., Best, J. R., Beaton, E. A., Sakib, M. N., & Danckert, J. A. (2021) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsab104 · Cited by 19
Stockdale, L., Holmgren, H. G., Porter, C. L., Clifford, B. N., & Coyne, S. M. (2022) · Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2022.101418 · Cited by 22
Ahmed, S., Cano, M. Á., Sánchez, M., Hu, N., & Ibañez, G. E. (2022) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2022.2103105 · Cited by 18
“(Luciana et al., 2018; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundNeurocognitive effects of subanesthetic serial ketamine infusions in treatment resistant depression
Zavaliangos‐Petropulu, A., McClintock, S. M., Khalil, J., Joshi, S. H., Taraku, B., Al‐Sharif, N., Espinoza, R. T., & Narr, K. L. (2023) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2023.04.015 · Cited by 22
Functional Cognition: Distinct From Fluid and Crystallized Cognition?
Baum, C. M., Lau, S. C. L., Heinemann, A. W., & Connor, L. T. (2023) · American Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.5014/ajot.2023.050010 · Cited by 20
“The NIHTB – CB (Weintraub et al., 2013) is a computerized assessment consisting of seven performance-based tests that measure fluid and crystallized cognition.”
Crane, P. K., Choi, S., Lee, M. K., Scollard, P., Sanders, R. E., Klinedinst, B. S., Nakano, C. Y., Trittschuh, E. H., Mez, J. B., Saykin, A. J., et al. (2023) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/neu0000901 · Cited by 19
“More recently, IRT methods fi gured prominently in development of the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognitive Health Battery (Dikmen et al., 2014; Gershon et al., 2014; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Self-citationDose–Response of Creatine Supplementation on Cognitive Function in Healthy Young Adults
Moriarty, T. A., Bourbeau, K., Dorman, K., Runyon, L., Glaser, N., Brandt, J., Hoodjer, M., Forbes, S. C., & Candow, D. G. (2023) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci13091276 · Cited by 24
“Following these initial measurements, cognitive performance was evaluated using select tests from the NIH Toolbox Fluid Cognition Battery via an iPad [24].”
Cognitive and Emotional Well-Being of Preschool Children Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Finegold, K. E., Knight, J. A., Hung, R. J., Ssewanyana, D., Wong, J., Bertoni, K., Khani, N. A., Watson, H., Levitan, R. D., Jenkins, J. M., et al. (2023) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.43814 · Cited by 25
Loring, D. W., Bowden, S. C., Staikova, E., Bishop, J., Drane, D. L., & Goldstein, F. C. (2018) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acy028 · Cited by 19
Sun, H., Yussof, N. T., Vijayakumar, P., Lai, G., O'Brien, B., & Ong, Q. H. (2019) · Journal of Child Language · doi:10.1017/s030500091900059x · Cited by 17
Functional Connectivity Decreases with Metabolic Stress in Sickle Cell Disease
Fields, M. E., Mirro, A. E., Guilliams, K. P., Binkley, M. M., Diaz, L. G., Tan, J. J., Fellah, S., Eldeniz, C., Chen, Y., Ford, A. L., et al. (2020) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.25891 · Cited by 19
“Executive function abilities encompass the cognitive aspects of goal-directed behavior, including the ability to sustain and shift attention, changing one’s response to boundaries (set-shifting), and manipulating information with a delayed response (working memory).(45) Such complex cognitive abilities arise from func…”
BackgroundLee, H., Lee, S., Black, I., Salado, L., Estrada, J., & Isla, K. (2020) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app10124131 · Cited by 19
Evidence of Validity for a Newly Developed Digital Cognitive Test Battery
Vermeent, S., Dotsch, R., Schmand, B. A., Klaming, L., Miller, J. B., & van Elswijk, G. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00770 · Cited by 24
“Others, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox (Weintraub et al., 2013), consist of tests that were developed exclusively for the platform and are only loosely based on existing paper-and-pencil tests.”
BackgroundEffect of chemotherapy on default mode network connectivity in older women with breast cancer
Chen, B. T., Chen, Z., Patel, S. K., Rockne, R. C., Wong, C. W., Root, J. C., Saykin, A. J., Ahles, T. A., Holodny, A. I., Sun, C., et al. (2021) · Brain Imaging and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11682-021-00475-y · Cited by 19
“Picture Sequence Memory (psm) test for episodic memory from the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (Gershon et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013) was assessed for all participants at both TP1 and TP2.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialContributions of causal reasoning to early scientific literacy
Shavlik, M., Köksal, Ö., French, B. F., Haden, C. A., Legare, C. H., & Booth, A. E. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2022.105509 · Cited by 25
Preclinical development of an EP2 antagonist for post-seizure cognitive deficits
Varvel, N. H., Amaradhi, R., Espinosa‐García, C., Duddy, S. K., Franklin, R. B., Banik, A., Alemán-Ruiz, C., Blackmer‐Raynolds, L., Wang, W., Honoré, T., et al. (2022) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2022.109356 · Cited by 18
Weigard, A. S., McCurry, K. L., Shapiro, Z. R., Martz, M. E., Angstadt, M., Heitzeg, M. M., Dinov, I. D., & Sripada, C. (2023) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-023-02502-6 · Cited by 19
Isolation of Distinct Networks Driving Action and Cognition in Psychomotor Processes
Moussa‐Tooks, A. B., Beermann, A., Felix, K. M., Coleman, M., Sylvain Bouix, A., Holt, D. J., Lewandowski, K. E., Öngür, D., Breier, A. F., Shenton, M. E., et al. (2024) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2024.02.1013 · Cited by 20
Norton, M. C., Clark, C. J., Tschanz, J. T., Hartin, P. J., Fauth, E. B., Gast, J. A., Dorsch, T. E., Wengreen, H. J., Nugent, C., Robinson, W. D., et al. (2015) · Alzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.trci.2015.05.001 · Cited by 18
“Receptive vocabulary, working memory, processing speed, and executive functioning were assessed using the tests from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox: Picture Vocabulary, Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test, List Sorting Working Memory Test, and Oral Symbol Digit Test [33].”
MethodNormatization of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test-Oral Version in a Latin American Country
Vanotti, S., Cores, E. V., Eizaguirre, M. B., Merino, Á., Rey, R. C., Villa, A. M., & Cáceres, F. (2014) · Applied Neuropsychology Adult · doi:10.1080/23279095.2013.831866 · Cited by 18
“However, the effect is not always the same during a person’s lifespan (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMincer, J. S., Baxter, M. G., McCormick, P. J., Sano, M. C., Schwartz, A. E., Brallier, J. W., Allore, H. G., Delman, B. N., Sewell, M. C., Kundu, P., et al. (2017) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000002427 · Cited by 17
Wong, A., Chen, C., Baum, M. C., Heaton, R. K., Goodman, B., & Heinemann, A. W. (2019) · American Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.5014/ajot.2019.031203 · Cited by 18
“To ensure sufficient vision, literacy, and communication skills to complete assessments, we added the following inclusion criteria: a Lighthouse Near-Visual Activity Test (Bailey & Lovie, 1976) score of less than 20/100, the ability to read the first 10 words of the Wide Range Achievement Test (Wilkinson & Robertson,…”
Self-citationCole, K. R., Yen, C.-L., Dudley‐Javoroski, S., & Shields, R. K. (2019) · Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy · doi:10.1519/jpt.0000000000000244 · Cited by 19
Thukham-mee, W., Wattanathorn, J., Kirisattayakul, W., & Wannanon, P. (2020) · Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity · doi:10.1155/2020/6123759 · Cited by 17
“The development of this capacity is reported to occur throughout childhood and adolescence periods and is parallel to the developmental changes that occur in the brain throughout the mentioned periods [3].”
BackgroundJones, D. R., Dallman, A., Harrop, C., Whitten, A., Pritchett, J., Lecavalier, L., Bodfish, J. W., & Boyd, B. A. (2022) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-021-04965-2 · Cited by 18
Sleep disturbance and memory dysfunction in early multiple sclerosis
Sumowski, J. F., Horng, S. H., Brandstadter, R., Krieger, S. C., Leavitt, V. M., Sand, I. K., Fabian, M. T., Klineova, S., Graney, R., Riley, C., et al. (2021) · Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology · doi:10.1002/acn3.51262 · Cited by 19
Dickson, K. S., Aarons, G. A., Anthony, L. G., Kenworthy, L. E., Crandal, B. R., Williams, K. N., & Brookman-Frazee, L. I. (2020) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-020-00593-2 · Cited by 21
Creatine monohydrate pilot in Alzheimer's: Feasibility, brain creatine, and cognition
Smith, A. N., Choi, I., Lee, P., Sullivan, D. K., Burns, J. M., Swerdlow, R. H., Kelly, E., & Taylor, M. K. (2025) · Alzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical Interventions · doi:10.1002/trc2.70101 · Cited by 23
Krueger, K. R., Dhana, K., Aggarwal, N. T., Arfanakis, K., Carey, V. J., Sacks, F. M., & Barnes, L. L. (2021) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617721001089 · Cited by 17
Kraines, M. A., Peterson, S. K., Tremont, G. N., Beard, C., Brewer, J. A., & Uebelacker, L. A. (2022) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-022-01841-7 · Cited by 21
Salient Cognitive Paradigms to Assess Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease
Curiel, R. E., & Loewenstein, D. (2022) · Neurotherapeutics · doi:10.1007/s13311-022-01192-0 · Cited by 17
EEG asymmetry and cognitive testing in MCI identification
Martin, T., Giordani, B., & Kavcic, V. (2022) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.05.012 · Cited by 19
Wade, N. E., Courtney, K. E., Doran, N., Baca, R. E., Aguinaldo, L. D., Thompson, C., Finegan, J. L., & Jacobus, J. (2022) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci12070889 · Cited by 17
Gustavson, D. E., Nayak, S., Coleman, P. L., Iversen, J. R., Lense, M., Gordon, R. L., & MAES, H. H. M. (2023) · Behavior Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10519-023-10135-0 · Cited by 16
Wade, N. E., Wallace, A. L., Huestis, M. A., Lisdahl, K. M., Sullivan, R. M., & Tapert, S. F. (2023) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107930 · Cited by 19
Cohen, D. E., Kim, H., Levine, A., Devanand, D. P., Lee, S., & Goldberg, T. E. (2023) · International Psychogeriatrics · doi:10.1017/s1041610223000911 · Cited by 17
“The NIH Toolbox (TB) Cognition Battery (Weintraub et al ., 2013) consists of seven measures assessing subdomains of executive function, episodic memory, language, processing speed, working memory, and attention.”
InfluentialChen, B. T., Ghassaban, K., Jin, T., Patel, S. K., Ye, N., Sun, C., Kim, H., Rockne, R. C., Haacke, E. M., Root, J. C., et al. (2018) · Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1016/j.mri.2018.07.016 · Cited by 18
“All study participants completed neuropsychological testing using the NIH Toolbox for Cognition.[19] The NIH Toolbox cognition batteries yielded three summary composite scores and seven individual scores for cognitive subdomains, including executive function and attention, episodic memory, working memory, and language…”
MethodInfluentialComparability of iPad and Web-Based NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery Administration in Veterans
Brearly, T. W., Rowland, J. A., Martindale, S. L., Shura, R. D., Curry, D. A., & Taber, K. H. (2018) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acy070 · Cited by 17
Smith, M. J., Smith, J. D., Fleming, M. F., Jordan, N., Oulvey, E. A., Bell, M. D., Mueser, K. T., McGurk, S. R., Spencer, E., Mailey, K., et al. (2018) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2018.12.008 · Cited by 18
“For cognitive data collection, research staff will receive training with a licensed neuropsychologist (consultants: Bell or McGurk) who has expertise administering the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR) [43] and the NIH Tool Box [44].”
MethodInfluentialJimenez, F. E., Puumala, S. E., Apple, M., et al. (2019) · HERD Health Environments Research & Design Journal · doi:10.1177/1937586718796590 · Cited by 17
Cognitive training in children with hypoplastic left heart syndrome: A pilot randomized trial
Jordan, L. C., Siciliano, R. E., Cole, D. A., Lee, C. A., Patel, N. J., Murphy, L. K., Markham, L. W., Prussien, K. V., Gindville, M. C., & Compas, B. E. (2019) · Progress in Pediatric Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.ppedcard.2019.101185 · Cited by 18
“The NTCB is a standardized, computerized battery intended to serve as a brief (30 min), convenient assessment of neuropsychological function for children [29,30] that is designed to control for practice effects.”
BackgroundCannabis use‐related working memory deficit mediated by lower left hippocampal volume
Paul, S., & Bhattacharyya, S. (2020) · Addiction Biology · doi:10.1111/adb.12984 · Cited by 17
“In the HCP, NIH-Toolbox based list-sorting working memory test was used to assess the working memory performance of study participants.(5) Participants were required to sequence different orally and visually presented stimuli on a computer screen.”
BackgroundMethodVisual Attention Preference for Intermediate Predictability in Young Children
Cubit, L. S., Canale, R. R., Handsman, R., Kidd, C., & Bennetto, L. (2021) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.13536 · Cited by 21
“Cognitive Ability In all, 69 out of the 72 children who yielded useable data on the eye-tracking task also completed at least one of the selected subtests from the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialYoo, H. J., Nashiro, K., Min, J., Cho, C., Mercer, N., Bachman, S. L., Nasseri, P., Dutt, S., Porat, S., Choi, P., et al. (2023) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02396-5 · Cited by 20
Shapiro, A. L. B., Dabelea, D., Stafford, J. M., D’Agostino, R., Jr., Pihoker, C., Liese, A. D., SHAH, A. S., Bellatorre, A. C., Lawrence, J. M., Henkin, L. F., et al. (2021) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc20-2308 · Cited by 18
MacIntosh, B. J., Ji, X., Chen, J. J., Gilboa, A., Roudaia, E., Sekuler, A. B., Gao, F., Chad, J. A., Jegatheesan, A., Masellis, M., et al. (2021) · CMAJ Open · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20210023 · Cited by 16
“18 The battery comprises 7 instruments assessing processing speed, working memory, executive function and episodic memory, which together provide composite scores of crystal-ized cognition and fluid cognition, and a total cognition score.”
Manglani, H. R., Fisher, M. E., Duraney, E. J., Nicholas, J. A., & Prakash, R. S. (2022) · Multiple Sclerosis Journal · doi:10.1177/13524585221088731 · Cited by 18
Cortical thinning in chemotherapy-treated older long-term breast cancer survivors
Daniel, E., Deng, F., Patel, S. K., Sedrak, M. S., Kim, H., Razavi, M., Sun, C., Root, J. C., Ahles, T. A., Dale, W., et al. (2022) · Brain Imaging and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11682-022-00743-5 · Cited by 16
Loughnan, R. J., Palmer, C. E., Thompson, W. K., Dale, A. M., Jernigan, T. L., & Fan, C. C. (2023) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09567976231160702 · Cited by 35
Owens, C. D., Pinto, C. B., Mukli, P., Szarvas, Z., Péterfi, A., Detwiler, S., Olay, L., Olson, A. L., Li, G., Galván, V., et al. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0289508 · Cited by 16
Post-stroke Depressive Symptoms and Cognitive Performances: A Network Analysis
Shi, Y., Lenze, E. J., Mohr, D. C., Lee, J., Hu, L., Metts, C. L., Fong, M. W. M., & Wong, A. (2023) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2023.10.006 · Cited by 17
Gross, R. S., Thaweethai, T., Rosenzweig, E. B., Chan, J. G. M., Chibnik, L. B., Cicek, M. S., Elliott, A., Flaherman, V. J., Foulkes, A. S., Witvliet, M. G., et al. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285635 · Cited by 19
Mitchell, J., Lyons, H., Walker, J. K., Yiangou, A., Thaller, M., Grech, O., Alimajstorovic, Z., Tsermoulas, G., Brock, K., Mollan, S. P., et al. (2025) · Headache The Journal of Head and Face Pain · doi:10.1111/head.14897 · Cited by 16
Sibley, M. H., Ortiz, M., Graziano, P. A., Dick, A. S., & Estrada, E. (2019) · European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1007/s00787-019-01382-w · Cited by 19
Thomas, B. P., Tarumi, T., Wang, C., Zhu, D. C., Tomoto, T., Cullum, C. M., Dieppa, M., Diaz-Arrastia, R. R., Bell, K. R., Madden, C. J., et al. (2021) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2021.147631 · Cited by 17
Simmonite, M., & Polk, T. A. (2021) · Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition · doi:10.1080/13825585.2021.1999383 · Cited by 16
“Additionally, all participants were free of significant cognitive impairment, with an overall cognition score of 85 or greater as measured using the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodAdolescent Summaries of Narrative and Expository Discourse: Differences and Predictors
Lundine, J. P., Harnish, S. M., McCauley, R. J., Blackett, D. S., Zezinka, A., Chen, W., & Fox, R. A. (2018) · Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/2018_lshss-17-0105 · Cited by 16
Garcia, A., Reljic, T., Pogoda, T. K., Kenney, K., Agyemang, A. A., Troyanskaya, M., Belanger, H. G., Wilde, E. A., Walker, W. C., & Nakase‐Richardson, R. (2020) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/neu.2019.6916 · Cited by 14
Trinh, L., Kramer, A. F., Rowland, K. M., Strom, D. A., Wong, J. N., & McAuley, E. (2020) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-020-00185-8 · Cited by 17
“The NIH toolbox cognition battery with computerized cognitive tasks and automated scoring was used (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodIliadou, V., Chermak, G. D., Bamiou, D., et al. (2018) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000644 · Cited by 16
Cognitive impairment and liver fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
Parikh, N. S., Wahbeh, F., Tapia, C., Ianelli, M., Liao, V., Jaywant, A., Kamel, H., Kumar, S. R., & Iadecola, C. (2024) · BMJ Neurology Open · doi:10.1136/bmjno-2023-000543 · Cited by 15
“37 To report group-level summary data on these tests, we categorised participants as having mild-moderate impairment if the performance score was ‘below average’ (standardised score 70–79; 2nd–8th percentile) or ‘exceptionally low’ (standardised score <70; <2nd percentile) scores, as per consensus…”
MethodInterconnected declines in audition vision and cognition in healthy aging
Abbas, M., Szpiro, S., & Karawani, H. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-81154-y · Cited by 18
A Pilot Study of Cognition Among Hypoparathyroid Adults
Rubin, M. R., Tabacco, G., Omeragic, B., Majeed, R., Hale, C., & Brickman, A. M. (2022) · Journal of the Endocrine Society · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvac002 · Cited by 16
“The NIHTB-CB Adult 2015 iPad version was administered [22-24].”
MethodEarly hydroxyurea use is neuroprotective in children with sickle cell anemia
Karkoska, K. A., Pfeiffer, A., Beebe, D. W., Quinn, C. T., Niss, O., & McGann, P. T. (2022) · American Journal of Hematology · doi:10.1002/ajh.26664 · Cited by 16
Gozdas, E., Hinkley, L. M., Fingerhut, H., Dacorro, L., Gu, M., Sacchet, M. D., Hurd, R. E., & Hosseini, S. M. H. (2022) · NeuroImage Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103159 · Cited by 15
Associations between socioeconomic gradients and racial disparities in preadolescent brain outcomes
Isaiah, A., Ernst, T., Liang, H., Ryan, M. C., Cunningham, E. P., Rodriguez, P. J., Menken, M. S., Kaschak, D., Guihen, C., Reeves, G. M., et al. (2022) · Pediatric Research · doi:10.1038/s41390-022-02399-9 · Cited by 17
Associations between sleepiness, sleep duration, and academic outcomes in early adolescence
Orihuela, C. A., Mrug, S., & Evans, R. R. (2022) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.22843 · Cited by 17
“The PMST has shown good convergent validity ( r = .69) with the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test ‐ Revised and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Robust associations between white matter microstructure and general intelligence
Stammen, C., Fraenz, C., Grazioplene, R. G., Schlüter, C., Merhof, V., Johnson, W., Güntürkün, O., DeYoung, C. G., & Genç, E. (2023) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhac538 · Cited by 17
Delayed cortical thinning in children and adolescents with prenatal alcohol exposure
Gimbel, B. A., Roediger, D. J., Ernst, A. M., Anthony, M. E., de Water, E., Mueller, B. A., Rockhold, M. N., Schumacher, M. J., Mattson, S. N., Jones, K. L., et al. (2023) · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/acer.15096 · Cited by 15
Freeberg, K. A., Craighead, D. H., Heinbockel, T. C., Rossman, M. J., Jackman, R. A., Jankowski, L. R., Ludwig, K. R., Chonchol, M., Bailey, E. F., & Seals, D. R. (2023) · American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology · doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00351.2023 · Cited by 17
Mukherjee, S., Singer, T., Venkatesh, A., Choudhury, N. A., Perez-Giraldo, G., Jimenez, M., Miller, J. L., Lopez, M., Hanson, B. A., Bawa, A. P., et al. (2024) · Brain Communications · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcae448 · Cited by 17
Rizeq, J., Flora, D. B., & Toplak, M. E. (2017) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2017.1317034 · Cited by 15
“…age-related improvements in all EFs as well as Gc and Gf during those periods (Anderson, 2002, 2001; Deary, Whalley, Lemmon, Crawford, & Starr, 2000; Korkman, Lahti-Nuuttila, Laasonen, Kemp, & Holdnack, 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013; Zelazo, 2013; Zelazo et al., 2004; Zelazo & Müller, 2002).”
Validating the Supervision Partnership as a Phase of Attachment
Koehn, A. J., & Kerns, K. A. (2021) · The Journal of Early Adolescence · doi:10.1177/02724316211036753 · Cited by 15
Meredith, L. R., Lim, A. C., & Ray, L. A. (2020) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108269 · Cited by 16
Executive function-related functional connectomes predict intellectual abilities
He, L., Liu, W., Zhuang, K., Meng, J., & Qiu, J. (2021) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2021.101527 · Cited by 15
Kairys, A., Daugherty, A., Kavcic, V., Shair, S., Persad, C. C., Heidebrink, J. L., Bhaumik, A., & Giordani, B. (2021) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s135561772100028x · Cited by 15
“The specific test details, procedures, and extensive psychometric evaluation are available elsewhere (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodMackin, R. S., Rhodes, E., Insel, P. S., Nosheny, R. L., Finley, S., Ashford, M. T., Camacho, M. R., Truran, D., Mosca, K., Seabrook, G. R., et al. (2021) · Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition · doi:10.1080/13825585.2021.1927961 · Cited by 15
“…matching memory paradigms, which show relatively weak associations with traditional verbal memory tests, with r ’s ranging from 0.14 to 0.28, but moderate to strong associations with traditional visuospatial memory tests (Maruff et al., 2009; Mielke et al., 2015; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundInfluentialConstruct validity of the enfranchisement scale of the community participation indicators
Kersey, J., Terhorst, L. A., Heinemann, A. W., Hammel, J. M., Baum, C. M., McCue, M. P., & Skidmore, E. R. (2021) · Clinical Rehabilitation · doi:10.1177/02692155211040930 · Cited by 16
Pedersen, M. L., Alnæs, D., van der Meer, D., Fernández‐Cabello, S., Berthet, P., Dahl, A., Kjelkenes, R., Schwarz, E., Thompson, W. K., Barch, D. M., et al. (2022) · Biological Psychiatry Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2022.03.012 · Cited by 18
Psychological Contributions to Symptom Provocation Testing After Concussion
Terpstra, A. R., Louie, D. R., Iverson, G. L., Yeates, K. O., Picon, E. L., Leddy, J. J., & Silverberg, N. D. (2022) · Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · doi:10.1097/htr.0000000000000796 · Cited by 15
Metabolic costs of daily activity in older adults (Chores XL) study: Design and methods
Corbett, D. B., Wanigatunga, A. A., Valiani, V., Handberg, E. M., Buford, T. W., Brumback, B., Casanova, R., Janelle, C. M., & Manini, T. M. (2017) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2017.02.003 · Cited by 15
“The NIH Toolbox is a comprehensive computer-based battery of brief assessment tools.”
Method
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
