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 501–600 of 1,289
Palta, P., Snitz, B. E., & Carlson, M. C. (2016) · Handbook of clinical neurology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-802973-2.00007-0 · Cited by 18
Combining Virtual Reality Motor Rehabilitation With Cognitive Strategy Use in Chronic Stroke
Boone, A. E., Wolf, T., & Engsberg, J. R. (2019) · American Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.5014/ajot.2019.030130 · Cited by 15
“Two participants These measures evaluate mental fl exibility, attention, and inhibition (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Loughnan, R., Palmer, C., Thompson, W., Dale, A., Jernigan, T., & Fan, C.-C. (2019) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1101/637512 · Cited by 17
Long-term impact of mild traumatic brain injury on postural stability and executive function
Kunker, K., Peters, D. M., & Mohapatra, S. (2020) · Neurological Sciences · doi:10.1007/s10072-020-04300-0 · Cited by 16
“a) Cognition: Cognitive abilities (COG) were tested using the iPad version of the NIH Tool Box Cognitive Battery (NIHTB-CB), which assesses attention, concentration, memory, executive function, recognition of spatial differences, and differentiation of patterns [27, 28].”
MethodExpert Group Meeting on Aphasia
Pauranik, A., George, A., Sahu, A., Nehra, A., Paplikar, A., Bhat, C. G., Krishnan, G., Kaur, H., Saini, J., Suresh, P. A., et al. (2019) · Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology · doi:10.4103/aian.aian_330_18 · Cited by 16
“The National Institute of Health cognitive toolbox can be easily adapted to Indian languages and administered with portable devices such as iPads.[26]”
BackgroundIf Invalid PVT Scores Are Obtained, Can Valid Neuropsychological Profiles Be Believed?
Loring, D. W., & Goldstein, F. C. (2019) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acz028 · Cited by 15
“Other neuropsychological evidence of impaired executive function included poor response alternation on Trail Making Test Part B with several sequencing errors, impaired crossed response inhibition, poor visual constructional performance on the Complex Figure, poor simple design copy, and relatively poor hypothesis gen…”
MethodInfluentialWhitfield, T. J., McConnell, B., Renouf, P., Mansour, H., Zabihi, S., Aguirre, E., Walker, Z., Cooper, C., & Marchant, N. L. (2021) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2021.101505 · Cited by 14
“Regarding outcome measures, the inclusion of cognitive tests that are reliable and sensitive to change (e.g. NIH Toolbox; (Weintraub et al., 2013)) would increase the likelihood of identifying effects, should these exist.”
Hernandez, L. M., Kim, M., Hernandez, C., Thompson, W. K., Fan, C. C., Galván, A., Dapretto, M., Bookheimer, S. Y., Fuligni, A. J., & Gandal, M. J. (2022) · Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science · doi:10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.12.011 · Cited by 14
“Cognitive function was assessed using the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (26), which was administered to children on an iPad.”
MethodSavopoulos, P., Brown, S., Anderson, P. J., Gartland, D., Bryant, C., & Giallo, R. (2022) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.13736 · Cited by 18
Fritz, K., & O’Connor, P. J. (2022) · Frontiers in Sports and Active Living · doi:10.3389/fspor.2022.746409 · Cited by 16
Elsayed, N. M., Luby, J. L., & Barch, D. M. (2023) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105303 · Cited by 19
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. (2023) · Cancer Medicine · doi:10.1002/cam4.6881 · Cited by 16
“The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery 16,17 was used for neuropsychological testing.”
MethodHadiloo, K., Taremi, S., Safa, S. H., Amidifar, S., & Esmaeilzadeh, A. (2024) · Pharmacological Research · doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2024.107158 · Cited by 14
Repetitive element transcript accumulation is associated with inflammaging in humans
Smith, M., Wahl, D., Cavalier, A. N., McWilliams, G. T., Rossman, M. J., Giordano, G., Bryan, A. D., Seals, D. R., & LaRocca, T. J. (2024) · GeroScience · doi:10.1007/s11357-024-01126-y · Cited by 17
“Basic clinical measurements were performed using standard techniques, and cognitive and motor/physical functions were assessed using NIH Toolbox testing batteries as previously described [31, 32].”
Douet, V., Chang, L., Pritchett, A., Lee, K., Keating, B., Bartsch, H., Jernigan, T. L., Dale, A. M., Akshoomoff, N. A., Murray, S. S., et al. (2014) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/tp.2014.41 · Cited by 15
“37,43 We analyzed data from two tasks that represent the two domains implicated previously in schizophrenia: episodic memory (picture sequence memory test) and processing speed (pattern comparison processing speed test).”
MethodSleep Disturbances, Obesity, and Cognitive Function in Childhood: A Mediation Analysis
Mattey-Mora, P. P., & Nelson, E. J. (2021) · Current Developments in Nutrition · doi:10.1093/cdn/nzab119 · Cited by 15
“The quality and quantity of sleep are fundamental for memory consolidation, and sleep deprivation can affect the brain’s reaction time and information processing (36).”
BackgroundMethodPositive Psychosocial Factors and Cognitive Decline in Ethnically Diverse Older Adults
Zahodne, L. B., Sharifian, N., Kraal, A. Z., Sol, K., Zaheed, A. B., Manly, J. J., & Brickman, A. M. (2020) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617720000648 · Cited by 14
“Comprehensive data on the psychometric properties of these tests are available from a national sample of English and Spanish speakers (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationThe Weekly Calendar Planning Activity to Assess Functional Cognition in Parkinson Disease
Foster, E. R., Carson, L., Jonas, J. E., et al. (2022) · OTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of Research · doi:10.1177/15394492221104075 · Cited by 14
Stewart, H. J., Cash, E. K., Hunter, L. L., Maloney, T., Vannest, J. J., & Moore, D. R. (2022) · NeuroImage Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103172 · Cited by 14
A scoping review of studies exploring physical activity and cognition among persons with cancer
Brunet, J., & Sharma, S. (2023) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-023-01441-x · Cited by 14
“As well, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox ([ 131 ]; n = 5, 5.2”
InfluentialCiccia, A., Roizen, N., Garvey, M., Bielefeld, R. A., & Short, E. J. (2015) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2015.10.004 · Cited by 14
Tai Chi for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Pilot Study
Tsai, P., Kitch, S., Chang, J. Y., James, G. A., Dubbert, P. M., Roca, J., & Powers, C. H. (2017) · Journal of Holistic Nursing · doi:10.1177/0898010117697617 · Cited by 14
Fuglestad, A. J., Demerath, E. W., Finsaas, M. C., Moore, C., Georgieff, M., & Carlson, S. M. (2017) · Pediatric Obesity · doi:10.1111/ijpo.12226 · Cited by 14
“The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery subtests for EF have good test–retest reliability and remain relatively stable across time (19).”
MethodInfluentialValidation of a Novel Telehealth Administration Protocol for the NIH Toolbox-Cognition Battery
Rebchuk, A. D., Deptuck, H. M., O'Neill, Z. R., Fawcett, D., Silverberg, N. D., & Field, T. S. (2018) · Telemedicine Journal and e-Health · doi:10.1089/tmj.2018.0023 · Cited by 16
“18 For the videoconference condition, an EA was present in the examination room with the participant.”
InfluentialDavis, A., Wolf, T., & Foster, E. R. (2019) · American Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.5014/ajot.2019.031492 · Cited by 14
Overview of Current Approaches to Aural Rehabilitation for Adults With Cochlear Implants
Glade, R., Taylor, E., Culbertson, D. S., & Ray, C. (2020) · Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups · doi:10.1044/2020_persp-20-00078 · Cited by 14
Utility of the iPad NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery in a clinical trial of older adults
Parsey, C. M., Bagger, J. E., Trittschuh, E. H., & Hanson, A. J. (2021) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.17382 · Cited by 14
Torres-Velazquez, M., Hwang, G., Cook, C. J., Hermann, B., Prabhakaran, V., Meyerand, M. E., & McMillan, A. B. (2020) · 2020 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging Workshops (ISBI Workshops) · doi:10.1109/isbiworkshops50223.2020.9153359 · Cited by 13
Skalaban, L. J., Cohen, A. O., Conley, M. I., Lin, Q., Schwartz, G. N., Ruiz-Huidobro, N. A. M., Cannonier, T., Martinez, S. A., & Casey, B. J. (2022) · Learning & Memory · doi:10.1101/lm.053539.121 · Cited by 14
“Based on evidence of continued changes in workingmemory and long-term recognition memory into the early twenties (Satterthwaite et al. 2013;Weintraub et al. 2013), and recent neurocognitive evidence supporting the expansion in the definition of adolescence as extending into the early twenties…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialHausman, H. K., Alexander, G. E., Cohen, R., Marsiske, M., DeKosky, S. T., Hishaw, G. A., O'Shea, A., Kraft, J. N., Dai, Y., Wu, S., et al. (2023) · Brain Stimulation · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2023.05.021 · Cited by 13
“The primary outcome measure is the Fluid Cognition Composite (FCC) from the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery [43].”
Warren, D. E., Rangel, A., Christopher‐Hayes, N. J., Eastman, J. A., Frenzel, M. R., Stephen, J. M., Calhoun, V. D., Wang, Y., & Wilson, T. W. (2021) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.25458 · Cited by 14
Farmer, C., Kaat, A. J., Berry‐Kravis, E., & Thurm, A. E. (2022) · International review of research in developmental disabilities · doi:10.1016/bs.irrdd.2022.05.001 · Cited by 12
Robbins, R. N., Santoro, A. F., Ferraris, C. M., Asiedu, N., Liu, J., Dolezal, C. L., Malee, K., Mellins, C. A., Paul, R. H., Thongpibul, K., et al. (2022) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/neu0000851 · Cited by 13
Relyea, J. E., Cho, E., & Zagata, E. (2022) · Annals of Dyslexia · doi:10.1007/s11881-022-00272-2 · Cited by 14
Metabolic syndrome and adiposity: Risk factors for decreased myelin in cognitively healthy adults
Burzynska, A. Z., Anderson, C., Arciniegas, D. B., Calhoun, V. D., Choi, I., Colmenares, A. M., Hiner, G. Z., Kramer, A. F., Li, K., Lee, J., et al. (2023) · Cerebral Circulation - Cognition and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.cccb.2023.100180 · Cited by 15
“…and hip circumference, ambulatory blood pressure, two cognitive batteries the Virginia Cognitive Aging Project battery (VCAP) [34] and the NIH Toolbox ® Cognition for ages 8 + [35,36] and a brief questionnaire on health history, lifestyle, socioeconomic factors, and family history of dementia.”
MethodChen, Y., Zekelman, L., Zhang, C., Xue, T., Song, Y., Makris, N., Yogesh Rathi, A., Golby, A. J., Cai, W., Zhang, F., et al. (2024) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2024.103120 · Cited by 13
Childhood Listening and Associated Cognitive Difficulties Persist Into Adolescence
Kojima, K., Lin, L., Petley, L., Clevenger, N., Perdew, A., Bodik, M., Blankenship, C. M., Zadeh, L. M., Hunter, L. L., & Moore, D. R. (2024) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000001517 · Cited by 15
“We first tested whether a model developed in our prior cross-sectional study (Petley et al. 2021) NIH Cognition Toolbox subtests or the four NIH-Toolbox composite scores), and the outcome variable was the ECLiPS Total Scaled score in both Waves 1 and 2.”
InfluentialLo, Y., Chen, Y., Liu, D., Liu, W., Zekelman, L., Rushmore, J., Zhang, F., Yogesh Rathi, A., Makris, N., Golby, A. J., et al. (2025) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.70166 · Cited by 14
“In a recent preprint, a study of the HCP-YA found that functional language lateralization was not significantly associated with shape metrics (including length, span, curl, elongation, diameter, volume, and surface area) of eleven language-related white matter tracts [Andrulyte et al., 2024].”
InfluentialLau, K. T., Chiu, L. C. S., Fong, J. S. Y., et al. (2024) · Perioperative Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13741-024-00471-y · Cited by 13
Hawkins, M. A. W., Colaizzi, J. M., Gunstad, J., Hughes, J. W., Mullins, L. L., Betts, N. M., Smith, C. E., Keirns, N. G., Vohs, K. D., Moore, S. M., et al. (2017) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2017.12.010 · Cited by 13
Ponguta, L. A., Rasheed, M. A., Reyes, C. R., & Yousafzai, A. K. (2018) · New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development · doi:10.1002/cad.20233 · Cited by 13
A Novel Computerized Cognitive Stress Test to Detect Mild Cognitive Impairment
Curiel, R. E., Crocco, E., Kitaigorodsky, M., Beaufils, L., Peña, P. A., Grau, G. A., Visser, U., & Loewenstein, D. (2021) · The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease · doi:10.14283/jpad.2021.1 · Cited by 13
“There has been an increase in the number of computerized tests developed including the CogState (31) and the Cognition Battery from the NIH Toolbox (16), but limitations exist.”
MethodFreedberg, M., Cunningham, C. A., Fioriti, C. M., Murillo, J., Reeves, J. A., Taylor, P. A., Sarlls, J. E., & Wassermann, E. M. (2021) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118199 · Cited by 13
Tozzi, L., Anene, E. T., Gotlib, I. H., Wintermark, M., Kerr, A. B., Wu, H., Seok, D., Narr, K. L., Sheline, Y. I., Whitfield, S., et al. (2021) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118694 · Cited by 13
Bernstein, R. M., Sánchez, N., Clark, E. L. M., Conte, I., Gulley, L. D., Legget, K. T., Cornier, M., Melby, C. L., Johnson, S. A., Lucas‐Thompson, R. G., et al. (2021) · Eating Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2021.101580 · Cited by 15
Self-Control Measurement Methodologies: An Integrative Approach
Pilcher, J. J., Morris, D. M., & Erikson, D. N. (2022) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.1177/00332941211067969 · Cited by 13
How do 3-year-olds do on the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery?
Becker, L., Condy, E. E., Kaat, A. J., & Thurm, A. E. (2022) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2022.2100337 · Cited by 14
“Namely, the NIHTB includes brief assessment tools to assess normal levels of functioning (i.e., it was not intended to screen for disease) in four domains: cognitive, emotional, motor, and sensory (Gershon et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe collaborative study on the genetics of alcoholism: Brain function
Meyers, J. L., Brislin, S. J., Kamarajan, C., Plawecki, M. H., Chorlian, D. B., Anohkin, A., Samuel Kuperman, C., Merikangas, A. K., Pandey, G., Kinreich, S., et al. (2023) · Genes Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1111/gbb.12862 · Cited by 13
“In the ongoing Lifespan Study, the NIH Toolbox Cognitive battery (NIHT-CB) 96 has been implemented to comprehensively assesses neurocognitive functions that are essential for effective daily life including, attention, processing speed, language, episodic memory, working memory and basic executive functions (inhibitory…”
A method for integrating neuroimaging into genetic models of learning performance
Mehta, C. M., Gruen, J. R., & Zhang, H. (2016) · Genetic Epidemiology · doi:10.1002/gepi.22025 · Cited by 12
How repetition influences speech understanding by younger, middle-aged and older adults
Helfer, K. S., Freyman, R. L., & Merchant, G. R. (2018) · International Journal of Audiology · doi:10.1080/14992027.2018.1475756 · Cited by 13
“Hence, each participant completed five subtests from the NIH Cognitive Toolbox (Weintraub et al. 2013), a computerised, standardised set of cognitive assessment tools: Picture Vocabulary Test (a measure of crystalised intelligence); Flanker Task (attention and inhibitory ability); Dimension Change…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDevelopment and feasibility of a sedentary behavior intervention for stroke: a case series
Kringle, E. A., Campbell, G. B., McCue, M. P., Gibbs, B. B., Terhorst, L. A., & Skidmore, E. R. (2019) · Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/10749357.2019.1623437 · Cited by 11
Evaluating Cognitive-Linguistic Deficits Postconcussion in Adults
Brown, J. A., & Knollman-Porter, K. (2019) · Topics in Language Disorders · doi:10.1097/tld.0000000000000186 · Cited by 14
Impaired cognition predicts the risk of hospitalization and death in cirrhosis
Kim, M., Liotta, E. M., Zee, P. C., Ganger, D. R., Ladner, D. P., Karmarkar, A., Peipert, J. D., Sorond, F. A., Prabhakaran, S., Reid, K. J., et al. (2019) · Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology · doi:10.1002/acn3.50924 · Cited by 13
“The NIH Toolbox (NIHTB) is a brief, royalty-free, standardized, and validated method to measure various domains of neurological function on a tablet, which has rapidly gained popularity in a broad spectrum of neuroscience research and has been the method of choice for NIH funded studies.(17) The NIHTB cognition batter…”
MethodLifetime stressors, hair cortisol, and executive function: Age‐related associations in childhood
DePasquale, C. E., Tyrell, F. A., Kalstabakken, A. W., Labella, M. H., Thibodeau, E. L., Masten, A. S., & Barnes, A. J. (2020) · Developmental Psychobiology · doi:10.1002/dev.22076 · Cited by 13
Alviarez‐Schulze, V., Cattaneo, G., Pachón‐García, C., Sánchez, J. S., Tormos, J. M., Alegret, M., Pascual‐Leone, Á., Bartrés‐Faz, D., & the Barcelona Brain Health Initiative group (2021) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617721000084 · Cited by 17
“Letter-Number Sequencing (Peña-Casanova et al., 2012), Coding and Cancellation subt-ests from WAIS-IV, and Corsi block-tapping test (Peña-Casanova et al., 2012).”
InfluentialIverson, G. L., & Karr, J. E. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.724888 · Cited by 13
Dede, E., Zalonis, I., Gatzonis, S., & Sakas, D. (2015) · Neurology Psychiatry and Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.npbr.2015.07.003 · Cited by 12
The influence of cognitive tasks on sensory organization test performance
Morelli, N., Heebner, N., DeFeo, C. J., & Hoch, M. (2020) · Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology · doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2020.11.009 · Cited by 11
Vivash, L. E., Bertram, K., Malpas, C. B., Marotta, C., Harding, I. H., Kolbe, S., Fielding, J., Clough, M., Lewis, S. J. G., Tisch, S. H., et al. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055019 · Cited by 12
“37 European Quality of Life, 5 Dimensions, 5 Levels The European Quality of Life, 5 Dimensions, 5 Levels is a quality of life scale that comprises five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression.”
Sanborn, V. E., Aljumaah, M. R., Azcárate-Peril, M. A., & Gunstad, J. (2022) · Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism · doi:10.1139/apnm-2021-0557 · Cited by 13
Best, J. R., & Cosco, T. D. (2022) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2022.09.019 · Cited by 12
Abuaf, A. F., Bunting, S. R., Klein, S., Carroll, T., Carpenter-Thompson, J. R., Javed, A., & Cipriani, V. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274778 · Cited by 12
“Cognitive scales such as Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT), Brief Repeatable Neuropsychological Battery (5 tests), Minimal Assessment of Cognitive Function in MS (7 tests), Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS), and more recently NIH Toolbox are typical…”
MethodDirect Instruction Improves Word Learning for Children With Developmental Language Disorder
Pomper, R., McGregor, K. K., Arbisi‐Kelm, T., Eden, N. M., & Ohlmann, N. B. (2022) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2022_jslhr-22-00300 · Cited by 12
Preventing Bullying in Preschool-Age Children: Predictors of Defending Behaviour
Swit, C. S., Blakely‐McClure, S. J., & Kamper-DeMarco, K. K. E. (2023) · International Journal of Bullying Prevention · doi:10.1007/s42380-023-00166-w · Cited by 18
“Inhibitory Control and Attention Ages 3–7 with Developmental Extension (Rueda et al., 2004; Weintraub et al., 2013) is a computerized behavioural measure requiring children to focus on a central stimulus while inhibiting attention to stimuli (fish) flanking it.”
BackgroundVedechkina, M., Bennett, M., & Holmes, J. (2023) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579423000524 · Cited by 16
Amirpour, A., Eckerblad, J., Bergman, L., & Nilsson, U. G. (2024) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-023-04648-w · Cited by 12
“These findings are in line with other studies comparing digital and analog cognitive tests [19, 27, 40, 41].”
ResultMather, M. A., Ho, E., Bedjeti, K., Karpouzian‐Rogers, T., Rogalski, E. J., Gershon, R. C., & Weıntraub, S. (2024) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acad105 · Cited by 12
Self-citationOwsley, C. J., McGwin, G., Swain, T. A., et al. (2024) · Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.65.5.16 · Cited by 12
“36,37 These tests included picture vocabulary, flanker inhibitory control and attention, list sorting working memory, dimensional change card sort, pattern comparison processing speed, picture sequence memory, oral reading recognition, oral symbol digit, and auditory verbal learning.”
MethodPerturbation-based dual task assessment in older adults with mild cognitive impairment
Kannan, L., Pitts, J., Szturm, T. J., Purohit, R., & Bhatt, T. S. (2024) · Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences · doi:10.3389/fresc.2024.1384582 · Cited by 13
“…between groups and con fi rm MCI classi fi cation, participants completed tests within the NIH cognitive toolbox, including the list sorting working memory test, pattern comparison processing speed test, fl anker inhibitory control and attention test, and dimensional change card sort test (46).”
MethodApplications of teleneuropsychology to the screening and monitoring of epilepsy
Tailby, C., Chapman, J. E., Pugh, R., Skogan, A. H., Helmstaedter, C., & Jackson, G. D. (2024) · Seizure · doi:10.1016/j.seizure.2024.06.022 · Cited by 12
“…sections, there are important factors to consider when using remote assessment methods in an older age group such as those with LOE (e.g., technology familiarity and access, the potential for sensory impairments), in addition to general considerations that apply across a range of populations.”
BackgroundJahanshad, N., Lenzini, P., & Bijsterbosch, J. (2025) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-024-01938-8 · Cited by 12
Murphy, R. J., Sumner, R. L., Godfrey, K., Mabidikama, A., Roberts, R. P., Sundram, F., & Muthukumaraswamy, S. D. (2024) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-024-06680-z · Cited by 14
“Language ability was controlled for in the AUT and RAT analyses by including scores on the NIH Toolbox Picture Vocabulary Test (Weintraub et al. 2013 ) as a fixed effect covariate.”
Nelson, B. K., Farah, L. N., Grier, A., Su, W., Chen, J., Sossi, V., Sekhon, M. S., Stoessl, A. J., Wellington, C. L., Honer, W. G., et al. (2024) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120859 · Cited by 16
“Fluid cognition was assessed with the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (12 + ) (Weintraub, et al., 2013).”
MethodAsthma and Memory Function in Children
Christopher‐Hayes, N. J., Haynes, S. C., Kenyon, N. J., Merchant, V. D., Schweitzer, J. B., & Ghetti, S. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.42803 · Cited by 14
Input on NIH Toolbox inclusion criteria
Nowinski, C. J., Victorson, D. E., Debb, S. M., & Gershon, R. C. (2013) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e3182872e4c · Cited by 12
Self-citationInflammatory Biomarkers, Microbiome, Depression, and Executive Dysfunction in Alcohol Users
Rodríguez-Rabassa, M., López, P. L., Sánchez, R., Hernández, C., Rodríguez, C., Rodríguez-Santiago, R. E., Orengo, J. C., Green, V., Yamamura, Y., & Rivera‐Amill, V. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17030689 · Cited by 15
“, cognitive modulation of goal-directed behaviors) [6].”
Treble-Barna, A., Patronick, J., Uchani, S., Marousis, N. C., Zigler, C., Fink, E., Kochanek, P., Conley, Y., & Yeates, K. (2020) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2020.00460 · Cited by 10
“Child neuropsychological function is assessed acutely and at each follow-up visit using the NIHTB-CB (97).”
MethodInfluentialDing, K., Tarumi, T., Tomoto, T., Bell, K. R., Madden, C. J., Dieppa, M., Cullum, C. M., Zhang, S., & Zhang, R. (2021) · Brain Injury · doi:10.1080/02699052.2020.1865569 · Cited by 15
Daros, A. R., Pereira, B. J., Khan, D., Ruocco, A. C., Quilty, L. C., & Wardell, J. D. (2021) · Addiction Research & Theory · doi:10.1080/16066359.2021.1939314 · Cited by 18
“The Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test (Weintraub et al. 2013) is part of the NIH Toolbox neuropsychological battery and provided a behavioral measure of disinhibition.”
MethodSchofield, H.-L., Fabrizio, V. A., Braniecki, S. H., Pelletier, W., Eissa, H., Murphy, B., Chewning, J. H., Barton, K. D., Embry, L. M., Levine, J. E., et al. (2022) · Transplantation and Cellular Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.jtct.2022.06.027 · Cited by 13
Wallace, J., Ceschin, R. C., Lee, V., Beluk, N., Burns, C., Beers, S. R., Lo, C. W. Y., Panigrahy, A., & Badaly, D. (2024) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2024.2302690 · Cited by 12
“However, its authors highlighted the importance of validation among clinical populations (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Nitsch, K. P., Casaletto, K. B., Carlozzi, N. E., Tulsky, D. S., Heinemann, A. W., & Heaton, R. K. (2017) · Rehabilitation Psychology · doi:10.1037/rep0000122 · Cited by 14
Self-citationDimensions of sedentary behavior and objective cognitive functioning in breast cancer survivors
Marinac, C. R., Nelson, S. H., Cadmus‐Bertram, L., Kerr, J., Natarajan, L., Godbole, S. V., & Hartman, S. J. (2018) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-018-4459-8 · Cited by 12
Hamburger, E., Lyttle, M., Compas, B. E., & Jaser, S. S. (2019) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-019-00027-2 · Cited by 13
Szalkai, B., Varga, B., & Grolmusz, V. I. (2018) · Brain Imaging and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11682-018-9937-6 · Cited by 16
Cultural Neuropsychology Considerations in the Diagnosis of HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorders
Mindt, M. R., Byrd, D., Morris, E. P., et al. (2019) · Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · doi:10.1007/7854_2019_121 · Cited by 12
Online pharmacy navigation skills are associated with prospective memory in HIV disease
Matchanova, A., Woods, S. P., Cushman, C., Morgan, E. E., Medina, L. D., Babicz, M. A., Verduzco, M., & Loft, S. D. (2020) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2020.1840632 · Cited by 12
“Both batteries have been well validated as measures of cognition (Cysique et al., 2006; Overton et al., 2011; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundCortical oscillations that underlie working memory are altered in adults with cerebral palsy
Hoffman, R. M., Trevarrow, M. P., Bergwell, H., et al. (2021) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2020.12.029 · Cited by 12
Gibson, L. P., Gust, C. J., Ellingson, J. M., YorkWilliams, S. L., Sempio, C., Klawitter, J., Bryan, A. D., Hutchison, K. E., & Bidwell, L. C. (2021) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108718 · Cited by 13
Evaluating High-Functioning Young Stroke Survivors with Cognitive Complaints
Rebchuk, A. D., Kuzmuk, L. E., Deptuck, H. M., Silverberg, N. D., & Field, T. S. (2021) · Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · doi:10.1017/cjn.2021.137 · Cited by 11
Rhinehart, L. V., Iyer, S. N., & Haager, D. (2021) · Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders · doi:10.1177/10634266211039757 · Cited by 17
Zhao, Y., Han, X., Bagot, K. S., Tapert, S. F., Potenza, M. N., & Paulus, M. P. (2025) · npj Mental Health Research · doi:10.1038/s44184-025-00131-z · Cited by 12
“TheFlankerTest,whichassesses executivefunctioningandtendenciestoinhibitattentiontoirrelevant information,andthecardsortingtask,whichmeasuresset-shiftingten-denciesmaybemoredirectlyrelevanttoreportingbiases 73 .”
Alloy, L. B., Chat, I. K.-Y., Grehl, M. M., Stephenson, A. R., Adogli, Z. V., Olino, T. M., Ellman, L. M., Miller, G. E., & Nusslock, R. (2023) · Brain Behavior & Immunity - Health · doi:10.1016/j.bbih.2023.100643 · Cited by 11
“The NIHTB-CB is a standardized battery of cognitive tests created by NIH to unify neuropsychological research (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Shen, C., Rolls, E. T., Xiang, S., Langley, C., Sahakian, B. J., Cheng, W., & Feng, J. (2023) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.84072 · Cited by 13
Bilingualism alters the neural correlates of sustained attention.
Chung-Fat-Yim, A., Bobb, S. C., Hoshino, N., & Marian, V. (2023) · Translational Issues in Psychological Science · doi:10.1037/tps0000373 · Cited by 11
Serper, M., Chafale, A., Burdzy, A., Kim, M., Asrani, S. K., Benavente, J. Y., Gershon, R. C., Reese, P. P., Schaubel, D. E., Boike, J. R., et al. (2023) · Hepatology Communications · doi:10.1097/hc9.0000000000000259 · Cited by 13
Self-citationBruno, J. L., Shaw, J. S., & Hosseini, S. M. H. (2023) · Journal of Alzheimer s Disease · doi:10.3233/jad-230619 · Cited by 12
Levitan, R. D., Atkinson, L. R., Knight, J. A., Hung, R. J., Wade, M., Jenkins, J. M., Bertoni, K., Wong, J., Murphy, K. E., Lye, S. J., et al. (2023) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2023.11.1252 · Cited by 12
Chen, Y., & Jahromi, L. B. (2024) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-024-06288-4 · Cited by 18
“…Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test (the Flanker test) measures inhibitory control and selective attention in children between ages 3 and 7 (Weintraub et al., 2013; Zelazo et al., 2013) and takes approximately three minutes to complete on an iPad.”
InfluentialThe Effects of Exergame Telerehabilitation in Persons With Subjective Cognitive Decline
Salisbury, D. L., Pituch, K. A., & Yu, F. (2024) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gnae028 · Cited by 11
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
