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 601–700 of 1,289
Happer, J. P., Courtney, K. E., Baca, R. E., Andrade, G., Thompson, C., Shen, Q., Liu, T. T., & Jacobus, J. (2024) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2024.1436951 · Cited by 16
Adkinson, B. D., Rosenblatt, M., Dadashkarimi, J., Tejavibulya, L., Jiang, R., Noble, S., & Scheinost, D. (2024) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2024.101464 · Cited by 11
“Executive function measures were the Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention, List Sorting Working Memory, Pattern Comparison Processing Speed, and Dimensional Change Card Sort age-corrected standard scores from the NIH Toolbox (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
InfluentialJutten, R. J., Soberanes, D., Molinare, C. P., Hsieh, S., Farrell, M. E., Schultz, A. P., Rentz, D. M., Marshall, G. A., Johnson, K. A., Sperling, R. A., et al. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01347-7 · Cited by 13
“These include, for example, traditional cognitive screening tools presented on a mobile device 32 , novel tablet-based cognitive test batteries for in-clinic administration 33,34 , as well as unsupervised versions of existing cognitive testparadigms 35,36 .”
Burnett, J., Cobden, A. L., Burmester, A., Akhlaghi, H., D, J. F. D., & Caeyenberghs, K. (2025) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2025.04.011 · Cited by 12
“Additionally, we found that the EMA metrics were not associated with performance on the NIH Toolbox tests of processing speed after correcting for multiple comparisons.”
InfluentialPilot Intervention Enhances Preschoolers’ Self-Regulation and Food Liking
Schmitt, S. A., Snyder, F. J., Korucu, I., Bryant, L. M., & Finders, J. K. (2020) · Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2020.08.008 · Cited by 11
Won, J., Alfini, A. J., & Smith, J. C. (2021) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000002697 · Cited by 11
Nicolas, K., Goodin, P., Visser, M. M., Michie, P. T., Bivard, A., Levi, C. R., Parsons, M. W., & Karayanidis, F. (2021) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.612177 · Cited by 12
“The NIH Toolbox shows acceptable internal consistency, test-retest reliability and validity (51, 52).”
Shek, L. P., Chong, Y. S., Winokan, A., Berkeveld, M. A., van der Beek, E. M., Teoh, O. H., & on behalf of the VENUS Working Group (2021) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu13082865 · Cited by 11
“Finally, we aimed to obtain insights in brain development using a modified NIH Toolbox Early Childhood Cognition Battery for assessment of cognitive development [40,41].”
MethodConfirmatory Factor Analysis on Mental Health Status using ABCD Cohort
Farahdel, B., Thapaliya, B., Suresh, P., Ray, B., Calhoun, V. D., & Liu, J. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm52615.2021.9669378 · Cited by 10
“The NIH Toolbox cognition measures consists of seven different neurocognitive assessments covering executive function, working memory, episodic memory, attention, processing speed, and language abilities, separated into tests measuring “fluid” and “crystallized” abilities [19].”
MethodDifferential associations of regional cerebellar volume with gait speed and working memory
Won, J., Callow, D. D., Purcell, J. J., & Smith, J. C. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-06180-0 · Cited by 12
Prakash, R. S., Fountain‐Zaragoza, S., Fisher, M. E., Gbadeyan, O., Andridge, R., Kiecolt‐Glaser, J. K., Manglani, H. R., Duraney, E. J., Shankar, A., McKenna, M. R., et al. (2022) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-022-03334-7 · Cited by 12
Karpouzian‐Rogers, T., Ho, E., Novack, M. A., Chinkers, M., Bedjeti, K., Nowinski, C. J., Giordani, B., Gershon, R. C., & Weıntraub, S. (2022) · Alzheimer s & Dementia · doi:10.1002/alz.12816 · Cited by 10
Self-citationThe presence, nature and network characteristics of behavioural phenotypes in temporal lobe epilepsy
Struck, A. F., Garcia‐Ramos, C., Nair, V. A., et al. (2023) · Brain Communications · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcad095 · Cited by 11
Furie, K. L., Viscoli, C. M., Gorman, M., Ford, G. A., Young, L. H., Inzucchi, S. E., Guarino, P., Lovejoy, A. M., CONWIT, R. A., Tanné, D., et al. (2017) · Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2017-316361 · Cited by 11
Pan, J. J., Sawyer, K. S., McDonough, E., Slotpole, L., & Gansler, D. A. (2018) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/87565641.2018.1516770 · Cited by 12
“In concordance with our findings, age-related increases in task performance across cognitive domains in childhood and adolescence have been robustly documented (e.g., Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialGordon-Salant, S. M., Yeni–Komshian, G. H., Bieber, R. E., et al. (2019) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2018_jslhr-h-ascc7-18-0122 · Cited by 11
“The Flanker Test was downloaded from the National Institutes of Health Cognitive Toolbox (Weintraub et al., 2013) for this study.”
MethodCognitive and Attentional Function in Children with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome: A Pilot Study
Siciliano, R. E., Murphy, L. K., Prussien, K. V., Henry, L. M., Watson, K. H., Patel, N. J., Lee, C. A., McNally, C. M., Markham, L. W., Compas, B. E., et al. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings · doi:10.1007/s10880-020-09753-1 · Cited by 11
Laterality hotspots in the striatum
Korponay, C. H., Stein, E. A., & Ross, T. J. (2021) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhab392 · Cited by 12
Genova, H. M., Kallen, M. A., Sherwood, K. L., DaWalt, L. S., Bishop, L., Telfer, D., Brown, C., Sanchez, B., & Smith, M. J. (2023) · Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation · doi:10.3233/jvr-230009 · Cited by 11
Li, J., Zhao, Y., Zhou, S., Pu, Y., He, H., & Zhao, M. (2020) · PsyCh Journal · doi:10.1002/pchj.328 · Cited by 11
Cumming, M. M., Poling, D. V., Qiu, Y., Pham, A. V., Daunic, A. P., Corbett, N., & Smith, S. W. (2021) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/10731911211032289 · Cited by 13
Karr, J. E., Rodriguez, J. E., Rast, P., Goh, P. K., & Martel, M. M. (2023) · Child Psychiatry & Human Development · doi:10.1007/s10578-023-01518-9 · Cited by 13
“As part of the NIH Toolbox norming study [32], participants completed the Cognition Battery [33, 34], which included three tests of executive functions with evidence for reliability and validity among children and adolescence [35, 36].”
A pilot study investigating cognitive impairment associated with opioid overdose
Mahoney, J. J., Winstanley, E. L., Castillo, F., Luba, R. R., Marton, J. L., Alschuler, D. M., Liu, Y., & Comer, S. D. (2023) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2023.109865 · Cited by 11
Chaytor, N. S., Trapani, V. R., Braffett, B. H., Fonseca, L. M., Lorenzi, G. M., Gubitosi‐Klug, R., HITT, S. M., Farrell, K., Jacobson, A. M., & Ryan, C. M. (2023) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2023.2266876 · Cited by 10
“The NIHTB-C (Weintraub et al., 2013) is a brief computerized battery of cognitive tests delivered via in-person administration using a tablet (www.NIHToolbox.org; administration and technical manuals available with free registration under “user resources”).”
MethodSteinberg, S. N., & King, T. Z. (2023) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-023-09619-x · Cited by 12
Gast, H., & Assaf, Y. (2023) · Network Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/netn_a_00342 · Cited by 10
“We utilized an extreme gradient boosting model to predict total cognitive composite scores, which represent a general score of total intelligence (both crystallized and fluid abilities) assessed with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Cognition Battery (Weintraub et al., 2016) by each of the weighted SC m…”
MethodInfluentialANTsX neuroimaging-derived structural phenotypes of UK Biobank
Tustison, N. J., Yassa, M. A., Rizvi, B. M., Cook, P. A., Holbrook, A. J., Sathishkumar, M. T., Tustison, M. G., Gee, J. C., Stone, J. R., & Avants, B. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-59440-6 · Cited by 11
“…Challenge (ABCD-NP-Challenge) was held in 2019 which concerned predicting fluid intelligence scores (using the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery) 69 ethnicity, genetic sex, and parental attributes of income, education, and marriage (additional data processing details are provided in the Data…”
MethodColmenares, A. M., Thomas, M. L., Anderson, C., Arciniegas, D. B., Calhoun, V. D., Choi, I., Kramer, A. F., Li, K., Lee, J., Lee, P., et al. (2024) · Neurobiology of Aging · doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2024.05.013 · Cited by 12
“…Toolbox ® Cognition due to its design emphasis on reproducibility, reliability, and compatibility with large, representative national datasets (Heaton et al., 2014; Weintraub et al., 2013 In our study, we incorporated both the VCAP and the NIH Toolbox ® to assess cognitive function comprehensively.”
MethodCahan, J. G., Finley, J. A., Cotton, E., Orban, Z. S., Jimenez, M., Weıntraub, S., Sorets, T. R., & Koralnik, I. J. (2024) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2024.1401796 · Cited by 10
Kratz, A. L., Ehde, D. M., Alschuler, K. N., Pickup, K., Ginell, K. M., & Fritz, N. E. (2024) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/59876 · Cited by 12
“We administer the NIHTB cognitive test battery plus the supplemental NIHTB Oral Symbol Digit Test [62,70] via the NIHTB iPad App.”
MethodPlinio, S. D., Perrucci, M. G., Ferrara, G., Sergi, M. R., Tommasi, M., Martino, M., Saggino, A., & Ebisch, S. J. H. (2025) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121094 · Cited by 11
“The National Institutes of Health Toolbox - Cognition Battery (NIH Toolbox CB) is a set of computerized measures designed to assess a wide range of cognitive and sensorimotor functions (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Melough, M. M., McGrath, M., Palmore, M., Collett, B. R., Kerver, J. M., Hockett, C. W., Schmidt, R. J., Kelly, R. S., Lyall, K., Zhao, Q., et al. (2025) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.06.017 · Cited by 10
Self-citationArvanitis, M., Davis, M. M., & Wolf, M. S. (2019) · Journal of Pediatric Psychology · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsz086 · Cited by 10
Munro, C. L., Liang, Z., Ji, M., Elias, M. N., Chen, X., Calero, K., & Ely, E. W. (2021) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2021.106277 · Cited by 10
“: The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery [53] testing is used to assess cognitive function after transferring out of the ICU, and at 1 month and 6 months following hospital discharge.”
MethodIntegrative Science Approach to Resilience: The Notre Dame Study of Health & Well-being (NDHWB)
Bergeman, C. S., Boker, S. M., Rose, N. S., Bonanno, G. A., & Seeman, T. E. (2021) · Research in Human Development · doi:10.1080/15427609.2021.1964897 · Cited by 10
“The tests produce composite measures reflecting general cognitive functioning, crystallized intelligence and fluid abilities (see Gershon et al., 2010; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundAnderson, S., DeVries, L. A., Smith, E., et al. (2022) · Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology · doi:10.1007/s10162-022-00859-x · Cited by 10
Cognitive Predictors of Perception and Adaptation to Dysarthric Speech in Young Adult Listeners
Lansford, K. L., Barrett, T. S., & Borrie, S. A. (2022) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2022_jslhr-22-00391 · Cited by 10
“The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery, administered via an iPad Pro, was used to obtain measures of the following cognitive-linguistic constructs: working memory, inhibitory control of attention, cognitive flexibility, processing speed, and vocabulary knowledge.”
MethodMachine Learning models for the Cognitive Stress Detection Using Heart Rate Variability Signals
Izzah, N., Sutarto, A. P., & Hariyadi, M. (2022) · Jurnal Teknik Industri · doi:10.9744/jti.24.2.83-94 · Cited by 10
“Cognitive functioning refers to the operation and interaction of and between mental processes involved in information processing, such as attention, working memory, decision-making, and learning [1].”
BackgroundFinch, J. E., & Obradović, J. (2017) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2017.03.002 · Cited by 13
“…the quality of early home and school environments (Lengua et al., 2014; Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013) and also continue to develop into early adulthood (Casey, Giedd, & Thomas, 2000; Weintraub et al., 2013), it is important to understand how EFs contribute to successful adaptation to school.”
BackgroundRelationship Between Sedentary Behavior and Physical Activity at Work and Cognition and Mood
Carter, S. E., Draijer, R., Thompson, A., Thijssen, D. H. J., & Hopkins, N. D. (2020) · Journal of Physical Activity and Health · doi:10.1123/jpah.2019-0632 · Cited by 10
Neville, R. D., Nelson, M. A., Madigan, S. L., Browne, D. T., & Lakes, K. D. (2021) · European Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1007/s00431-021-04008-z · Cited by 12
Copenhaver, M. M., Sanborn, V. E., Shrestha, R., Mistler, C. B., Sullivan, M. C., & Gunstad, J. (2021) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108726 · Cited by 11
Kanwar, K., Moore, J. L., Hawkes, R. A., & Salem, G. J. (2021) · Mental health and physical activity · doi:10.1016/j.mhpa.2021.100410 · Cited by 13
“The NIH–C is an assessment of cognitive function and includes the following subdomains - executive function, episodic memory, language, processing speed, working memory, and attention (Weintraub et al., 2013; Zelazo et al., 2014).”
BackgroundRepple, J., König, A., de Lange, S. C., Opel, N., Redlich, R., Meinert, S., Grotegerd, D., Mauritz, M., Hahn, T., Borgers, T., et al. (2021) · Biological Psychiatry Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2021.02.010 · Cited by 12
A pattern of cognitive resource disruptions in childhood psychopathology
Stier, A. J., Cardenas‐Iniguez, C., Kardan, O., Moore, T. M., Meyer, F. A. C., Rosenberg, M. D., Kaczkurkin, A. N., Lahey, B. B., & Berman, M. G. (2023) · Network Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/netn_a_00322 · Cited by 12
“Task performance was assessed in-scanner by sensitivity, d 0, and accuracy both during the 2-back blocks of the EN-Back task, and out-ofscanner by unadjusted, standardized scores on the List Sorting working memory task from the NIH cognitive toolbox (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodCarlozzi, N. E., Goodnight, S. M., Umlauf, A., Heaton, R. K., Heinemann, A. W., Schalet, B. D., Gershon, R. C., & Tulsky, D. S. (2017) · Rehabilitation Psychology · doi:10.1037/rep0000185 · Cited by 10
“The NIHTB Cognitive Functioning Battery (NIHTB-CB), one of the four components of the NIHTB, includes a brief series (i.e., 30 min total) of measures designed to assess language, processing speed, working memory, episodic memory, and executive functioning (Weintraub et al., 2013, 2014).”
MethodSelf-citationMeyer, K., Garzón, B., Lövdén, M., & Hildebrandt, A. (2019) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.180857 · Cited by 9
“Working memory (WM) In the working memory task taken from the NIH toolbox [52,53] (http://www.”
MethodInfluentialCowell, R. A., Paitel, E. R., & Peters, S. D. (2019) · The International Journal of Aging and Human Development · doi:10.1177/0091415019836100 · Cited by 9
Reid, K. J., Ingram, L. T., Jimenez, M., Orban, Z. S., Abbott, S. M., Grimaldi, D., Knutson, K. L., Zee, P. C., Koralnik, I. J., & Maas, M. B. (2024) · SLEEP Advances · doi:10.1093/sleepadvances/zpae002 · Cited by 9
The Parkinson's Disease Composite of Executive Functioning
Young, C. B., Cholerton, B., Smith, A. M., Shahid, M., Ruiz, C. A., Mormino, E. C., Hu, S., Chung, K. A., Peterson, A. L., Rosenthal, L. S., et al. (2024) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000209609 · Cited by 12
Wright, A. M., Martin, A., Castle, S. L., Phillips, D. A., Johnson, A. D., The Tulsa SEED Study Team, Horm, D. M., Luk, G., Schochet, O. N., Hutchison, J. E., et al. (2024) · Early Education and Development · doi:10.1080/10409289.2024.2360870 · Cited by 16
Hurtado, C., Rojas‐Gualdrón, D. F., Perez-Giraldo, G., Villegas-Arbeláez, E., Mantilla, S. E. M., Campuzano-Sierra, M., Ospina-Patino, S., Arroyave-Bustamante, M., Uribe-Vizcarra, V., Arbeláez, D. A. R., et al. (2024) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2024.1450110 · Cited by 12
An investigation of multimodal predictors of adolescent alcohol initiation
Moore, A. J., Lewis, B., Elton, A., Squeglia, L. M., & Nixon, S. J. (2024) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.112491 · Cited by 11
Wei, X., McKinlay, C. J. D., Harding, J. E., Wouldes, T. A., Rogers, J., Brown, G., & Franke, N. (2024) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2024.2447444 · Cited by 10
Brief, Performance-Based Cognitive Screening in Youth Aged 12–25: A Systematic Review
Bryce, S., Bowden, S. C., Wood, S. J., & Allott, K. (2021) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617720001241 · Cited by 9
Wade, N. E., McCabe, C. J., Wallace, A. L., Gonzalez, M. R., Hoh, E., Infante, M. A., Mejia, M. H., & Haist, F. (2022) · Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science · doi:10.1016/j.bpsgos.2022.01.010 · Cited by 12
“Further, oral reading itself has been suggested as better representing educational opportunities than broader functioning (57) and is more experience based (58).”
BackgroundWatson, W. D., Lahey, S. M., Baum, K. T., Hamner, T., Koterba, C., Alvarez, G., Chan, J. B., Davis, K. C., DiVirgilio, E. K., Howarth, R. A., et al. (2022) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2022.2086691 · Cited by 9
Brown, A. A., Clocksin, H. E., Abbene, E. E., Ursery, M., & Christ, S. E. (2022) · Molecular Genetics and Metabolism · doi:10.1016/j.ymgme.2022.09.006 · Cited by 9
Cumming, M. M., Oblath, R., Qiu, Y., Frazier, S. L., Zelazo, P. D., Flores, H., & Park, J. (2023) · Remedial and Special Education · doi:10.1177/07419325231176762 · Cited by 12
Self-citationCognitive and Behavioral Outcomes of Snoring Among Adolescents
Isaiah, A., Uddin, S., Ernst, T., Cloak, C. C., Li, D., & Chang, L. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.44057 · Cited by 9
Moore, D. R., Lin, L., Bhalerao, R., et al. (2025) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2025_jslhr-24-00306 · Cited by 9
Arnett, A. B., Cairney, B. E., Wallace, A. S., Gerdts, J. A., Turner, T. N., Eichler, E. E., & Bernier, R. (2017) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.12815 · Cited by 10
Lee, J., Dudley‐Javoroski, S., & Shields, R. K. (2019) · Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine · doi:10.1080/10790268.2019.1597482 · Cited by 9
Cassetta, B. D., Menon, M., Carrion, P. B., Pearce, H. L., DeGraaf, A., Leonova, O., White, R. F., Stowe, R., Honer, W. G., Woodward, T. S., et al. (2019) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2019.1694072 · Cited by 9
Nayak, S., & Tarullo, A. R. (2020) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728919000725 · Cited by 9
“The TPVT shows excellent convergent and divergent validity as a measure of receptive vocabulary (Weintraub et al., 2013), and is modeled after other well-established vocabulary measures such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Fourth Edition (PPVT-IV; Dunn & Dunn, 2007).”
MethodNeumann, D., Peterson, E. R., Underwood, L., Morton, S., & Waldie, K. E. (2021) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617720001265 · Cited by 11
“Oral Reading Recognition Test (ORR):The ORR is a measure of reading, evaluating the children’s ability to pronounce single words and recognise letters (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundInfluentialFather– and Mother–Child Reminiscing About Past Pain and Young Children’s Cognitive Skills
Lund, T., Pavlova, M., Kennedy, M., Graham, S. A., Peterson, C., Dick, B. D., & Noel, M. E. (2021) · Journal of Pediatric Psychology · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsab006 · Cited by 13
Does long-term dual-language immersion affect children’s executive functioning?
Neveu, A., Crespo, K., Weismer, S. E., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105127 · Cited by 13
Cutumisu, M., & Schwartz, D. L. (2021) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104215 · Cited by 16
“The NIH Toolbox PPVT-IV vocabulary test (Dunn & Dunn, 2007) showed gradual, linear improvement with age until the mid 50s and then it stabilized (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSheppard, D. P., Gallagher, M. W., Morgan, E. E., Outlaw, A. Y., Naar, S., & Woods, S. P. (2021) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617721000448 · Cited by 9
“WMS-III=Wechsler Memory Scale, 3rd Edition (Psychological Corporation, 1997); CVLT-II=California Verbal Learning Test, 2nd Edition (Delis, Kramer, Kaplan, & Ober, 2000); LM=WMS-III Logical Memory; LDFR=CVLT-II Long Delay Free Recall; HVLT-R=Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, Revised (Brandt & Benedict, 2001); BVMT-R=Brief…”
MethodAssociation of physical and mental symptoms with cognition in people with spinal cord injury.
Carlozzi, N. E., GRAVES, C. M., Troost, J. P., Ehde, D. M., Miner, J. A., & Kratz, A. L. (2021) · Rehabilitation Psychology · doi:10.1037/rep0000416 · Cited by 10
Self-citationFisher, L. B., Tuchman, S., Curreri, A. J., Markgraf, M., Nyer, M., Cassano, P., Iverson, G. L., D, M. F. M., ZAFONTE, R. D., & Pedrelli, P. (2021) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/28734 · Cited by 9
Paul, S. E., Hatoum, A. S., Barch, D. M., Thompson, W. K., Arpana Agrawal, A., Bogdan, R., & Johnson, E. C. (2022) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109277 · Cited by 10
Liu, Y., Schneider, S., Orriens, B., Meijer, E., Darling, J. E., Gutsche, T., & Gatz, M. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/34347 · Cited by 9
“Similar to conventional computerized testing where a psychometrist is present [10], web-based cognitive testing achieves higher precision and data quality because of electronic scoring compared with human-based scoring (eg, stopwatch), especially in timed assessments.”
MethodScoping Review: Neurocognitive Outcome Assessments After Critical Illness in Children
BIAGAS, K. V., Heneghan, J. A., Abu-Sultaneh, S. M. A., Geneslaw, A. S., Maddux, A. B., Pinto, N. P., Murphy, S. A., Shein, S. L., & Cronin, M. T. (2022) · Journal of Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1177/08850666221121567 · Cited by 10
Füllgrabe, C., & Öztürk, O. C. (2022) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2022.912746 · Cited by 9
Dunbar, K. E., Raboy, A. L., Kirby, Z. M., Taylor, P., & Roy, M. J. (2019) · Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2019.0296 · Cited by 10
“13 The NIH-TB was initially developed for administration by computer, but the iPad version has been previously validated in Veterans, 14 and iPad-based cognitive assessments have been used in dementia, 15,16 stroke, 17 multiple sclerosis, 18 and even in mTBI in a small emergency room sample, 19 but…”
Measures of Cognition in Rheumatic Diseases
Yuen, K., Bingham, K. S., Tayer-Shifman, O. E., & Touma, Z. (2020) · Arthritis Care & Research · doi:10.1002/acr.24364 · Cited by 9
“The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery has been validated as a research tool in cognitively normal adults and against commonly used neuropsychological tests (13).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRussell‐Schulz, B., Vavasour, I. M., Zhang, J., MacKay, A. L., Purcell, V., Muller, A. M., Brucar, L. R., Torres, I. J., Panenka, W. J., & Virji‐Babul, N. (2021) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06709 · Cited by 10
Gunther, K. E., Petrie, D. J., Pérez‐Edgar, K. E., & Geier, C. F. (2023) · Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology · doi:10.1007/s10802-023-01025-4 · Cited by 9
Kim, M., Kwasny, M., Bailey, S. C., Benavente, J. Y., Zheng, P., Bonham, M., Luu, H. Q., Cecil, P., Agyare, P., O’Conor, R. M., et al. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-071899 · Cited by 8
Lin, G.-J., Xu, J.-J., Peng, X.-R., & Yu, J. (2024) · Sleep Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2024.04.025 · Cited by 8
Brendstrup‐Brix, K., Larsen, S. M. U., Lee, H., & Knudsen, G. M. (2024) · Journal of Sleep Research · doi:10.1111/jsr.14226 · Cited by 7
“Although to have strong test – retest reliability when tested twice within 7 – 21 days (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Novack, M. A., Young, S. R., Dworak, E. M., Kaat, A. J., Slotkin, J., Nowinski, C. J., Yao, L., Adam, H., Stoeger, J., Hosseinian, Z., et al. (2024) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617724000225 · Cited by 9
Self-citationGimblet, C. J., Kruse, N. T., Geasland, K. M., Michelson, J., Sun, M., Eyck, P. T., Linkenmeyer, C., Mandukhail, S. R., Rossman, M. J., Sambharia, M., et al. (2024) · Antioxidants · doi:10.3390/antiox13080983 · Cited by 8
“…Comparison Processing Speed, Oral Symbol Digit), (2) executive function (Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention, Dimensional Card Sort), (3) memory (Picture Sequence Memory, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test Immediate Memory), and (4) language (Picture Vo-cabulary, Oral Reading Recognition) [31].”
BackgroundAinsworth, N. J., Oughli, H. A., Lavretsky, H., Blumberger, D. M., Brown, P. J., Butters, M. A., Karp, J. F., Lenard, E. M., Lenze, E. J., McAndrews, M. P., et al. (2024) · American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2024.09.018 · Cited by 11
Genetic contributions to brain criticality and its relationship with human cognitive functions
Xin, Y., Cui, Y. J., Yu, S., & Liu, N. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2417010122 · Cited by 10
“The cognitive measures used in this study were selected from the HCP database and derived from the NIH toolbox for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function ® (108).”
Bekena, S., Singh, R. K., Zhu, Y., Cruchaga, C., Arnold, S. E., Ances, B. M., & Babulal, G. M. (2025) · Journal of Alzheimer s Disease · doi:10.1177/13872877251378675 · Cited by 8
“30,31 The WIN test measures speech-in-noise perception using a standardized, automated procedure.”
Polygenic architecture of brain structure and function, behaviors, and psychopathologies in children
Joo, Y. Y., Kim, B., Kim, G., Lee, E., Seo, J., & Cha, J. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-63312-6 · Cited by 10
“For assessing neurocognition, we used the NIH Toolbox measurement, which consists of seven domain-speci fi c tasks assessing episodic memory, executive function, attention, working memory, processing speed, and language and vocabulary abilities of the children 88,89 .”
Küppers, V., Bi, H., Nicolaisen‐Sobesky, E., Hoffstaedter, F., Yeo, B. T. T., Drzezga, A. E., Eickhoff, S. B., & Tahmasian, M. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-34951-y · Cited by 9
Waters, A. B., Sawyer, K. S., & Gansler, D. A. (2019) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107710 · Cited by 8
Associations Between Physical Fitness and Brain Structure in Young Adulthood
Best, J. R., Dao, E. A., Churchill, R., & Cosco, T. D. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.608049 · Cited by 10
“The NIH toolbox includes psychometrically-validated measures of cognition and behavior, suitable for use across the human lifespan (Gershon et al., 2013; Reuben et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodKulisch, L. K., Arumäe, K., Briley, D. A., & Vainik, U. (2023) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.13392 · Cited by 11
Sarabin, E., Harkness, K., & Murias, K. (2023) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/10870547231174036 · Cited by 9
“The freesurfer general linear model function mri_ glmfit with a two-tailed t-test was used for both the CT and mean curvature surfaces (Weintraub, 2013).”
MethodLombardo, D., & Kaufmann, T. (2023) · Cerebral Cortex Communications · doi:10.1093/texcom/tgad015 · Cited by 7
“Cognitive assessment and demographic data Every participant was assessed with several cognitive tests from the NIH Toolbox (Weintraub et al. 2013), evaluating verbal and visual episodic memory, attention, language, working memory, executive functions, and fluid and crystallized abilities.”
MethodInfluentialAssessing Cognition in CKD Using the National Institutes of Health Toolbox
Zhang, A., Furgeson, S. B., Shapiro, A. L. B., Bjornstad, P., You, Z., Tommerdahl, K. L., Dixon, A. M., Stenson, E. K., Oh, E. S., & Kendrick, J. (2024) · Kidney360 · doi:10.34067/kid.0000000000000440 · Cited by 8
Göke, K., McClintock, S. M., Mah, L., Rajji, T. K., Lee, H. H., Nestor, S. M., Downar, J. H., Noda, Y., Daskalakis, Z. J., Mulsant, B. H., et al. (2024) · Biological Psychiatry Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2024.07.009 · Cited by 9
Altered gyrification 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. (2024) · Brain and Behavior · doi:10.1002/brb3.3634 · Cited by 9
“The NP testing was performed using the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (Gershon et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodOberg, J. A., Dave, A., Bruce, J. N., & Sands, S. A. (2014) · Neuro-Oncology Practice · doi:10.1093/nop/npu014 · Cited by 8
Phonemic discrimination and reproduction in 4-5-year-old children: Relations to hearing
von Mentzer, C. N. (2020) · International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology · doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.109981 · Cited by 8
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
