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 701–800 of 1,289
Hawkins, M. A. W., Keirns, N. G., Baraldi, A. N., Layman, H. M., Stout, M. E., Smith, C. E., Gunstad, J., Hildebrand, D. A., Vohs, K. D., & Lovallo, W. R. (2021) · Obesity Science & Practice · doi:10.1002/osp4.537 · Cited by 9
“The NIHTB‐CB is a well‐validated computerized cognitive test battery delivered via tablet and comprised of seven subtests: (1) Picture Vocabulary (language), (2) Oral Reading Recognition (language), (3) Picture Sequence Memory (episodic memory), (4) Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention (inhibition/ selective atten…”
MethodPedrotty, M., Wong, T. S., Wilde, E. A., Bigler, E. D., & Laatsch, L. K. (2021) · Neurorehabilitation · doi:10.3233/nre-218028 · Cited by 10
Hooke, M. C., Mathiason, M. A., Kunin‐Batson, A., Blommer, A., Hutter, J., Mitby, P. A., Moore, I. M., Whitman, S. A., Taylor, O. A., Scheurer, M. E., et al. (2021) · Oncology nursing forum · doi:10.1188/21.onf.623-633 · Cited by 8
Tavoian, D., Ramos-Barrera, L. E., Craighead, D. H., Seals, D. R., Bedrick, E. J., Alpert, J. S., Mashaqi, S., & Bailey, E. F. (2021) · Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2021.760203 · Cited by 8
Bieber, R., Brodbeck, C., & Anderson, S. (2022) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108224 · Cited by 5
Plank, J. R., Glover, S. C., Moloney, B. D., Hoeh, N. R., Sundram, F., Sumner, R. L., Muthukumaraswamy, S. D., & Lin, J. C. (2022) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-022-06738-3 · Cited by 8
Keller, A. S., Mackey, A. P., Pines, A. R., Fair, D. A., Feczko, E., Hoffmann, M. S., Salum, G. A., Barzilay, R., & Satterthwaite, T. D. (2022) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.13337 · Cited by 8
The impact of dialect differences on spoken language comprehension
Byrd, A. S., Huang, Y. T., & Edwards, J. (2023) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716423000243 · Cited by 8
“The PVT and the DELV-ST were administered after the sentence processing task.”
MethodInfluentialKristanto, D., Hildebrandt, A., Sommer, W., & Zhou, C. (2023) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120304 · Cited by 8
SARS-CoV-2–Specific Immune Responses in Patients With Postviral Syndrome After Suspected COVID-19
Orban, Z. S., Visvabharathy, L., Perez-Giraldo, G., et al. (2023) · Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation · doi:10.1212/nxi.0000000000200159 · Cited by 8
Kang, E., Jee, S., Kim, C., Suh, K., Wong, A., & Moon, J. Y. (2017) · Journal of Critical Care · doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.10.005 · Cited by 8
“These novel strategies have been widely applied in investigations of pain and other symptoms, but their relevance to cognitive evaluation is increasingly evident [11,14-18].”
BackgroundResultCerebrospinal fluid and plasma biomarkers in individuals at risk for genetic prion diseasePreprint
Vallabh, S. M., Minikel, E. V., Williams, V. J., Carlyle, B. C., McManus, A. J., Wennick, C. D., Bolling, A. M., Trombetta, B. A., Urick, D., Nobuhara, C. K., et al. (2019) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2019.12.13.19014217 · Cited by 8
Vedechkina, M., & Holmes, J. (2023) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579423001220 · Cited by 8
Wade, N. E., Courtney, K. E., Wallace, A. L., Hatz, L. E., & Jacobus, J. (2024) · Journal of Cannabis Research · doi:10.1186/s42238-024-00225-z · Cited by 10
“For tests of executive functioning, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Cognition Battery [30] was used.”
MethodPhang, H. J., Heimler, S., Scandalis, L., Wing, D., Moran, R. J., Nichols, J. F., Moreno, D., Shadel, G. S., Gage, F. H., & Molina, A. J. A. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082659 · Cited by 7
“50 From the battery, we are employing the following assessments: Flanker inhibitory control and attention test, List Sorting working memory test, Dimensional change card sort test, Pattern comparison processing speed test and Picture Sequence memory test.”
MethodGejl, A. K., Bugge, A., Ernst, M. T., Mortensen, E. L., Gejl, K. D., & Andersen, L. B. (2024) · Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports · doi:10.1111/sms.14703 · Cited by 7
“High test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.95) and convergent validity ( r = 0.48) have been observed using an abbreviated version of the task [27].”
InfluentialBennett, C., Westrupp, E. M., Bennetts, S. K., Love, J., Hackworth, N. J., Berthelsen, D. C., & Nicholson, J. M. (2024) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.14166 · Cited by 9
Bao, R., Leahy, A. A., Lubans, D. R., Diallo, T., Beauchamp, M. R., Smith, J. J., Hillman, C. H., & Wade, L. (2024) · Journal of Sports Sciences · doi:10.1080/02640414.2024.2422203 · Cited by 9
“Scores derived from this test have also shown good test– retest reliability (ICC = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.92–0.96), and validity when used with children and adolescents (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
InfluentialCognitive Benefits of Open-Skill Sports in Childhood: Evidence from the ABCD Study
Shih, C.-H., Broadnax, M., Eckner, J. T., Veliz, P., & Varangis, E. (2025) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000003655 · Cited by 7
“Cognitive assessments were conducted using a set of tasks from the NIH Toolbox, designed to evaluate various cognitive domains (24).”
Gimbel, B. A., Wozniak, J. R., Mueller, B. A., et al. (2025) · Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders · doi:10.1186/s11689-025-09595-8 · Cited by 7
“Lastly, The NIH Toolbox [48] List Sorting Working Memory Test (LST) and Picture Sequence Memory Test (PSMT), which requires associative learning and recall of both visual and verbal information, were used to measure working memory and episodic memory, respectively (these tests yield T-scores, M =…”
ACE trial design: Equol targeting estrogen receptor‐β in vascular and cognitive aging
Sekikawa, A. M., Wharton, W., Murray-Krezan, C. M., Wu, M., Chang, Y.-F., Snitz, B. E., Coccari, M. L., Yang, S., Love, M. L., Cusick, D., et al. (2025) · Alzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical Interventions · doi:10.1002/trc2.70144 · Cited by 8
Xu, X., Yang, H., Cong, J., Xu, H., Kai, J., Zhao, S., Li, Y., Shou, H., Wang, K., Sydnor, V. J., et al. (2026) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-026-73072-6 · Cited by 12
“Using datasets from both HCP-D and ABCD, we selected the fl uid composite score from the NIH Toolbox, derived from fi ve tasks assessing working memory, inhibition, cognitive fl exibility, episodic memory, and processing speed, as a measure of higher-order cognitive performance 27 (Fig.”
Aranake-Chrisinger, A., Cheng, J. Z., Muench, M. R., et al. (2018) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017079 · Cited by 7
Sedentary behavior patterns over 6 weeks among ambulatory people with stroke
Kringle, E. A., Skidmore, E. R., Terhorst, L. A., Hammel, J. M., & Gibbs, B. B. (2020) · Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/10749357.2020.1846934 · Cited by 7
“The NIH Toolbox-Cognition Battery is a standardized performance-based measure of language, attention, memory, executive functions, and visuospatial skills.(34) A composite T-score (population M = 50, SD = 10) describing cognitive function was derived using the NIH Toolbox software.”
MethodKim, S. Y., Song, J., Wen, W., Chen, S., Zhang, M., Yan, J., López, B. G., Arredondo, M. M., & Ip, K. I. (2021) · Cognitive Research Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-021-00333-x · Cited by 8
“Therefore, we elected to use only the reaction time as the indicator of performance for both tasks (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodKable, T. J., Leahy, A. A., Smith, J. J., Eather, N., Shields, N., Noetel, M., Lonsdale, C., Hillman, C. H., Reeves, P., Oldmeadow, C. J., et al. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065321 · Cited by 9
Iverson, G. L., Gaudet, C. E., Kissinger-Knox, A. M., & Karr, J. E. (2022) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acac076 · Cited by 7
Williams, E. G., & Smith, M. J. (2023) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-023-06022-6 · Cited by 7
“…Crystallized and fluid cognition was assessed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Tool-box Cognition Battery (Akshoomoff et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013), which has been feasibly evaluated among autistic youth (Jones et al., 2022; Solomon et al., 2021) and demonstrated…”
Hippocampal subfield volumes in treatment resistant depression and serial ketamine treatment
Zavaliangos‐Petropulu, A., McClintock, S. M., Joshi, S. H., Taraku, B., Al‐Sharif, N., Espinoza, R. T., & Narr, K. L. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1227879 · Cited by 7
“Additionally, while the NIH Toolbox can be used for longitudinal assessments, practice effects may still occur with repeated testing (28).”
MethodSilva, N. C. B. S., ten Brinke, L. F., Bielak, A. A. M., Handy, T. C., & Liu-Ambrose, T. Y. L. (2023) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617723000577 · Cited by 8
“However, the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery as a whole has good to excellent reliability across a large age range (Weintraub et al., 2013) and the methodology applied in the current study has been used in several other publications (Bauermeister & Bunce, 2016; Brydges & Bielak, 2019; Brydges et al.,…”
MethodResultInfluentialTaylor, M. K., Burns, J. M., Choi, I.-Y., Herda, T. J., Lee, P., Smith, A. N., Sullivan, D. K., Swerdlow, R. H., & Wilkins, H. (2024) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-024-01469-5 · Cited by 10
“Comprehensive cognitive testing is also completed at baseline and 8 weeks using the NIH Toolbox ® (NIH-TB) cognitive battery [30].”
MethodBlank, E., Gilbert, D. L., Wu, S. W., Larsh, T. R., Elmaghraby, R., Liu, R., Smith, E. G., Westerkamp, G. C., Liu, Y., Horn, P. S., et al. (2024) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-024-06244-2 · Cited by 8
Chen, Z.-J., Lu, W., Meng, L., Chao, W.-F., Tung, H., Hsiao, F., & Chen, L. (2024) · The Journal of Frailty & Aging · doi:10.14283/jfa.2024.66 · Cited by 7
“Cognition: Time and space orientation plus word recall (28).”
Rigby, T., Gregoire, A., Reader, J., Kahsay, Y., Fisher, J., Kairys, A. E., Bhaumik, A., Rahman‐Filipiak, A., Maher, A. C., Hampstead, B. M., et al. (2024) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617724000213 · Cited by 7
“…consists of seven tests measuring five cognitive domains (i.e., executive functioning, episodic memory, processing speed, working memory, language; Weintraub et al., 2013), which are separated broadly into “ fluid ” or dynamic thinking skills (executive function, episodic memory, processing…”
InfluentialShah, V. A., Cruz‐Almeida, Y., Roy, A., Cenko, E., Downey, R. J., Ferris, D. P., Hass, C. J., Reuter‐Lorenz, P. A., Clark, D. J., Manini, T. M., et al. (2025) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-025-07019-6 · Cited by 8
“We assessed cognitive function using a subset of tests from the NIH toolbox cognitive battery (Heaton et al. 2014; Weintraub et al. 2013).”
Sargent, L. J., Mackiewicz, M., Roman, Y. M., et al. (2020) · Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1111/cts.12885 · Cited by 7
“The NIHTB-CB consists of a comprehensive set of measures to assess cognition and uses a standardized testing process that takes ~ 35 minutes to complete.(27) The NIHTB-CB is administered on an iPad tablet.”
Methodvon Mentzer, C. N. (2020) · Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics · doi:10.1080/02699206.2020.1833369 · Cited by 7
Daytime-to-Nighttime Sleep Ratios and Cognitive Impairment in Older Intensive Care Unit Survivors
Elias, M. N., Munro, C. L., & Liang, Z. (2021) · American Journal of Critical Care · doi:10.4037/ajcc2021221 · Cited by 7
Green, Z. D., John, C. S., Kueck, P. J., Burns, J. M., Perry, M., Donald, J., Mahnken, J. D., Honea, R. A., Vidoni, E. D., & Morris, J. K. (2021) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2021.106457 · Cited by 7
Park, K. S., & Etnier, J. L. (2021) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2021.106500 · Cited by 6
“0 software [29] on a desktop computer and the NIH Toolbox cognition battery on the iPad [30].”
Parrott, A., Zvara, B. J., Keim, S. A., Andridge, R., & Anderson, S. E. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055490 · Cited by 7
Kabundula, P., Mbewe, E. G., Mwanza-Kabaghe, S., Birbeck, G. L., Mweemba, M., Wang, B., Menon, J. A., Bearden, D., & Adams, H. (2022) · AIDS and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10461-022-03669-7 · Cited by 7
Kringle, E. A., Novelli, E. M., Butters, M. A., & Skidmore, E. R. (2022) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617722000406 · Cited by 8
“…Status (RBANS), Delis-Kaplan Executive Functions System (DKEFS), andWide Range Achievement Test-4 (WRAT4) are well validated and widely applied measures of cognitive functions (e.g., Delis et al., 2001; Karr et al., 2019; McFarland, 2020; Randolph et al., 1998; Wilkinson & Robertson, 2006).”
MethodWade, L., Beauchamp, M. R., Nathan, N., Smith, J. J., Leahy, A. A., Kennedy, S. G., Boyer, J., Bao, R., Diallo, T., Conti, J. V., et al. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279661 · Cited by 7
Douet, V., Chang, L., Lee, K., & Ernst, T. M. (2015) · Brain Imaging and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11682-015-9363-y · Cited by 8
Roses Are Red, Socks Are Blue: Switching Dimensions Disrupts Young Children’s Language Comprehension
Pomper, R., & Saffran, J. R. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158459 · Cited by 11
Rainey, V. R., Stockdale, L., Flores, V. C., Kahrilas, I. J., Mullins, T. L., Gjorgieva, E., Morrison, R., & Silton, R. L. (2021) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.13813 · Cited by 10
Bignardi, G., Dalmaijer, E. S., Anwyl-Irvine, A. L., & Astle, D. E. (2020) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/aw6c5 · Cited by 7
Visvabharathy, L., Zhu, C., Orban, Z. S., et al. (2023) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2023.04.07.23288243 · Cited by 7
Cognitive go/No-go decision-making criteria in Alzheimer’s disease drug development
Wessels, A. M., Edgar, C. J., Nathan, P. J., Siemers, E. R., Maruff, P., & Harrison, J. (2021) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2021.01.012 · Cited by 7
Dutemple, E., Brokl, C., & Poulin‐Dubois, D. (2024) · Frontiers in Developmental Psychology · doi:10.3389/fdpys.2024.1332358 · Cited by 7
Quality Diversity Approaches for Time-Use Optimisation to Improve Health Outcomes
Nikfarjam, A., Stanford, T., Neumann, A., et al. (2024) · Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) · doi:10.1145/3638529.3654085 · Cited by 6
“…a range of di � erent health-related measures: Academic performance from nationally administered tests (NAPLAN [18], cognition from the NIH Toolbo, [37], psychological health [36] and life satisfaction [32] from validated instruments, VO2max (cardiorespiratory � tness) from cycle ergometry and…”
Clough, S., Brown‐Schmidt, S., Cho, S., & Duff, M. C. (2024) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2024.08.008 · Cited by 10
“…of the sample, we report neuropsychological test results for a subset of the participants (n TBI ¼ 42, n NC ¼ 26) who completed the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (Weintraub et al., 2013) on an iPad during a separate session through their participation in the Vanderbilt Brain Injury Registry.”
Rappaport, B. I., Shankman, S. A., Glazer, J. E., Buchanan, S. N., Weinberg, A., & Letkiewicz, A. M. (2024) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-024-01222-8 · Cited by 8
“Scores were calculated according to published instructions from the NIH Toolbox manual (National Institutes of Health and Northwestern University, 2021) and prior research (Weintraub et al., 2013; Zelazo et al., 2014).”
Rigby, T., Kavcic, V., Shair, S. R., Hill‐Jarrett, T. G., García, S., Reader, J., Persad, C. C., Bhaumik, A., Pal, S., Hampstead, B. M., et al. (2024) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617724000444 · Cited by 6
Lewandowski, K. E., Blotner, J., Yao, B., Hechinger, R. M., Coleman, M., & Shenton, M. E. (2025) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.21317 · Cited by 6
“Cognition was evaluated using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Cognition Battery 34 , which assesses multiple domains.”
Cao, H., Árgyelán, M., Yan, J., Velioğlu, H. A., Fang, F., Joanlanne, A., Kang, S., Prizgint, L., Schugart, J., Brown, K., et al. (2025) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2025.06.023 · Cited by 10
Predicting cognitive functioning in mood disorders through smartphone typing dynamics.
Ning, E., Estabrook, R., Tulabandhula, T., Zulueta, J., Ross, M. K., Kabir, S., Hussain, F., Langenecker, S. A., Ajilore, O., Leow, A., et al. (2025) · Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science · doi:10.1037/abn0001052 · Cited by 8
Subiculum–BNST structural connectivity in humans and macaques
Berry, S. C., Lawrence, A. D., Lancaster, T. M., Casella, C., Aggleton, J. P., & Postans, M. (2022) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119096 · Cited by 6
Effects of a 4-week pecan-enriched diet on cognitive function in healthy older adults
Cogan, B., Pearson, R. C., Paton, C. M., Jenkins, N. T., & Cooper, J. A. (2022) · Nutrition and Healthy Aging · doi:10.3233/nha-220181 · Cited by 6
Gimbel, B. A., Roediger, D. J., Ernst, A. M., Anthony, M. E., de Water, E., Rockhold, M. N., Mueller, B. A., Mattson, S. N., Jones, K. L., Riley, E. P., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2023.1172010 · Cited by 6
Coelho, S. G., Hendershot, C. S., Aston, E. R., Ruocco, A. C., Quilty, L. C., Tyndale, R. F., & Wardell, J. D. (2023) · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/pha0000678 · Cited by 7
Cerebellar Neuromodulation Impacts Reading Fluency in Young Adults
Lee, M. M., McGrath, L. M., & Stoodley, C. J. (2023) · Neurobiology of Language · doi:10.1162/nol_a_00124 · Cited by 6
“…Change Card Sort, Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test, List Sorting Working Memory, Picture Sequence Memory Test, and Picture Vocabulary Test subtests from the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (Weintraub et al., 2013) were administered and combined to form a composite IQ estimate.”
MethodInfluentialO’Callaghan, L., Foweather, L., Crotti, M., Oppici, L., Pesce, C., Boddy, L. M., Davies, K. F., & Rudd, J. R. (2023) · Psychology of sport and exercise · doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2023.102546 · Cited by 7
Gimbel, B. A., Roediger, D. J., Ernst, A. M., Anthony, M. E., Mueller, B. A., de Water, E., Rockhold, M. N., & Wozniak, J. R. (2023) · The Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2023.113868 · Cited by 6
Neural correlates of cognitive ability and visuo-motor speed: Validation of IDoCT on UK Biobank Data
Giunchiglia, V., Curtis, S., Smith, S. M., Allen, N. E., & Hampshire, A. (2024) · Imaging Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/imag_a_00087 · Cited by 7
“In total, 34927 participants completed the PVT during at least one timepoint.”
MethodInfluentialTuran, O., Garner, J., Isaiah, A., Palatino, M. C., Ernst, T., Wang, Z., & Chang, L. (2025) · SLEEP · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsaf088 · Cited by 9
Helfer, K. S., Poissant, S. F., & Merchant, G. R. (2019) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000786 · Cited by 6
“A full description of each of these tasks can be found Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. in Weintraub et al. (2013).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMulhauser, K. R. W., Reynolds, E. L., Callaghan, B. C., Fierro, C., Giordani, B., & Votruba, K. (2021) · Obesity Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11695-021-05319-8 · Cited by 6
Tonér, S., Kallioinen, P., & Lacerda, F. P. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.664501 · Cited by 8
“However, for children who do not proceed to the arrow trials in the flanker task, reaction time is not considered (Slotkin et al., 2012; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMohapatra, B., & Laures-Gore, J. S. (2021) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2021_ajslp-20-00305 · Cited by 7
Porter, K. H., Quintana, C. P., Morelli, N., Heebner, N. R., Winters, J. D., Han, D. Y., & Hoch, M. C. (2021) · Journal of science and medicine in sport · doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2021.07.012 · Cited by 7
Chen, B. T., Chen, Z., Deng, F., Patel, S. K., Sedrak, M. S., Root, J. C., Ahles, T. A., Razavi, M., Kim, H., Sun, C., et al. (2022) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci12101283 · Cited by 6
“All participants underwent neurocognitive testing with the computerized NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery at both TP1 and TP2 in a room outside the MRI scanner [21].”
MethodGarnett, M., Reese, E., Swearingen, I., Peterson, E. R., Salmon, K., Waldie, K. E., D’Souza, S., Carr, P. A., Morton, S., & Bird, A. L. (2023) · Journal of Cognition and Development · doi:10.1080/15248372.2023.2192276 · Cited by 11
“The measure consists of six different subdomains of cognitive functioning, all of which have been explained in detail in Weintraub et al. (2013).”
BackgroundHoyt, A. T., Wilkinson, A. V., Langlois, P. H., Galeener, C. A., Ranjit, N., Dabelea, D., & Moore, B. F. (2023) · Child Psychiatry & Human Development · doi:10.1007/s10578-023-01524-x · Cited by 6
Nair, S. S., Muddapu, V. R., Vigneswaran, C., Balasubramani, P. P., Ramanathan, D., Mishra, J., & Chakravarthy, V. S. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-32234-y · Cited by 6
“sought to create unified architectures of cognition, experimental cognitive scientists also made efforts to move away from exclusivist approaches and began to study multiple cognitive functions in human population cohorts simultaneously 7 .”
BackgroundShapiro, Z. R., Kable, J. A., Grant, T. M., Stoner, S. A., Coles, C. D., & CIFASD (2023) · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/acer.15177 · Cited by 7
Manglani, H. R., Phansikar, M., Duraney, E. J., McKenna, M. R., Canter, R., Nicholas, J. A., Andridge, R., & Prakash, R. S. (2023) · Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.msard.2023.104963 · Cited by 6
Psychometric properties of the mock interview rating scale for autistic transition-age youth
Smith, M. J., Sherwood, K. L., Genova, H. M., Ross, B., DaWalt, L. S., Bishop, L., Telfer, D., Brown, C., Sanchez, B., & Kallen, M. A. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1235056 · Cited by 6
Boone, A. E., Perry, C., & Henderson, W. L. (2024) · American Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.5014/ajot.2024.050396 · Cited by 6
“Finally, we assessed cognition using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Cognition Battery (Carlozzi et al., 2017; Weintraub et al., 2013), the Weekly Calendar Planning Assessment (WCPA; Weiner et al., 2012), and the Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX; Burgess et al., 1998; Wilson et al.,…”
Leaver, A. M. (2024) · Neuromodulation Technology at the Neural Interface · doi:10.1016/j.neurom.2024.06.001 · Cited by 6
Kardan, O., Sereeyothin, C., Schertz, K. E., Angstadt, M., Weigard, A. S., Berman, M. G., Heitzeg, M. M., & Rosenberg, M. D. (2026) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2026.101719 · Cited by 7
Exercise Enhances Cognitive Capacity in the Aging Brain
Snigdha, S., & Prieto, G. A. (2017) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-805094-1.00016-2 · Cited by 5
Lai, H., Celentano, D. D., Treisman, G., Khalsa, J., Gerstenblith, G., Page, B., Mandler, R. N., Yang, Y., Salmeron, B., Bhatia, S., et al. (2023) · AIDS Patient Care and STDs · doi:10.1089/apc.2023.0006 · Cited by 6
“19,20 The NIHTB-CB measures ‘‘cover 5’’ key domains of brain function: language ( In addition to unadjusted and age-adjusted, standard scores, the NIHTB-CB results also provide a fully corrected standard score [with a mean of 50 and standard deviation (SD) of 10], which compares the score of the…”
Serum levels of olanzapine are associated with acute cognitive effects in bipolar disorder
Shoshina, I. I., de Almeida, N. L. P., de Oliveira, M. E. C., Trombetta, B. D. N. T., Silva, G. M., Fars, J., dos Santos, N. A., & Fernandes, T. P. (2022) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114443 · Cited by 6
Design of the Optimal Trial of Combination Therapy
Cappola, A. R. (2020) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2020.00168 · Cited by 6
“An example is the fluid cognition composite score of the NIH Toolbox cognition battery (14).”
BackgroundElsayed, N. M., Rappaport, B. I., Luby, J. L., & Barch, D. M. (2021) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2021.100952 · Cited by 7
“Intraclass correlation coefficients NIH Toolbox have ranged from 0.78 to 0.90 in previous literature (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAge-related differences in white matter: Comparing fixel based and tensor based analysesPreprint
Kelley, S., Plass, J., Bender, A. R., & Polk, T. (2019) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1101/751628 · Cited by 7
Pedersen, M. L., Alnæs, D., van der Meer, D., FERNÁNDEZ, S. R., Berthet, P., Dahl, A., Kjelkenes, R., Schwarz, E., Thompson, W. K., Barch, D. M., et al. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/jxfqd · Cited by 6
“org), a computerized test battery comprising 7 tasks spanning executive function, working memory, episodic memory, attention, processing speed and language (59).”
BackgroundPersonalized Functional Brain Network Topography Predicts Individual Differences in Youth CognitionPreprint
Keller, A. S., Pines, A. R., Sydnor, V. J., Cui, Z., Bertolero, M. A., Barzilay, R., Alexander‐Bloch, A. F., Byington, N., Chen, A. A., Conan, G. M., et al. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.10.11.511823 · Cited by 6
Tagliaferri, S. D., Nguyen, J., Han, L. K. M., Cotton, S., Menssink, J. M., Ratheesh, A., Noel, M. E., & Schmaal, L. (2024) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2024.12.025 · Cited by 8
Marlatt, K. L., Lowe, A. C., Sánchez‐Delgado, G., Beyl, R. A., Viverito, M., Keller, J. N., Carmichael, O. T., & Ravussin, É. (2025) · GeroScience · doi:10.1007/s11357-024-01459-8 · Cited by 5
Hercules, K., Liu, Z., Christofilea, E., Wei, J., Venegas, G., Ciocca, O., Dyer, A., Lee, G. E., Santini-Bishop, S., Shappell, H. M., et al. (2025) · Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science · doi:10.1016/j.bpsgos.2025.100506 · Cited by 5
“Participants completed cognitive assessments including the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (61), and the age-corrected total composite score was used in analyses.”
Neural correlates differ between crystallized and fluid intelligence in adolescents
Qiu, B., Qian, R., Gu, B., Li, Z., Chen, Z., Xu, X., Gao, H., Chen, Y., Zhao, R., Chen, R., et al. (2025) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-025-03467-4 · Cited by 5
“Crystallized intelligence and fl uid intelligence were evaluated using the NIH Toolbox [47, 48], a widely recognized tool known for its strong reliability in assessing children [49].”
Karcher, N. R., Dong, F., Paul, S. E., Johnson, E. C., Kilçiksiz, C. M., Oh, H. Y., Schiffman, J. E., Arpana Agrawal, A., Bogdan, R., Jackson, J. J., et al. (2025) · Nature Mental Health · doi:10.1038/s44220-025-00481-9 · Cited by 7
The lifespan trajectories of brain activities related to conflict-driven cognitive control
Li, Z., Petersen, I. T., Wang, L., Raduà, J., Yang, G., & Liu, X. (2025) · 中国科学通报：英文版 · doi:10.1016/j.scib.2025.08.038 · Cited by 9
Cognitive correlates of human endurance
Aslan, D. H., Fenton, L. E., Han, S., Lai, M. H. C., Luong, D. M., Markarian, T., Seshadri, A., Alexander, G. E., & Raichlen, D. A. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2512055122 · Cited by 5
“These are well validated tests that assess episodic memory, working memory, executive function, language, attention, immediate memory, delayed memory, visuospatial ability, and processing speed (85, 86).”
Mrakotsky, C., Mailo, J. A., Chevignard, M., Dlamini, N., Fox, C. K., Fullerton, H. J., Lehman, L. L., Boulouis, G., & Waak, M. (2025) · Journal of the American Heart Association · doi:10.1161/jaha.124.039595 · Cited by 5
Karcher, N. R., Merchant, J. T., Rappaport, B. I., & Barch, D. M. (2023) · Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science · doi:10.1037/abn0000820 · Cited by 6
Clinical Validation of Selected NIH Cognitive Toolbox Tasks in Pediatric Epilepsy
Matuska, E., Carney, A., Sepeta, L. N., Zelleke, T. G., Pasupuleti, A., & Berl, M. M. (2024) · Epilepsy & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2024.109684 · Cited by 5
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
