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 801–900 of 1,289
Harkness, K., Bray, S., Durber, C. M., Dewey, D., & Murias, K. (2024) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-024-06275-9 · Cited by 7
“Measures relevant to attention and EF in the ABCD dataset were included: the Childhood Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Rey, Schrader, and Morris-Yates 1992), the Brief Problem Monitoring Teacher Report (BPMT; Piper et al., 2014), the NIH Toolbox; (Weintraub et al., 2013), the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (long and shor…”
InfluentialFrom integers to fractions: The role of analogy in transfer and long-term learning
Yu, S., Sidney, P. G., Kim, D., Thompson, C. A., & Opfer, J. E. (2024) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2024.105918 · Cited by 5
Methods to characterize lactate turnover in aging and Alzheimer's disease; The LEAN study
Kemna, R. E., Kueck, P. J., Blankenship, A. E., John, C. S., Johnson, C. N., Green, Z. D., Chamberlain, T., Thyfault, J. P., Mahnken, J. D., Miller, B. F., et al. (2024) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2024.107682 · Cited by 5
Goga, J. J., Ginell, K. M., Ng, Y. T., Ehde, D. M., Alschuler, K. N., Sliwinski, M. J., Fritz, N. E., & Kratz, A. L. (2025) · Multiple Sclerosis Journal · doi:10.1177/13524585251320814 · Cited by 6
“The NIH-Toolbox (NIHTB) cognitive test battery and supplemental NIHTB Oral Symbol Digit Test (OSD) 24,25 were administered via the NIHTB iPad Application by a trained and certified examiner.”
Emerging Opportunities Provided by Technology to Advance Research in Child Health Globally
van Heerden, A. C., Leppänen, J. M., Rotheram‐Borus, M. J., Worthman, C. M., Kohrt, B. A., Skeen, S., Giese, S., Hughes, R. C., Böhmer, L., & Tomlinson, M. (2020) · Global Pediatric Health · doi:10.1177/2333794x20917570 · Cited by 5
Development of a cortical delay discounting assay: a potential biomarker of externalizing disorders
Sadeh, N., Miglin, R., Bounoua, N., Sheehan, A. E., & Spielberg, J. M. (2021) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s003329172100252x · Cited by 6
“, 2019), we included measures of processing speed (Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test age-adjusted score; Weintraub et al., 2013), episodic memory (Picture Sequence Memory Test age-adjusted score; Weintraub et al.”
BackgroundMethodMcDonough, I. M., Mayhugh, C., Moore, M. K., Brasfield, M. B., Letang, S. K., Madan, C. R., & Allen, R. S. (2022) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci12040496 · Cited by 4
Fukngoen, P., Sivamaruthi, B. S., Sirilun, S., Lalitsuradej, E., Khongtan, S., Peerajan, S., Sittiprapaporn, P., & Chaiyasut, C. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app12115658 · Cited by 5
Learning and memory function in young people with and without perinatal HIV in England
Arenas‐Pinto, A., Judd, A., Melvin, D., Prevost, M. L., Foster, C., Sturgeon, K., Winston, A., Thompson, L. C., Gibb, D. M., & Castro, H. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0273645 · Cited by 5
Ayoub, S. M., Noback, M. N., Ahern, J., & Young, J. W. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-99744-7.00032-8 · Cited by 5
L’Hotta, A. J., Spence, A., Varughese, T. E., et al. (2024) · Frontiers in Pediatrics · doi:10.3389/fped.2024.1341762 · Cited by 5
Reconstructing human gaze behavior from EEG using inverse reinforcement learning
Gong, J., Cao, S., Korivand, S., & Jalili, N. (2024) · Smart Health · doi:10.1016/j.smhl.2024.100480 · Cited by 5
Rios, R. L., Green, M., Smith, S. K., Kafashan, M., Ching, S., Farber, N. B., Lin, N., Lucey, B. P., Reynolds, C. F., Lenze, E. J., et al. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087516 · Cited by 5
“The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery is a computer-based instrument that assesses fluid and crystallised cognition through the following five component tests (and tested cognitive domains): The Flanker Inhibitory Control Test (executive function-sustained attention and inhibitory control), the Dimensional Change Card Sor…”
BackgroundMethodKarcher, N. R., Sotiras, A., Niendam, T. A., Walker, E. F., Jackson, J. J., & Barch, D. M. (2024) · Biological Psychiatry Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2024.05.009 · Cited by 5
“The current study utilized uncorrected National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognitive Battery scores from the fl uid and crystallized composite scores (35,36).”
MethodImaging body-mind crosstalk in young adults
Yu, Q., Kong, Z., Zou, L., Herold, F., Ludyga, S., Zhang, Z., Hou, M., Kramer, A. F., Erickson, K. I., Taubert, M., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2024.100498 · Cited by 5
“…of self-regulation) using the delay discounting task , reading decoding (a measure of language) using the NIH Toolbox Oral Reading Recognition Test , and vocabulary comprehension (a measure of language) using the NIH Toolbox Picture Vocabulary Test (Gershon et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodKable, J. A., Potter, A., Akshoomoff, N., Blasco, P. M., Bodison, S. C., Ciciolla, L. M., DeGray, S., Hulce, Z., Kuschner, E. S., Learnard, B., et al. (2024) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2024.101461 · Cited by 8
Cobden, A. L., Burnett, J., Saward, J. B., et al. (2025) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-025-09470-1 · Cited by 5
“All 47 participants completed the NIH Toolbox for Cognition (www. nihto olbox. org) Version 2 [22] on a supplied iPad Air 2 (246-mm screen) in a quiet testing room (approximately 30–min completion time).”
Effects of listener age and native language on perception of accented and unaccented sentences
Bieber, R. E., Yeni–Komshian, G. H., Freund, M. S., Fitzgibbons, P. J., & Gordon-Salant, S. M. (2018) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.5081711 · Cited by 5
Pilot Trial of Acceptance-Based Behavioral Weight Loss and Neurocognition Among American Indians
Hawkins, M. A. W., Colaizzi, J. M., Cole, A. B., Keirns, N. G., Smith, C. E., Stout, M. E., Chaney, J. M., Sawhney, M., & Gahn, D. (2020) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2020.04.009 · Cited by 5
“All tests in the battery have been validated and normed for use in the age ranges included in the POWER-UP trial (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
MethodRebchuk, A. D., Alimohammadi, A., Yuan, M., Cairncross, M., Torres, I. J., Silverberg, N. D., & Field, T. S. (2020) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617720001010 · Cited by 5
“Of these, both instruments that assess crystallized cognition and two that assess fluid cognition (List Sorting Working Memory and Picture Sequence Memory) *Correspondence and reprint requests to: Thalia Field, MD FRCPCMHSc, Associate Professor, University of British Columbia, Stroke Neurologist, Vancouver Stroke Prog…”
MethodInfluentialMaas, M. B., Lizza, B. D., Kim, M., Gendy, M., Liotta, E. M., Reid, K. J., Zee, P. C., & Griffith, J. W. (2020) · Neurocritical Care · doi:10.1007/s12028-020-01126-8 · Cited by 5
Developmental Exposure to Air Pollution, Cigarettes, and Lead: Implications for Brain Aging
Finch, C. E., & Morgan, T. E. (2020) · Annual Review of Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-devpsych-042320-044338 · Cited by 6
Liu, T., Hettish, L., Lo, W., Gray, M., & Li, C. (2021) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.22174 · Cited by 6
Hood, A., Stotesbury, H., Kölbel, M., de Haan, M., Downes, M., Kawadler, J., Sahota, S., Dimitriou, D., Inusa, B., Wilkey, O., et al. (2021) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05626-6 · Cited by 5
Karpouzian‐Rogers, T., Makowski‐Woidan, B., Kuang, A., Zhang, H., Fought, A. J., Engelmeyer, J., Mesulam, M. M., Weıntraub, S., & Rogalski, E. J. (2022) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s135561772200008x · Cited by 5
“verbal fluency), as well as differences in tests used in this study compared to the neuropsychological tests used to validate the NIHTB (Weintraub et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialLiu, X., Geiger, M., Zhou, C., & Hildebrandt, A. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-17850-4 · Cited by 5
Keirns, N. G., Ouaddi, S., DUNSIGER, S. I., Locatelli, G., Gathright, E. C., Black, E., Tripolone, J., Breault, C., Riegel, B. J., Cohen, R., et al. (2023) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2023.107094 · Cited by 6
Marquine, M. J., Kamalyan, L., Zlatar, Z. Z., Yassai-Gonzalez, D., Perez-Tejada, A., Umlauf, A., Al‐Rousan, T., González‐Calle, V., Breton, J., Guareña, L. A., et al. (2024) · AIDS Patient Care and STDs · doi:10.1089/apc.2024.0043 · Cited by 6
“…10 cognitive tests with available demographically adjusted normative data for English-and Spanish-speaking Hispanics, which assessed various cognitive domains including executive function/attention, verbal fluency, learning and memory, processing speed and visuospatial skills 33,37–43 (Table 1).”
Self-citationComputerized Cognitive Tests (CCT) in elderly: A psychometric review
Marques-Costa, C., Almiro, P. A., & Simões, M. R. (2018) · European Review of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.erap.2018.04.002 · Cited by 6
Dietary patterns in early life pay dividends for midlife cognitive performance
Bowman, G. L., & Scarmeas, N. (2019) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000007229 · Cited by 5
“Early to midlife studies of diet and nutrition are unique in that they offer the opportunity to examine relationships with cognitive function during the lifespan, when cognitive development peaks and decline ensues in selected domains across the population.(5) This period of time may be opportune for enhancing cogniti…”
BackgroundVoits, T., Robson, H., Rothman, J., & Pliatsikas, C. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/8hcxz · Cited by 5
A Scale-Free Gradient of Cognitive Resource Disruptions in Childhood PsychopathologyPreprint
Stier, A. J., Cardenas-Iniguez, C., Kardan, O., Moore, T. M., Meyer, F., Rosenberg, M., Kaczkurkin, A., Lahey, B., & Berman, M. (2021) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1101/2021.08.24.457554 · Cited by 9
“Task performance was assessed in-scanner by sensitivity, d’, and accuracy both during the 2back blocks of the EN-Back task, and out-of-scanner by un-adjusted, standardized scores on the List Sorting working memory task from the NIH cognitive toolbox (46).”
MethodChopra, S., Dhamala, E., Lawhead, C., Ricard, J. A., Orchard, E. R., An, L., Chen, P., Wulan, N., Kumar, P., Rubenstein, A., et al. (2022) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2022.12.08.22283232 · Cited by 5
Commentary on the ASH 2020 guidelines on cognitive screening and intervention in sickle cell disease
Hoyt, C. R., Heitzer, A. M., & Hardy, S. J. (2023) · Blood Advances · doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2023009851 · Cited by 5
Bell, N. M., Yu, F. F., Xi, Y., Proskovec, A. L., Holcomb, J. M., Chilukuri, S., Urban, J. E., Vaughan, C., DeSimone, J. C., Wagner, B. C., et al. (2025) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/neu.2024.0222 · Cited by 4
“77 These age-corrected standardized scores were used to compute a fl anker ratio by dividing postseason scores by preseason scores.”
Lu, A. S., Parkar, B., Gupta, S., Hall, S., Pindus, D. M., & Kramer, A. F. (2025) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/73221 · Cited by 4
“The NIH Toolbox is a validated, standardized battery developed by the National Institutes of Health to measure neurological and behavioral function across the lifespan [57].”
Ahmed, S., Cano, M. Á., Sánchez, M., Hu, N., González, R., & Ibañez, G. E. (2023) · Applied Neuropsychology Child · doi:10.1080/21622965.2023.2206029 · Cited by 4
“All had moderate to good test-retest reliability (ICC: 0.76 – 0.99) and significantly correlated with our measure of general cognitive ability (r: 0.58 – 0.87) ( Weintraub et al., 2013).”
InfluentialIndividual differences in the neural architecture in semantic processing
Liu, X., Hu, Y., Hao, Y., & Yang, L. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-49538-8 · Cited by 4
“The HCP dataset includes two behavioral tests assessing language skills, both taken from the NIH toolbox 29 , focusing on two aspects of language.”
MethodShapiro, A. L. B., Coughlan, C. M., Bettcher, B. M., PAULEY, M. E., Kim, J., Bjornstad, P., RAJIC, B. S., Truong, J., Bell, C., Choi, Y. J., et al. (2024) · Endocrines · doi:10.3390/endocrines5020014 · Cited by 5
“The NIHTB-CB assesses individual fluid and crystallized cognitive subdomains and derives composite scores for overall fluid and crystallized cognition that represent performance across all subdomain tests [38].”
BackgroundHIV Stigma is Associated with Two-Year Decline in Cognitive Performance Among People with HIV
Britton, M. K., Lembo, M., Li, Y., Porges, E. C., Cook, R. L., Cohen, R. A., Somboonwit, C., & Ibañez, G. E. (2024) · AIDS and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10461-024-04508-7 · Cited by 6
“In unadjusted models, HIV stigma-by-visit interaction was associated with performance on the Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test, which measures ability to inhibit attention to task-irrelevant but competing stimuli (executive attention) [21, 70].”
Weigard, A. S., Suzuki, T., Skalaban, L. J., Conley, M. I., Cohen, A. O., Garavan, H., Heitzeg, M. M., Casey, B. J., Sripada, C., & Heathcote, A. (2024) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.70019 · Cited by 5
“General cognitive ability was indexed using raw scores of the overall Cognitive Function Composite from the NIH Toolbox Battery (Akshoomoff et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Yu, C. C.-W., Mok, K.-M., Mak, E., Au, C. T., Chan, D. F. Y., Wu, S., Chung, R. C. K., Ip, M. C. K., & Wong, S. W. L. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315503 · Cited by 4
Genetic prediction of early adolescent chronotype: effects of sex and pubertal status
Hernandez, L. M., Ganesh, S. S. A., Gandal, M. J., & Fuligni, A. J. (2025) · SLEEP · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsaf094 · Cited by 4
“Cognitive functioning was assessed using the NIH Toolbox® Cognition Battery [23].”
Computational mechanisms underlying multi-step planning deficits in methamphetamine use disorder
Lavalley, C. A., Mehta, M., Taylor, S., Chuning, A. E., Stewart, J. L., Huys, Q. J. M., Khalsa, S. S., Paulus, M. P., & Smith, R. S. (2025) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-025-03390-8 · Cited by 4
“As a further check, analyses of task performance (both model-based and model-free metrics) were repeated while accounting for working memory (NIH Toolbox List Sorting corrected score [39]) and accuracy on the post-task memory test.”
Sousa, A., Jung, M., Allera, A., & Riley, B. A. (2025) · Brain and Behavior · doi:10.1002/brb3.70603 · Cited by 4
Bekena, S., Singh, R. K., Damera, N., Zhu, Y., Trani, J., McClannahan, K., Webb, M. M., & Babulal, G. M. (2025) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbaf115 · Cited by 4
Hoyda, J. C., Stewart, H. J., Vannest, J. J., Washington, K. N., & Moore, D. R. (2025) · Brain Imaging and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11682-025-01040-7 · Cited by 4
“Also, as part of the larger study of listening difficulties, children completed the NIH Toolbox (Weintraub et al., 2013 ).”
Liu, X., Sacks, F. M., Beck, T. L., Tangney, C., Willett, W. C., Yassine, H. N., Dhana, K., Aggarwal, N. T., Rajan, K. B., & Barnes, L. L. (2025) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.08.012 · Cited by 4
Kim, J., Murphy, S. L., Abou, L., Alschuler, K. N., Ehde, D. M., Fritz, N. E., & Kratz, A. L. (2025) · Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.msard.2025.106710 · Cited by 4
Ecological Momentary Assessment in Acquired Brain Injury: A Scoping Review
Burnett, J., Cobden, A. L., Firman-Sadler, L., Fuller‐Tyszkiewicz, M., Akhlaghi, H., D, J. F. D., & Caeyenberghs, K. (2025) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1177/08977151251359986 · Cited by 4
“Advancements in the development of computerized cognitive testing batteries (exempli fi ed by tools such as the NIH Toolbox ® 113,114 122 However, it is noteworthy that only two ABI studies have integrated cognitive tasks into their EMA batteries, 33,75 leaving a critical gap in our understanding of…”
Cognitive Functioning and Health in Hispanic/Latina Breast Cancer Survivors
Marín‐Chollom, A. M., Hale, C., Koch, P. A., Gaffney, A. O., Contento, I. R., Shen, H., Hershman, D. L., Brickman, A. M., & Greenlee, H. (2021) · Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health · doi:10.1007/s10903-021-01300-w · Cited by 6
T1w/T2w Ratio and Cognition in 9-to-11-Year-Old Children
Langensee, L., Rumetshofer, T., Behjat, H., Novén, M., Li, P., & Mårtensson, J. (2022) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci12050599 · Cited by 4
“More detailed information on each of the tasks can be found elsewhere [60,61].”
BackgroundCognition and Daily Life Activities in Stroke: A Network Analysis
Lau, S. C. L., Connor, L. T., Heinemann, A. W., & Baum, C. M. (2022) · OTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of Research · doi:10.1177/15394492221111730 · Cited by 4
“Also, we used the NIHTB-CB and the EFPT that have been validated in people with stroke.”
MethodInfluentialTyrell, F. A., Lucke, C. M., Nelson, K. M., & Masten, A. S. (2022) · Early Childhood Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.07.018 · Cited by 5
Hung, I., Ganiban, J. M., & Saudino, K. J. (2022) · Behavior Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10519-022-10129-4 · Cited by 4
Association of Aging and Cognition With Complex Speech Understanding in Cochlear-Implanted Adults
Schvartz‐Leyzac, K. C., Giordani, B., & Pfingst, B. E. (2023) · JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2022.4806 · Cited by 4
The Effects of Virtual Zumba® on Functional Outcomes in Adults with Developmental Disabilities
Munn, E. E., Lang, D. M., Hynes, J., NORTHCUTT, A., Patten, B., Wadsworth, D. D., & Pangelinan, M. M. (2023) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000003157 · Cited by 4
Chao, A. M., Zhou, Y., Erus, G., Davatzikos, C. A., Cardel, M. I., Foster, G. D., & Wadden, T. A. (2023) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2023.114228 · Cited by 4
An, Y. W., Kim, K.-M., Lobacz, A. D., Baumeister, J., Higginson, J. S., Rosen, J. B., & Swanik, C. B. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11131875 · Cited by 6
Yin, L., Caceres, M., Skowronski, J., & Muramatsu, N. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20156515 · Cited by 4
Knutson, K. L., Pershing, M. L., Abbott, S. M., Alexandria, S. J., Chiluka, S., Chirinos, D. A., Giachello, A. L. M., Gupta, N., Harrington, K. A., Rittner, S. S., et al. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073734 · Cited by 4
Cross-Domain Fiber Cluster Shape Analysis for Language Performance Cognitive Score Prediction
Lo, Y., Chen, Y., Liu, D., et al. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-86920-4_8 · Cited by 4
“We predict subject-specific performance on two language assessments provided by HCP-YA, including the NIH Toolbox Picture Vocabulary Test (TPVT) and the NIH Toolbox Oral Reading Recognition Test (TORRT) [9,29].”
MethodYang, A., Lu, H. J., & Chang, L. (2024) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2024.106159 · Cited by 5
Zheng, P., MacDonald, H. V., Richardson, M. T., Man, K., McDonough, I. M., & Aguiar, E. J. (2024) · Journal of Aging and Physical Activity · doi:10.1123/japa.2023-0363 · Cited by 3
Serrano, L. E., Lange, F., Dauth, A., Krenzlin, H., Perez, A., Januschek, E., Schumann, S., Jussen, D., Czabanka, M., Ringel, F. A., et al. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-67013-w · Cited by 4
“The age‑adjusted NIH toolbox picture sequence memory test (PSMT) 49 This test is a measure for non-verbal episodic memory that has been validated for ages between 3 and 85 years.”
BackgroundMethodZhou, Q., Zhao, X., Chen, J., Yang, A., Zhao, X., & Li, X. (2024) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2024.116183 · Cited by 5
LEAP! Rx: A randomized trial of a pragmatic approach to lifestyle medicine
Watts, A. S., Szabo‐Reed, A. N., Baker, J., Morris, J. K., Vacek, J. L., Clutton, J. E., Mahnken, J. D., Key, M. N., Vidoni, E. D., & Burns, J. M. (2024) · Alzheimer s & Dementia · doi:10.1002/alz.14265 · Cited by 4
Gimbel, B. A., Roediger, D. J., Anthony, M. E., Ernst, A. M., Tuominen, K. A., Mueller, B. A., de Water, E., Rockhold, M. N., & Wozniak, J. R. (2024) · NeuroImage Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2024.103722 · Cited by 5
TractShapeNet: Efficient Multi-Shape Learning with 3D Tractography Point Clouds
Lo, Y., Chen, Y., Liu, D., et al. (2025) · IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) · doi:10.1109/isbi60581.2025.10981095 · Cited by 4
“Although TractShapeNet is slightly less efficient than Tract-GeoNet, it offers a tradeoff with improved performance across all shape measures.”
Zhang, T., Zhao, X., Yeo, B. T. T., Huo, X., Eickhoff, S. B., & Ji, C. (2026) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbaf218 · Cited by 5
What do neuroanatomical networks reveal about the ontology of human cognitive abilities?
Kristanto, D., Liu, X., Sommer, W., Hildebrandt, A., & Zhou, C. (2022) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2022.104706 · Cited by 5
“The indicators obtained in the tasks Gf1, Gf2, Gf3, Gc1, Gc2, Gm1, and Gm2 were performance accuracies (Weintraub et al., 2013), whereas in the tasks EF1, EF2, EF3, EF4, Gs1, Gs2, Gs3, and Gs4 we used inverted reaction times of correct responses, indicating the number of trials correctly solved per…”
MethodStewart, H. J., Cash, E. K., Pinkl, J., et al. (2022) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000001230 · Cited by 4
Kuzmuk, L. E., Rebchuk, A. D., Deptuck, H. M., Cairncross, M., Silverberg, N. D., & Field, T. S. (2022) · Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · doi:10.1017/cjn.2022.273 · Cited by 5
Fox‐Fuller, J. T., Martinez, J. E., Baena, A. Y., Londono, N., Munera, D., Noriega-Makarskyy, D. T., Vila‐Castelar, C., Aduen, P. A., Lopera, F. J., Cronin‐Golomb, A., et al. (2023) · The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease · doi:10.14283/jpad.2023.14 · Cited by 4
Cognitive functioning in children with atopic dermatitis: Pilot observations
Yu, K., Seegan, P. L., Lattanzio, K., Chang, H. L., & Wan, J. (2023) · Pediatric Dermatology · doi:10.1111/pde.15287 · Cited by 4
Guareña, L. A., Kamalyan, L., Watson, C. W., Karcher, K., Umlauf, A., Morgan, E. E., Moore, D. J., Ellis, R. J., Grant, I., Cherner, M., et al. (2023) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617723000188 · Cited by 4
Self-citationExecutive Function in Children and Adolescents: A Concept in Need of Clarity
England-Mason, G., & Dewey, D. (2023) · Autism and child psychopathology series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-24926-6_13 · Cited by 6
Mollusky, A., Reynolds-Lallement, N. C., Lee, D., Zhong, J. Y., & Magnusson, K. R. (2023) · Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics · doi:10.1016/j.archger.2023.105156 · Cited by 4
Mala, J., McGarry, J. E., Riley, K. E., Lee, E. C., & DiStefano, L. J. (2020) · Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1123/jsep.2019-0111 · Cited by 7
Jusko, M. L., Raiker, J. S., Campez, M., Smith, J. N., Fosco, W. D., Horta, L., Little, K., Espinal, K., Sánchez, G. G., Mattfeld, A. T., et al. (2021) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2021.1876014 · Cited by 4
“Partial scoring methods employed in past work have yielded similar results when evaluating neurocognitive abilities of youth with ADHD (Tarle et al., 2017; Wells et al., 2018).”
ResultColbert, S. M. C., Keller, M. C., Arpana Agrawal, A., & Johnson, E. C. (2022) · Behavior Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10519-022-10113-y · Cited by 4
“Although EA is a multi-faceted construct, there is substantial evidence for a strong correlation between educational achievement and cognitive ability (Deary et al., 2007; Kaufman et al., 2009; Lynn & Meisenberg, 2010; Strenze, 2007), and previous studies have identified significant associations between FROH and cogni…”
MethodHayakawa, S. L., Shook, A., & Marian, V. (2020) · International Journal of Bilingualism · doi:10.1177/1367006920915277 · Cited by 4
Executive Function, Dexterity, and Discharge Disposition in Older Intensive Care Unit Survivors
Elias, M. N., Munro, C. L., & Liang, Z. (2020) · American Journal of Critical Care · doi:10.4037/ajcc2020132 · Cited by 4
Short-Term Pediatric Acclimatization to Adaptive Hearing Aid Technology
Pinkl, J., Cash, E. K., Evans, T. C., et al. (2020) · American Journal of Audiology · doi:10.1044/2020_aja-20-00073 · Cited by 4
Evidence of the validity of a novel version of the computerized cognitive screening battery CompCog
Hartle, L., Mendes-Santos, L. C., Barbosa, E. N. B. E., Balboni, G., & Charchat‐Fichman, H. (2021) · Dementia & Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1590/1980-57642021dn15-040010 · Cited by 4
McClelland, M. M., Ahmadi, A., & Wanless, S. B. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-91497-0.00042-4 · Cited by 4
Decreased cerebral blood flow in non-hospitalized adults who self-isolated due to COVID-19Preprint
Kim, W. S. H., Ji, X., Roudaia, E., Chen, J. J., Gilboa, A., Sekuler, A. B., Gao, F., Lin, Z., Jegatheesan, A., Masellis, M., et al. (2022) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2022.05.04.22274208 · Cited by 4
The Lifespan Trajectories of Brain Activities Related to Cognitive ControlPreprint
Li, Z., Petersen, I. T., Wang, L., Raduà, J., Yang, G., & Liu, X. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.08.20.554018 · Cited by 4
Göke, K., McClintock, S. M., Mah, L., Rajji, T. K., Lee, H. H., Nestor, S. M., Downar, J., Noda, Y., Daskalakis, Z. J., Mulsant, B. H., et al. (2026) · The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/07067437251315515 · Cited by 4
Trapp, N. T., Muller Ewald, V. A., Pace, B. D., Wendt, L., Garrett, L., Penaluna, B., Miller, J., Purgianto, A., van der Plas, E., Magnotta, V. A., et al. (2025) · Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation · doi:10.1016/j.transm.2024.100082 · Cited by 3
“Cognitive performance was assessed via the NIH cognitive toolbox (RJ et al., 2013; Weintraub et al., 2013 Secondary mood outcomes included the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI) (Guy, 2000), the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) (Kroenke & Spitzer, 2002), and the Young Mania Rating Scale…”
Salmoirago‐Blotcher, E., Walaska, K., Trivedi, D., DUNSIGER, S. I., Breault, C., LEVINE, D. J., Wu, J. R., & Cohen, R. (2022) · The Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · doi:10.1097/jcn.0000000000000891 · Cited by 8
Li, H., Cieslak, M., Salo, T., Shinohara, R. T., Oathes, D. J., Davatzikos, C. A., Satterthwaite, T. D., & Yong Fan, A. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2505600122 · Cited by 3
“We validated our method using FC data from 6,798 participants in the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development (ABCD) study for predicting cognition.”
Zheng, J., Berg, E., Byrne, M. L., & Rakesh, D. (2025) · Journal of Adolescence · doi:10.1002/jad.70069 · Cited by 3
“It has been shown to have strong reliability and validity in adolescent samples (Mungas et al. 2013; Weintraub et al. 2013).”
Battista, A. P. D., Rhind, S. G., Tenn, C. C., Nakashima, A., Lam, T. K., Shiu, M. Y., King, K. A., Ouellet, S., & Vartanian, O. A. (2025) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617725101495 · Cited by 6
“…the effects of PTSD, depression and number of TBIs (ranging from 0 to 3 þ ) on neurocognitive function as measured by the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery – a brief iPad-based assessment of cognitive domains deemed most relevant to daily functioning (Heaton et al., 2014; Weintraub et al., 2013).”
Norming of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery Version 3
Ho, E., Han, Y. C., LaForte, E. M., Kaat, A. J., Dworak, E. M., Ece, B., Yao, L., Olsen, J. B., & Gershon, R. C. (2025) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/10731911251386277 · Cited by 2
“…Change Card Sort (DCCS), Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention (Flanker), List Sorting Working Memory (LSWM), Oral Reading Recognition (ORR), Picture Sequence Memory (PSM), Picture Vocabulary (PV), and Pattern Comparison Processing Speed (PC); further details provided by Weintraub et al., 2013.”
Self-citationManippa, V., Scaramuzzi, G. F., Scianatico, G., Taurisano, P., & Rivolta, D. (2025) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2025.2592647 · Cited by 4
Lopresti, A. L., & Smith, S. J. (2026) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2025.1729164 · Cited by 3
A cross-continental comparative analysis of the neurological manifestations of Long COVID
Jimenez, M., Lopez, M., Miller, J. L., Okubadejo, N. U., Hurtado, C., Singh, A. K., Ojo, O. O., Rojas‐Gualdrón, D. F., Akase, I. E., Agabi, O. P., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2025.1760173 · Cited by 3
Gigliotti, H. M., Hodgson, C., Riley, M. C., Marshall, B., Ward‐Ritacco, C. L., Martin, J. R., & Boolani, A. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13074241 · Cited by 4
Connecting memory and functional brain networks in older adults: a resting-state fMRI study
Waner, J. L., Hausman, H. K., Kraft, J. N., Hardcastle, C., Evangelista, N. D., O’Shea, A. M., Albizu, A., Boutzoukas, E. M., Etten, E. J. V., Bharadwaj, P. K., et al. (2023) · GeroScience · doi:10.1007/s11357-023-00967-3 · Cited by 4
“These findings also reinforce prior literature that used a subset of data from the same trial and found that greater CON connectivity was associated with better verbal and nonverbal memory performance on sub-tasks of the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery [48, 49, 70].”
Result
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
