Cited by 13Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchCognitive Abilities and TestingHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Improving the methodology for identifying mild cognitive impairment in intellectually high-functioning adults using the NIH toolbox cognition battery

Open access
Iverson, Grant L., Karr, Justin E.·2021·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Objective: Low scores on neuropsychological tests are considered objective evidence of mild cognitive impairment. In clinical practice and research, it can be challenging to identify a cognitive deficit or mild cognitive impairment in high-functioning people because they are much less likely to obtain low test scores. This study was designed to improve the methodology for identifying mild cognitive impairment in adults who have above average or superior intellectual abilities. Method: Participants completed the National Institutes of Health Toolbox for the Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB). The sample included 384 adults between the ages of 20 and 85 who had completed either a 4-year college degree or who scored in the above average, superior, or very superior range on a measure of intellectual functioning, the Crystallized Composite score. Algorithms were developed, based on the absence of high scores and the presence of low scores, for identifying mild cognitive impairment. Results: Base rate tables for the presence of low scores and the absence of high scores are provided. The base rate for people with high average crystalized ability obtaining any one of the following, 5 scores <63rd percentile, or 4+ scores <50th percentile, or 3+ scores ≤ 25th percentile, or 2+ scores ≤ 16th percentile, is 15.5%. Conclusions: Algorithms were developed for identifying cognitive weakness or impairment in high-functioning people. Research is needed to test them in clinical groups, and to assess their association with clinical risk factors for cognitive decline and biomarkers of acquired neurological or neurodegenerative diseases.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.724888

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Reitan R. M. Wolfson D. (1993). The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery: Theory and Clinical Interpretation, 2nd Edn. Tucson, AZ: Neuropsychology Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Iverson, G. L., & Karr, J. E.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Kentucky (US)
Corresponding author
Iverson, Grant L.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2021-09-08
Volume
12
Pages
724888-724888
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3197444602
Cited by
13
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3
FWCI
1.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UKnowledge (University of Kentucky) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Spaulding Research Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
mild cognitive impairment, high-functioning adults, NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery, cognitive screening, identification algorithm, crystallized intelligence, base rates, cognitive decline, neurodegenerative diseases, neuropsychological assessment

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.

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