Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19452302›Full record

ArticleThe Clinical neuropsychologist2009

Reliability concerns in the repeated computerized assessment of attention in children.

T Andrew Zabel, Christian von Thomsen, Carolyn Cole, Rebecca Martin, E Mark Mahone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Clinical neuropsychologist, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The Arizona Cognitive Test Battery for Down Syndrome: Test-Retest Reliability and Practice Effects.American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities · 2017
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Evidence-based indicators of neuropsychological change in the individual patient: relevant concepts and methods.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2012
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

T Andrew ZabelKennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA. zabela@kennedykrieger.org
Christian von Thomsen
Carolyn Cole
Rebecca Martin
E Mark Mahone

Funding

NICHD MENTAL RETARDATION RESEARCH CENTER CORE GRANTP30HD024061 · NICHD · KENNEDY KRIEGER CHILDRENS HOSPITAL · PI JOHNSTON, MICHAEL VAN DOREN · 1988 to 2013
$15.8M
Metabolic effects of brain radiation in childrenR01NS042851 · NINDS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI HORSKA, ALENA · 2003 to 2006
$1.3M
NICHD NIH HHS HD-24061NICHD NIH HHS P30 HD024061NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS04285NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS042851
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessment of attentional processes via computerized assessment is frequently used to quantify intra-individual cognitive improvement or decline in response to treatment. However, assessment of intra-individual change is highly dependent on sufficient test reliability. We examined the test-retest reliability of selected variables from one popular computerized continuous performance test (CPT)-i.e., the Conners' CPT - Second Edition (CPT-II). Participants were 39 healthy children (20 girls) ages 6-18 without intellectual impairment (mean PPVT-III SS = 102.6), LD, or psychiatric disorders (DICA-IV). Test-retest reliability over the 3-8 month interval (mean = 6 months) was acceptable (Intraclass Correlations [ICC] =.82 to.92) on comparison measures (Beery Test of Visual Perception, WISC-IV Block Design, PPVT-III). In contrast, test-retest reliability was only modest for CPT-II raw scores (ICCs ranging from.62 to.82) and T-scores (ICCs ranging from.33 to.65) for variables of interest (Omissions, Commissions, Variability, Hit Reaction Time, and Attentiveness). Using test-retest reliability information published in the CPT-II manual, 90% confidence intervals based on reliable change index (RCI) methodology were constructed to examine the significance of test-retest difference/change scores. Of the participants in this sample of typically developing youth, 30% generated intra-individual changes in T-scores on the Omissions and Attentiveness variables that exceeded the 90% confidence intervals and qualified as "statistically rare" changes in score. These results suggest a considerable degree of normal variability in CPT-II test scores over extended test-retest intervals, and suggest a need for caution when interpreting test score changes in neurologically unstable clinical populations.

Indexed as

AttentionAdolescentAdolescent DevelopmentChildChild DevelopmentDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersFemaleHumansMaleNeuropsychological TestsPatient SelectionReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID19452302
PMCPMC2899676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.