Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26713233›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2015

Reliability and validity of neurobehavioral function on the Psychology Experimental Building Language test battery in young adults.

Brian J Piper, Shane T Mueller, Alexander R Geerken, Kyle L Dixon, Gregory Kroliczak, Reid H J Olsen, Jeremy K Miller

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Effects of Acute Ashwagandha Ingestion on Cognitive Function.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Brian J PiperDepartment of Psychology, Willamette University , Salem, OR , United States ; Department of Psychology, Bowdoin College , Bowdoin, ME , United States ; Department of Behavioral Neuroscience, Oregon Health Sciences University , Portland, OR , United States.
Shane T MuellerDepartment of Cognitive and Learning Sciences, Michigan Technological University , Houghton, MI , United States.
Alexander R GeerkenDepartment of Psychology, Willamette University , Salem, OR , United States.
Kyle L DixonDepartment of Psychology, University of New Mexico , Albuquerque, NM , United States.
Gregory KroliczakAction and Cognition Laboratory, Department of Social Sciences, Institute of Psychology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan , Poznan , Poland.
Reid H J OlsenDepartment of Behavioral Neuroscience, Oregon Health Sciences University , Portland, OR , United States.
Jeremy K MillerDepartment of Psychology, Willamette University , Salem, OR , United States.
Willamette University · USAdam Mickiewicz University in Poznań · PLMichigan Technological University · USOregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of New Mexico · US

Funding

MODE OF ACTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICANTST32ES007060 · NIEHS · OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Jamie DeWitt, Siva Kumar Kolluri · 1985 to 2026
$11.6M
NIDA NIH HHS L30 DA027582NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES007060
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) software consists of over one-hundred computerized tests based on classic and novel cognitive neuropsychology and behavioral neurology measures. Although the PEBL tests are becoming more widely utilized, there is currently very limited information about the psychometric properties of these measures. Methods. Study I examined inter-relationships among nine PEBL tests including indices of motor-function (Pursuit Rotor and Dexterity), attention (Test of Attentional Vigilance and Time-Wall), working memory (Digit Span Forward), and executive-function (PEBL Trail Making Test, Berg/Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Iowa Gambling Test, and Mental Rotation) in a normative sample (N = 189, ages 18-22). Study II evaluated test-retest reliability with a two-week interest interval between administrations in a separate sample (N = 79, ages 18-22). Results. Moderate intra-test, but low inter-test, correlations were observed and ceiling/floor effects were uncommon. Sex differences were identified on the Pursuit Rotor (Cohen's d = 0.89) and Mental Rotation (d = 0.31) tests. The correlation between the test and retest was high for tests of motor learning (Pursuit Rotor time on target r = .86) and attention (Test of Attentional Vigilance response time r = .79), intermediate for memory (digit span r = .63) but lower for the executive function indices (Wisconsin/Berg Card Sorting Test perseverative errors = .45, Tower of London moves = .15). Significant practice effects were identified on several indices of executive function. Conclusions. These results are broadly supportive of the reliability and validity of individual PEBL tests in this sample. These findings indicate that the freely downloadable, open-source PEBL battery (http://pebl.sourceforge.net) is a versatile research tool to study individual differences in neurocognitive performance.

Indexed as

AttentionCognitionDecision makingExecutive functionHumanLearningMemoryMotorNeuropsychologySex differences

Identifiers

PMID26713233
PMCPMC4690381
OpenAlexW2199769736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.