Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29265866›Full record

ArticleRehabilitation psychology2017

Test accommodations for individuals with neurological conditions completing the NIH Toolbox-Cognition Battery: An evaluation of frequency and appropriateness.

Susan Magasi, Mark Harniss, David S Tulsky, Matthew L Cohen, Robert K Heaton, Allen W Heinemann

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Rehabilitation psychology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Assessment of language impairment and function.Handbook of clinical neurology · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Susan MagasiDepartments of Occupational Therapy and Disability Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Mark HarnissDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington.
David S TulskyCenter on Assessment Research and Translation, University of Delaware.
Matthew L CohenDepartment of Communication Sciences, University of Delaware.ORCID 0000-0001-9609-2461
Robert K HeatonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego.
Allen W HeinemannDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University, and the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab.
Center for Assessment · USShirley Ryan AbilityLab · USUniversity of Delaware · USUniversity of Illinois Chicago · USUniversity of San Diego · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Subproject Title: Clinical Research Education, Mentoring and Career Development CoreU54GM104941 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE · PI Gregory E Hicks · 2013 to 2026
$60.5M
STRUCTURAL NEUROIMAGING COREP30MH062512 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI DAVID J MOORE · 2001 to 2026
$50.4M
ACL HHS 90RT5008Craig H. Neilsen FoundationNational Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Research RehabilitationNIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104941NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH062512
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesFirst, to evaluate the frequency with which individuals with neurological conditions require test administration accommodations for the NIH Toolbox-Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB). Second, to evaluate the appropriateness of accommodations provided by administrators, including adherence to NIHTB-CB Reasonable Accommodations Guidelines.

methodAdults with traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, or stroke (n = 604) completed the NIHTB-CB and other assessments as part of a multisite study. We provide a descriptive, secondary analysis of test administrator notes to determine use and appropriateness of accommodations.

resultsOf the 604 participants, 450 (75%) completed the NIHTB-CB using standard administration procedures, but 137 (22.6%) encountered accessibility challenges that required accommodations. Participants with motor function impairments were most likely to receive at least 1 of 3 kinds of accommodations: (a) use of nonstandard methods of entering responses using standard input devices, (b) use of alternate input devices, or (c) help from the test administrator to enter a response. Fatigue and/or impulsivity led to nonstandard administration by 48 (7.9%) individuals. Post hoc audit of test administrator notes revealed that despite careful instructions and supervision, 49 (56.3%) of the accommodated administrations breached standardization and scores could not be interpreted using test norms.

conclusionAlthough the NIHTB-CB was developed for individuals without neurological impairment, most individuals with neurological conditions completed the standardized administration without accommodations. When accommodations were needed, administrators did not adhere to the official Reasonable Accommodations Guidelines in more than half of the cases. (PsycINFO Database Record

Indexed as

AdultBrain Injuries, TraumaticCognition DisordersCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)Neuropsychological TestsReproducibility of ResultsSpinal Cord InjuriesStrokeUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29265866
PMCPMC5885769
OpenAlexW2779804521

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.