ArticleRehabilitation psychology2017
Test accommodations for individuals with neurological conditions completing the NIH Toolbox-Cognition Battery: An evaluation of frequency and appropriateness.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving current understanding of cognitive impairment in patients with a spinal cord injury: A UK-based clinician survey.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Article
- Uses of the NIH Toolbox® in Clinical Samples: A Scoping Review.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2022Article
- Assessment of language impairment and function.Handbook of clinical neurology · 2022Review
- A novel measure of matching categories for early development: Item creation and pilot feasibility study.Research in developmental disabilities · 2021Article
- Motor demands of cognitive testing may artificially reduce executive function scores in individuals with spinal cord injury.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2021Article
- Accessibility Considerations in the National Children's Study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
- The clinical utility and construct validity of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) in individuals with disabilities.Rehabilitation psychology · 2017Article
- Using the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) in individuals with traumatic brain injury.Rehabilitation psychology · 2017Article
- Cognition among community-dwelling individuals with spinal cord injury.Rehabilitation psychology · 2017Article
- Motor-free composites from the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) for people with disabilities.Rehabilitation psychology · 2017Article
- Prerequisite Skills in Cognitive Testing: Innovations in theory and recommendations for practice.Cognitive developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.