Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29265867›Full record

ArticleRehabilitation psychology2017

Motor-free composites from the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) for people with disabilities.

Noelle E Carlozzi, Siera Goodnight, Anya Umlauf, Robert K Heaton, Allen W Heinemann, Benjamin D Schalet, Richard C Gershon, David S Tulsky

Abstract read
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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Noelle E CarlozziDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan.
Siera GoodnightDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan.
Anya UmlaufDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego.
Robert K HeatonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego.
Allen W HeinemannShirley Ryan AbilityLab.
Benjamin D SchaletDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University.
Richard C GershonDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University.
David S TulskyCenter for Health Assessment Research and Translation, University of Delaware.

Funding

STRUCTURAL NEUROIMAGING COREP30MH062512 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI DAVID J MOORE · 2001 to 2026
$50.4M
Blueprint for Neuroscience Research; National Institutes of HealthNational Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Research RehabilitationNIMH NIH HHS P30 MH062512
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PURPOSE/

objectiveThe National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) includes a group of brief measures (i.e., 30 min) designed to assess language, processing speed, working memory, episodic memory, and executive functioning. These subtests can be combined to create composite scores that reflect fluid and crystallized cognition, as well as overall cognition. The battery is of limited utility with individuals who have impaired upper extremity motor functioning. This manuscript examines the accuracy of the Oral Symbol Digit Modalities Test as a substitute for the Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test for computing motor-free composite scores. Research Method/Design: Individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI; n = 188), traumatic brain injury (TBI; n = 159), or stroke (n = 180) completed the NIHTB-CB. We used the Oral Symbol Digit Modalities Test to create a Motor-Free Pattern Comparison score; this was used to create revised, Motor-Free Composite scores for Fluid Cognition and Overall Cognition.

resultsAlthough there were statistically significant overall differences between the two Fluid and Overall Cognition composite scores for some of the clinical groups (scores based on the motor-free approach were significantly higher than the original score), these differences were small and partly because of overclassification of impaired processing speed in participants with motor impairment. There was good to substantial agreement with regard to "impairment" classification between the two sets of Original and Motor-Free composite scores. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Although the Motor-Free scores are not a perfect match for the Original Composite scores, they provide a reliable and valid way to examine overall and fluid cognition in individuals with upper extremity motor impairments. (PsycINFO Database Record

Indexed as

AdultBrain DiseasesCognition DisordersFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMovement DisordersNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)Neuropsychological TestsPersons with DisabilitiesPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSpinal Cord InjuriesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29265867
PMCPMC6283101

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.