ArticleRehabilitation psychology2017
Motor-free composites from the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) for people with disabilities.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uses of the NIH Toolbox® in Clinical Samples: A Scoping Review.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2022Article
- Motor demands of cognitive testing may artificially reduce executive function scores in individuals with spinal cord injury.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2021Article
- Multidimensional review of cognitive impairment after spinal cord injury.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2021Review
- Rey Tangled Line Test: A measure of processing speed in TBI.Rehabilitation psychology · 2019Article
- The clinical utility and construct validity of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) in individuals with disabilities.Rehabilitation psychology · 2017Article
- Test accommodations for individuals with neurological conditions completing the NIH Toolbox-Cognition Battery: An evaluation of frequency and appropriateness.Rehabilitation psychology · 2017Article
- Automated procedure for demographic adjustments on cognitive test scores.Applied neuropsychology. AdultArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.