Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29483786›Full record

ArticlePsychology research and behavior management2018

Reliability and validity of the revised Gibson Test of Cognitive Skills, a computer-based test battery for assessing cognition across the lifespan.

Amy Lawson Moore, Terissa M Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychology research and behavior management, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Amy Lawson MooreGibson Institute of Cognitive Research, Colorado Springs, CO, USA.
Terissa M MillerGibson Institute of Cognitive Research, Colorado Springs, CO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of the current study is to evaluate the validity and reliability of the revised Gibson Test of Cognitive Skills, a computer-based battery of tests measuring short-term memory, long-term memory, processing speed, logic and reasoning, visual processing, as well as auditory processing and word attack skills.

methodsThis study included 2,737 participants aged 5-85 years. A series of studies was conducted to examine the validity and reliability using the test performance of the entire norming group and several subgroups. The evaluation of the technical properties of the test battery included content validation by subject matter experts, item analysis and coefficient alpha, test-retest reliability, split-half reliability, and analysis of concurrent validity with the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Tests of Achievement.

resultsResults indicated strong sources of evidence of validity and reliability for the test, including internal consistency reliability coefficients ranging from 0.87 to 0.98, test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from 0.69 to 0.91, split-half reliability coefficients ranging from 0.87 to 0.91, and concurrent validity coefficients ranging from 0.53 to 0.93.

conclusionThe Gibson Test of Cognitive Skills-2 is a reliable and valid tool for assessing cognition in the general population across the lifespan.

Indexed as

auditory processingcognitive skillsmemoryprocessing speedtestingvisual processing

Identifiers

PMID29483786
PMCPMC5813948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.