Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35482626›Full record

ArticleNeuropsychology2022

Construct validity of the NIH toolbox cognitive domains: A comparison with conventional neuropsychological assessments.

Lauren R Ott, Mikki Schantell, Madelyn P Willett, Hallie J Johnson, Jacob A Eastman, Hannah J Okelberry, Tony W Wilson, Brittany K Taylor, Pamela E May

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuropsychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Accuracy of Reaction Time Measurement on Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metric UltraMobile.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2025
    Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Lauren R OttInstitute for Human Neuroscience.
Mikki SchantellInstitute for Human Neuroscience.ORCID 0000-0002-2972-1368
Madelyn P WillettInstitute for Human Neuroscience.
Hallie J JohnsonInstitute for Human Neuroscience.
Jacob A EastmanInstitute for Human Neuroscience.
Hannah J OkelberryInstitute for Human Neuroscience.
Tony W WilsonInstitute for Human Neuroscience.
Brittany K TaylorInstitute for Human Neuroscience.
Pamela E MayCollege of Medicine.

Funding

Therapeutics Core (Page 286)P30MH062261 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER · PI BUCH, SHILPA J., FOX, HOWARD S · 2000 to 2021
$37.7M
Stress-Induced Aberrations in the Mitochondrial Redox Environment Impact Developing Neural Circuits Supporting Cognitive ControlP20GM144641 · NIGMS · FATHER FLANAGAN'S BOYS' HOME · PI Rachel K. Spooner · 2022 to 2026
$15.1M
MULTIMODAL IMAGING OF NEUROHIV DYNAMICS (MIND): AN OMAHA-PITTSBURGH CONSORTIUMR01MH118013 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER · PI WILSON, TONY W · 2018 to 2022
$4.9M
SIGNATURES OF CANNABIS ABUSE IN NEUROHIV (SCAN): AN INTEGRATED MOLECULAR AND IMAGING APPROACHR01DA047828 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER · PI BECKER, JAMES T., FOX, HOWARD S · 2018 to 2022
$4.5M
THE PROGRESSIVE ELEVATION OF SPONTANEOUS CORTICAL ACTIVITY IN HAND (PESCAH) PROJECTR01MH116782 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER · PI WILSON, TONY W · 2018 to 2022
$3.4M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA047828NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM144641NIH HHSNIMH NIH HHS P30 MH062261NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH116782NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH118013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePrevious studies have assessed the construct validity of individual subtests in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB), though none have examined the construct validity of the cognitive domains. Importantly, the original NIHTB-CB validation studies were administered on a desktop computer, though the NIHTB-CB is now solely administered via an iPad. We examined the construct validity of each cognitive domain assessed in the NIHTB-CB, including a motor dexterity domain using the iPad application compared to a neuropsychological battery in a sample of healthy adults.

methodEighty-three adults aged 20-66 years (

resultsWe found the

conclusionThe NIHTB-CB cognitive domains have poor-to-good construct validity, thus researchers should be aware that some tests representing cognitive constructs may not fully reflect the cognitive domain of interest. Future investigation of the construct validity and reliability of the NIHTB-CB administered using the iPad is recommended. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

Cognition DisordersNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)AdultCognitionHumansNeuropsychological TestsReproducibility of ResultsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35482626
PMCPMC10468104

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.