ArticlePsychological assessment2024
A comparison of scoring algorithms for the NIH Toolbox executive function tasks in a U.S. norming sample.
Article in Psychological assessment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations between objectively measured physical activity intensities and executive function in preschool children: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Norming of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery Version 3.Assessment · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Executive function (EF) has been extensively linked to various behavioral, clinical, and educational outcomes. There have been, however, few systematic investigations into how best to score EF tasks using speed and accuracy performance, particularly how to generate a summary and norm-referenced score. Using data from an updated norming study for the NIH Toolbox Version 3 (NIHTB V3) with the general U.S. population aged between 3 and 85 (N = 3,794; 52.3% female; Mage = 25.06, SDage = 22.92), we empirically evaluated and compared several scoring algorithms for two EF tests: The Dimensional Change Card Sort (a test of cognitive flexibility) and Flanker (a test of inhibitory control) Tests. Results showed that joint scoring algorithms integrating speed and accuracy into single scores (namely, rate-correct score, linear integrated speed-accuracy score, and speed-accuracy additive score) provided more robust psychometric evidence for the EF tests than single-index scores of accuracy and speed. These integrated speed-accuracy scores were consistent and stable within and across tasks and time; similar to that of another well-validated EF measure, but as predicted, not related to a crystallized intelligence measure score; and increased rapidly from early childhood through late adolescence/early adulthood and then declined toward late adulthood. The rate-correct score was particularly free from ceiling effects and sensitive to age-related changes and variability in EF performance. Among various scoring algorithms, we recommend rate-correct score, which served as the basis for generating new NIHTB V3 norm-referenced scores, with good test-retest reliability (Dimensional Change Card Sort = .77, Flanker = .81) and acceptable convergent and discriminant validity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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.