Updated Australian category norms for neuropsychological and cognitive testing.

Lidan Zheng, Brooke Brady, Ranmalee Eramudugolla, Kaarin J Anstey

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Australian journal of psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Lidan ZhengSchool of Psychology, The University of New South Wales Sydney, Kensington, NSW, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8639-4279

Brooke BradySchool of Psychology, The University of New South Wales Sydney, Kensington, NSW, Australia.

Ranmalee EramudugollaSchool of Psychology, The University of New South Wales Sydney, Kensington, NSW, Australia.

Kaarin J AnsteySchool of Psychology, The University of New South Wales Sydney, Kensington, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Category norms are lists of words commonly generated as belonging to given semantic categories and are routinely used in cognitive and neuropsychological assessments. While English-language norms from the US and UK are regularly updated, the only Australian norms were published more than three decades ago in 1988. This study aimed to update Australian category norms to facilitate culturally appropriate cognitive and neuropsychological assessment. Methods: Australian adults aged 18 to 85 years ( Results: The members for each category occurring with a greater than 5% frequency are reported. Analyses showed that norms for Precious Stones were robust across time and region, while norms for Clothing and Birds were vulnerable to temporal and geographical shifts, respectively. Conclusions: These findings provide updated, context-relevant norms to inform both clinical and research-related neuropsychological and cognitive testing in Australia. They also demonstrate temporal, cultural and geographical variations in category norms.

Indexed as

category normscategory productionlexical frequencysemantic fluencysemantic typicalityWord list

Identifiers

PMID41536572

DOI10.1080/00049530.2025.2607180

PMCPMC12798662

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.