ArticleJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS2026
Generational differences in clock drawing test performance.
Article in Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveThe clock drawing test is widely used in clinical neurological and neuropsychological assessment. We hypothesized that younger adults would have greater problems with clock drawing than older adults, perhaps due to decreasing analog clock use.
methodsCross-sectional study analyzing clock drawing performance and cognitive function across four generations (Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Baby Boomers). Participants included 92 adults divided into two generations (63 younger [18-42 years old] and 29 older [43-77 years old]) assessed between October 2022 and December 2024. Participants were screened to exclude conditions affecting cognition. The primary outcome was performance errors in clock drawing (e.g., writing "11:10" instead of drawing an analog clock, or placing hands incorrectly), assessed using standardized criteria. Cognitive function was assessed using eight computerized tests (CogState) measuring processing speed, attention, executive function, visuospatial memory, and verbal memory. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) validated three cognitive domain composites: Speed/Attention, Executive/Spatial, and Verbal Memory.
resultsPerformance errors were significantly more prevalent among younger participants compared with older participants (
conclusionsYounger adults demonstrate significantly higher rates of clock drawing errors compared with older adults, independent of cognitive performance. These findings suggest a need for generation-specific or age adjusted norms in clock drawing test interpretation.
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.