ReviewJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2026
Evaluating Scoring Mechanisms for Measuring the Stroop Effect in Individuals With Down Syndrome.
Review in Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Cat/Dog Stroop task is a modification of the original Stroop task as a measure of cognitive inhibition frequently used in studies of individuals with Down syndrome (DS). There is great heterogeneity in scoring mechanisms for this task and similar Stroop tasks, potentially impacting convergence of and interpretation of study findings. We review scoring mechanisms used with the Stroop task in the general population and those that are used among individuals with DS to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these scoring mechanisms in this population.
methodWe reviewed the literature to identify current scoring mechanisms used for the original Stroop task and for the Cat/Dog Stroop task among individuals with DS. Using a sample of 146 children and adults with DS ages 6-29 years who completed the Cat/Dog Stroop, we independently modelled the identified scoring mechanisms. Scoring mechanisms were assessed for skew, kurtosis and normality as assessed through the Anderson-Darling test with the full sample and by age bands.
resultsEight distinct scoring mechanisms were identified that could be used with the conditions present in the Cat/Dog Stroop task. Six of these eight scoring mechanisms had been used in studies of individuals with DS, with the remaining two mechanisms not yet applied to Cat/Dog Stroop in individuals with DS. Of these scoring mechanisms, one mechanism consistently emerged across stratified age groups as approximating normality for the Cat/Dog Stroop task based on skewness, kurtosis and tests of normality in a sample of individuals with DS. DISCUSSION: For consistency in how the Cat/Dog Stroop task is scored for children and adults with DS, we recommend that the number of correct responses in the incongruent condition should be divided by completion time in the incongruent condition. Additionally, for adults, incongruent completion time minus the congruent completion time or incongruent completion time divided by congruent completion time may also be appropriate.
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.