4.2 Article

NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery (NIHTB-CB): The NIHTB Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test

Journal

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1355617714000319

Keywords

NIHTB; Processing speed; Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test; Cognition; Neuropsychological assessment; Mental processes; Outcomes assessment (health care)

Funding

  1. Blueprint for Neuroscience Research, National Institutes of Health [HHS-N-260-2006-00007-C]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The NIH Toolbox (NIHTB) Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test was developed to assess processing speed within the NIHTB for the Assessment of Neurological Behavior and Function Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB). This study highlights validation data collected in adults ages 18-85 on this measure and reports descriptive data, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and preliminary work creating a composite index of processing speed. Results indicated good test-retest reliability. There was also evidence for both convergent and discriminant validity; the Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test demonstrated moderate significant correlations with other processing speed tests (i.e., WAIS-IV Coding, Symbol Search and Processing Speed Index), small significant correlations with measures of working memory (i.e., WAIS-IV Letter-Number Sequencing and PASAT), and non-significant correlations with a test of vocabulary comprehension (i.e., PPVT-IV). Finally, analyses comparing and combining scores on the NIHTB Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test with other measures of simple reaction time from the NIHTB-CB indicated that a Processing Speed Composite score performed better than any test examined in isolation. The NIHTB Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test exhibits several strengths: it is appropriate for use across the lifespan (ages, 3-85 years), it is short and easy to administer, and it has high construct validity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available