4.2 Article

Demographically Corrected Normative Standards for the English Version of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery

Journal

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1355617715000351

Keywords

Neuropsychological test; Norms; Psychometrics; Assessment; Cross-cultural; Cognition

Funding

  1. Blueprint for Neuroscience Research
  2. Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Institutes of Health [HHS-N-260-2006-00007-C]
  3. National Institute for Health [F31-DA035708]
  4. Foundation for Rehabilitation Psychology Dissertation Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Demographic factors impact neuropsychological test performances and accounting for them may help to better elucidate current brain functioning. The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) is a novel neuropsychological tool, yet the original norms developed for the battery did not adequately account for important demographic/cultural factors known to impact test performances. We developed norms fully adjusting for all demographic variables within each language group (English and Spanish) separately. The current study describes the standards for individuals tested in English. Neurologically healthy adults (n=1038) and children (n=2917) who completed the NIH Toolbox norming project in English were included. We created uncorrected scores weighted to the 2010 Census demographics, and applied polynomial regression models to develop age-corrected and fully demographically adjusted (age, education, sex, race/ethnicity) scores for each NIHTB-CB test and composite (i.e., Fluid, Crystallized, and Total Composites). On uncorrected NIHTB-CB scores, age and education demonstrated significant, medium-to-large associations, while sex showed smaller, but statistically significant effects. In terms of race/ethnicity, a significant stair-step effect on uncorrected NIHTB-CB scores was observed (African American

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