4.2 Article

NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): Validation of Executive Function Measures in Adults

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1355617714000472

关键词

Cognitive control; Cognitive flexibility; Inhibitory control; Lifespan development; Standardized testing; Validation

资金

  1. Blueprint for Neuroscience Research, National Institutes of Health [HHS-N-260-2006-00007-C]
  2. Canadian Institute for Health Research [201963]
  3. NIDDK/NICHD [1699-662-6312]
  4. Character Lab
  5. NIH/NCRR [UL1RR025761]
  6. NIH [N01-AG-6-0007, 1U5AR057943-01, HHSN260200600007, 1U01DK082342-01, AG-260-06-01, HD05469, R01DC008552, P30AG013854]
  7. NINDS [U01 NS 056 975 02]
  8. NHLBI K23 [K23HL085766 NIA, 1RC2AG036498-01]
  9. NIDRR [H133B090024]
  10. OppNet [N01-AG-6-0007]
  11. Ken and Ruth Davee Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study describes psychometric properties of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) executive function measures in an adult sample. The NIHTB-CB was designed for use in epidemiologic studies and clinical trials for ages 3 to 85. A total of 268 self-described healthy adults were recruited at four university-based sites, using stratified sampling guidelines to target demographic variability for age (20-85 years), gender, education and ethnicity. The NIHTB-CB contains two computer-based instruments assessing executive function: the Dimensional Change Card Sort (a measure of cognitive flexibility) and a flanker task (a measure of inhibitory control and selective attention). Participants completed the NIHTB-CB, corresponding gold standard convergent and discriminant measures, and sociodemographic questionnaires. A subset of participants (N = 89) was retested 7 to 21 days later. Results reveal excellent sensitivity to age-related changes during adulthood, excellent test-retest reliability, and adequate to good convergent and discriminant validity. The NIH Toolbox EF measures can be used effectively in epidemiologic and clinical studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据