↓ Skip to main content

The NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery for intellectual disabilities: three preliminary studies and future directions

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 514)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery for intellectual disabilities: three preliminary studies and future directions
Published in
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s11689-016-9167-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Hessl, Stephanie M. Sansone, Elizabeth Berry-Kravis, Karen Riley, Keith F. Widaman, Leonard Abbeduto, Andrea Schneider, Jeanine Coleman, Dena Oaklander, Kelly C. Rhodes, Richard C. Gershon

Abstract

Recent advances in understanding molecular and synaptic mechanisms of intellectual disabilities (ID) in fragile X syndrome (FXS) and Down syndrome (DS) through animal models have led to targeted controlled trials with pharmacological agents designed to normalize these underlying mechanisms and improve clinical outcomes. However, several human clinical trials have failed to demonstrate efficacy of these targeted treatments to improve surrogate behavioral endpoints. Because the ultimate index of disease modification in these disorders is amelioration of ID, the validation of cognitive measures for tracking treatment response is essential. Here, we present preliminary research to validate the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognitive Battery (NIH-TCB) for ID. We completed three pilot studies of patients with FXS (total n = 63; mean age 19.3 ± 8.3 years, mean mental age 5.3 ± 1.6 years), DS (n = 47; mean age 16.1 ± 6.2, mean mental age 5.4 ± 2.0), and idiopathic ID (IID; n = 16; mean age 16.1 ± 5.0, mean mental age 6.6 ± 2.3) measuring processing speed, executive function, episodic memory, word/letter reading, receptive vocabulary, and working memory using the web-based NIH-TB-CB, addressing feasibility, test-retest reliability, construct validity, ecological validity, and syndrome differences and profiles. Feasibility was good to excellent (≥80 % of participants with valid scores) for above mental age 4 years for all tests except list sorting (working memory). Test-retest stability was good to excellent, and convergent validity was similar to or better than results obtained from typically developing children in the normal sample for executive function and language measures. Examination of ecological validity revealed moderate to very strong correlations between the NIH-TCB composite and adaptive behavior and full-scale IQ measures. Syndrome/group comparisons demonstrated significant deficits for the FXS and DS groups relative to IID on attention and inhibitory control, a significant reading weakness for FXS, and a receptive vocabulary weakness for DS. The NIH-TCB has potential for assessing important dimensions of cognition in persons with ID, and several tests may be useful for tracking response to intervention. However, more extensive psychometric studies, evaluation of the NIH-TCB's sensitivity to change, both developmentally and in the context of treatment, and perhaps establishing links to brain function in these populations, are required to determine the true utility of the battery as a set of outcome measures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 185 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 18%
Researcher 35 18%
Student > Master 16 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 6%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 41 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 57 30%
Neuroscience 20 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 9%
Social Sciences 15 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 56 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,173,264
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
#38
of 514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,231
of 345,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,730 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.