Emmi P Scott1, Anne Sorrell2, Andreana Benitez1. 1. Department of Neurology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA. 2. Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Few independent studies have examined the psychometric properties of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) in older adults, despite growing interest in its use for clinical purposes. In this paper we report the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the NIHTB-CB, as well as its agreement or concordance with traditional neuropsychological tests of the same construct to determine whether tests could be used interchangeably. METHODS: Sixty-one cognitively healthy adults ages 60-80 completed "gold standard" (GS) neuropsychological tests, NIHTB-CB, and brain MRI. Test-retest reliability, convergent/discriminant validity, and agreement statistics were calculated using Pearson's correlations, concordance correlation coefficients (CCC), and root mean square deviations. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was acceptable (CCC = .73 Fluid; CCC = .85 Crystallized). The NIHTB-CB Fluid Composite correlated significantly with cerebral volumes (r's = |.35-.41|), and both composites correlated highly with their respective GS composites (r's = .58-.84), although this was more variable for individual tests. Absolute agreement was generally lower (CCC = .55 Fluid; CCC = .70 Crystallized) due to lower precision in fluid scores and systematic overestimation of crystallized composite scores on the NIHTB-CB. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the reliability and validity of the NIHTB-CB in healthy older adults and suggest that the fluid composite tests are at least as sensitive as standard neuropsychological tests to medial temporal atrophy and ventricular expansion. However, the NIHTB-CB may generate different estimates of performance and should not be treated as interchangeable with established neuropsychological tests.
OBJECTIVE: Few independent studies have examined the psychometric properties of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) in older adults, despite growing interest in its use for clinical purposes. In this paper we report the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the NIHTB-CB, as well as its agreement or concordance with traditional neuropsychological tests of the same construct to determine whether tests could be used interchangeably. METHODS: Sixty-one cognitively healthy adults ages 60-80 completed "gold standard" (GS) neuropsychological tests, NIHTB-CB, and brain MRI. Test-retest reliability, convergent/discriminant validity, and agreement statistics were calculated using Pearson's correlations, concordance correlation coefficients (CCC), and root mean square deviations. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was acceptable (CCC = .73 Fluid; CCC = .85 Crystallized). The NIHTB-CB Fluid Composite correlated significantly with cerebral volumes (r's = |.35-.41|), and both composites correlated highly with their respective GS composites (r's = .58-.84), although this was more variable for individual tests. Absolute agreement was generally lower (CCC = .55 Fluid; CCC = .70 Crystallized) due to lower precision in fluid scores and systematic overestimation of crystallized composite scores on the NIHTB-CB. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the reliability and validity of the NIHTB-CB in healthy older adults and suggest that the fluid composite tests are at least as sensitive as standard neuropsychological tests to medial temporal atrophy and ventricular expansion. However, the NIHTB-CB may generate different estimates of performance and should not be treated as interchangeable with established neuropsychological tests.
Authors: John A Lucas; Robert J Ivnik; Floyd B Willis; Tanis J Ferman; Glenn E Smith; Francine C Parfitt; Ronald C Petersen; Neill R Graff-Radford Journal: Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.535
Authors: Sean M Nestor; Raul Rupsingh; Michael Borrie; Matthew Smith; Vittorio Accomazzi; Jennie L Wells; Jennifer Fogarty; Robert Bartha Journal: Brain Date: 2008-07-11 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Sandra Weintraub; David Salmon; Nathaniel Mercaldo; Steven Ferris; Neill R Graff-Radford; Helena Chui; Jeffrey Cummings; Charles DeCarli; Norman L Foster; Douglas Galasko; Elaine Peskind; Woodrow Dietrich; Duane L Beekly; Walter A Kukull; John C Morris Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2009 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Steven D Shirk; Meghan B Mitchell; Lynn W Shaughnessy; Janet C Sherman; Joseph J Locascio; Sandra Weintraub; Alireza Atri Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Rebecca Polk; Marilyn Horta; Tian Lin; Eric Porges; Marite Ojeda; Hans P Nazarloo; C Sue Carter; Natalie C Ebner Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 6.671
Authors: Amanda Szabo-Reed; Jonathan Clutton; Sydney White; Angela Van Sciver; Dreu White; Jill Morris; Laura Martin; Rebecca Lepping; Ashley Shaw; Jaime Perales Puchalt; Robert Montgomery; Jonathan Mahnken; Richard Washburn; Jeffrey Burns; Eric D Vidoni Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 2.261
Authors: Allison L B Shapiro; Dana Dabelea; Jeanette M Stafford; Ralph D'Agostino; Catherine Pihoker; Angela D Liese; Amy S Shah; Anna Bellatorre; Jean M Lawrence; Leora Henkin; Sharon Saydah; Greta Wilkening Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 17.152