The NIH Toolbox Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test: Normative Data

Abstract

The NIH Toolbox Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test was developed to assess processing speed. While initial validation work provides preliminary support for this test in both children and adults, more work is needed to ensure dependability and generalizability. Thus, this replication study examines descriptive data (including age effects), test-retest reliability, and construct validity in n = 4,859 participants ages 3-85 years (matched to 2010 census data). Although the Pattern Comparison was not appropriate for all 3 and 4 years old, by ages 5 and 6, more meaningful scores were apparent. There was evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. There was also a moderate practice effect (i.e., increase of 5.5 points) over a 1-week time frame. Pattern Comparison exhibits a number of strengths: it is appropriate for use across the lifespan (ages 5-85), it is short and easy to administer, and there is support for construct validity.

Behavioral and neural signatures of working memory in childhood

“…Somewhat surprisingly given established links between working memory and processing speed (64), working memory was less closely related to performance on the Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test than to performance on every cognitive task except the stop-signal, monetary incentive delay, and intratemporal cash choice tasks. Although the strength of the relationship between working memory and processing speed (r s = .17) is numerically similar to previous findings with the same tasks in 8-to-12-year-olds (r = .26; REF 65), individual differences in working memory were more strongly related to processes including executive attention and cognitive flexibility than to processing speed in the current cohort. In addition, behavioral signatures of working memory varied as a function of working memory ability, such that relationships between behavioral measures were generally strongest in children with low working memory performance, potentially due to factors such as low attention-to-task or motivation.…”

“…processing speed (65,89). Children are shown two pictures and are asked to indicate whether they are the same or different.…”

Criterion Validity and Relationships between Alternative Hierarchical Dimensional Models of General and Specific Psychopathology

“…The ABCD cognitive test battery (Luciana et al, 2018) assessed fluid reasoning, episodic memory, flexible thinking, attention, working memory, learning, mental rotation, processing speed, vocabulary comprehension, and oral reading. It included the Little Man Task (Acker & Acker, 1982), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Task (mean total correct of trials 1-5) (Taylor, 1959), Matrix Reasoning subtest from the Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children-V (Wechsler, 2014), Picture Vocabulary Task (PPVT) (Gershon et al, 2013), Oral Reading Recognition Task (Gershon et al, 2013), Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test (Carlozzi, Beaumont, Tulsky, & Gershon, 2015), Dimensional Change Card Sort Task (Zelazo, 2006), List Sorting Working Memory Test (Tulsky et al, 2013), Picture Sequence Memory Test (Bauer et al, 2013), and Flanker Task (Fan, McCandliss, Sommer, Raz, & Posner, 2002).…”

Fundamental Differences: A Basis Set for Characterizing Inter-Individual Variation in Resting State Connectomes

“…Factor loadings were 0.81, 0.80, and 0.76 respectively, and the factor accounted for 62.2% of the variance in the variables. A speed of processing variable was created based on three NIH toolbox tasks: processing speed, flanker task, and card sort task (all age-adjusted performance), similar to Carlozzi et al, 2015. Of note, the first of these three tasks is designed to be a measure of processing speed, while the latter two primarily reflect processing speed because for most subjects in the HCP dataset, accuracy is close to ceiling (Slotkin et al, 2012).…”

“…Factor loadings were 0.81, 0.80, and 0.76 respectively, and the factor accounted for 62.2% of the variance in the variables. A speed of processing variable was created based on three NIH toolbox tasks: processing speed, flanker task, and card sort task (all age-adjusted performance), similar to Carlozzi et al [29]. Of note, for subjects with accuracy above 80% (which is nearly everyone in this sample), performance scoring on the latter two tasks is based exclusively on reaction time.…”