Uses of the NIH Toolbox® in Clinical Samples

Abstract

Background and ObjectivesThe NIH Toolbox® for the Assessment of Neurologic and Behavioral Function is a compilation of computerized measures designed to assess sensory, motor, emotional, and cognitive functioning of individuals across the life span. The NIH Toolbox was initially developed for use with the general population and was not originally validated in clinical populations. The objective of this scoping review was to assess the extent to which the NIH Toolbox has been used with clinical populations.MethodsGuided by the Joanna Briggs Methods Manual for Scoping Reviews, records were identified through searches of PubMed MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (2008–2020). Database searches yielded 5,693 unique titles of original research that used at least one NIH Toolbox assessment in a sample characterized by any clinical diagnosis. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for inclusion in duplicate. Conflicts at each stage of the review process were resolved by a group discussion.ResultsUltimately, 281 publication records were included in this scoping review (nJournal Articles = 104, nConference Abstracts = 84, nClinical Trial Registrations = 86, and nTheses/Dissertations = 7). The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery was by far the most used of the 4 batteries in the measurement system (nCognition = 225, nEmotion = 49, nMotor = 29, and nSensation = 16). The most represented clinical category was neurologic disorders (n = 111), followed by psychological disorders (n = 39) and cancer (n = 31). Most (96.8%) of the journal articles and conference abstracts reporting the use of NIH Toolbox measures with clinical samples were published in 2015 or later. As of May 2021, these records had been cited a total of nearly 1,000 times.DiscussionThe NIH Toolbox measures have been widely used among individuals with various clinical conditions across the life span. Our results lay the groundwork to support the feasibility and utility of administering the NIH Toolbox measures in research conducted with clinical populations and further suggest that these measures may be of value for implementation in fast-paced clinical settings as part of routine practice.

The protocol for an observational Australian cohort study of CADASIL: The AusCADASIL study

“…We will describe any longitudinal, clinical or neuropsychological features of CADASIL [ 7 , 11 ], as well as any predictors of worsening [ 51 ]. The combination of traditional pen-and-paper neuropsychological assessments and the computerized NIH Cognition toolbox which has been validated in clinical samples including stroke [ 52 , 53 ], is designed to provide AusCADASIL with a comprehensive understanding of the cognitive profile and progression of cognitive functioning in CADASIL, whilst providing a novel opportunity to recognise the use of computerised tools for this cohort. This study will use neuroimaging outcomes to characterise disease[ 54 , 55 ] and identify the sensitivity of longitudinal MRI markers of cSVD to disease progression [ 10 ].…”

Assessing cancer-related cognitive function in the context of everyday life using ecological mobile cognitive testing: A protocol for a prospective quantitative study

“… 69 In recent years, efforts have been made to translate these traditional paper and pencil tests into digital formats for remote administration (e.g. Cogsuite, 70 Cogstate, 71 NIH Toolbox, 72 BrainCheck 73 ). These platforms can ease burdens related to in-person data collection for both participants and researchers and may be more sensitive to CRCI detection than paper and pencil testing.…”

The Paradox in Positive and Negative Aspects of Emotional Functioning Among Older Adults with Early Stages of Cognitive Impairment

“…NIHTB-EB has demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach αs ranging from .90 to .98 across scales) and acceptable convergent validity (correlation coefficients ranging from .60 to .92 across scales) among adult participants in prior literature (Kupst et al, 2015; Pilkonis et al, 2013; Salsman et al, 2013, 2014). Its validity and appropriateness for use have been documented among individuals with cognitive impairment, including individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment, dementia, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, and traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, and stroke (Carlozzi et al, 2017; Chaparro et al, 2016; Fox et al, 2022; Lopez et al, 2023; Yu et al, 2022). Moreover, test administrators were trained to make sure that participants accurately understood and were able to respond to NIHTB-EB instruments during the in-person interviews.…”