The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2014
DOI: 10.1037/neu0000067
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Within-individual variability in neurocognitive performance: Age- and sex-related differences in children and youths from ages 8 to 21.

Abstract: Objective The transition from childhood to adulthood is characterized by improved motor and cognitive performance in many domains. Developmental studies focus on average performance in single domains but ignore consistency of performance across domains. Within-individual variability (WIV) provides an index of that evenness and is a potential marker of development. Method We gave a computerized battery of 14 neurocognitive tests to 9138 youths ages 8-21 from the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort. Resul… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
57
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

5
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 92 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
6
57
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) (Hall, 1995) scale was administered to assess overall daily functioning and the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery(CNB(Gur et al, 2001) examined neurocognitive functioning. CNB performance in 22q11DS has previously been reported(Gur et al, 2014) and here we present overall performance accuracy, speed and variability (Roalf et al, 2013a; Roalf et al, 2014). …”
Section: 0 Methods and Materialssupporting
confidence: 51%
“…In addition, the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) (Hall, 1995) scale was administered to assess overall daily functioning and the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery(CNB(Gur et al, 2001) examined neurocognitive functioning. CNB performance in 22q11DS has previously been reported(Gur et al, 2014) and here we present overall performance accuracy, speed and variability (Roalf et al, 2013a; Roalf et al, 2014). …”
Section: 0 Methods and Materialssupporting
confidence: 51%
“…From this cohort, scores were collapsed in 2-year intervals to form the basis for the development of the z-scores. We selected 2-year intervals to ensure adequate numbers of participants within each age interval and to minimize the effect of normal variability in the rate of development of neurocognitive skills (21).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Future access to spatiotemporally comprehensive maps of molecular and cellular phenotypes in human cerebellar development (Miller et al, 2014) could potentially identify candidate genetic and/or histological underpinnings for the allometric norms that we define in the current report. Third, the distributive nature of cognitive functions and the complex topography of cerebellar connectivity with other brain regions (Buckner et al, 2011;Riedel et al, 2015) suggest that realistically appraising the relevance of our findings for sex and SCA effects on behavior will require the integration of systems-level information regarding the coordination of cerebellar changes with those throughout other brain regions Reardon et al, 2016).…”
Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 97%