Reliability and validity of neurobehavioral function on the Psychology Experimental Building Language test battery in young-adults
A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.
Author and article information
Abstract
Background. The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) software consists of over one-hundred computerized tests based on classic cognitive neuropsychology and behavioral neurology measures. Although the PEBL tests are becoming more widely utilized, there is currently very limited information about the psychometric properties of these measures. Methods. Study I examined inter-relationships among ten PEBL tests including indices of motor-function (Pursuit Rotor and Dexterity), attention (Test of Attentional Vigilance and Time-Wall), working memory (Digit Span Forward), and executive-function (PEBL Trail Making Test, Berg/Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Iowa Gambling Test, and Mental Rotation) in a normative sample (N = 189, ages 18-22). Study II evaluated test-retest reliability with a two-week interest interval between administrations in a separate sample (N = 79, ages 18-22). Results. Moderate intra-test, but low inter-test, correlations were observed and ceiling/floor effects were uncommon. Sex differences were identified on the Pursuit Rotor (Cohen’s d = 0.89) and Mental Rotation (d = 0.31) tests. The correlation between the test and retest was high for tests of motor learning (Pursuit Rotor time on target r = .86) and attention (Test of Attentional Vigilance response time r = .79), intermediate for memory (digit span r = .63) but lower for the executive function indices (Wisconsin/Berg Card Sorting Test perseverative errors = .45, Tower of London moves = .15). Significant practice effects were identified on several indices of executive function. Conclusions. These results are broadly supportive of the reliability and validity of individual PEBL tests in this sample. These findings indicate that the freely downloadable, open-source, PEBL battery http://pebl.sourceforge.net is a versatile research tool to study individual differences in neurocognitive performance.
Cite this as
2015. Reliability and validity of neurobehavioral function on the Psychology Experimental Building Language test battery in young-adults. PeerJ PrePrints 3:e1331v1 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1331v1note This preprint is not peer-reviewed. You may wish to reference the subsequent peer-reviewed version of this article.
Author comment
This is a submission to PeerJ for review.
Sections
Supplemental Information
Additional Information
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Brian J Piper conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Shane T Mueller analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Alexander R Geerken performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Kyle L Dixon performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Gregory Kroliczak analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Reid HJ Olsen performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Jeremy K Miller conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Human Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):
IRB of WU approved both studies. These approval letters and consent forms will be uploaded.
Data Deposition
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
data for study I and study II uploaded.
Funding
This research was supported by the NIDA (L30 DA027582), the Husson University School of Pharmacy, the N.L. Tarter Trust Award, and NIEHS (T32 ES007060-31A1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
