Reliability and validity of neurobehavioral function on the Psychology Experimental Building Language test battery in young-adults

, , , , , ,
1 Department of Psychology, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, United States
2 Department of Cognitive and Learning Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, United States
3 Department of Psychology, Willamette University, Salem, Oregon, United States
4 Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
5 Action and Cognition Laboratory, Department of Social Sciences, Institute of Psychology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poznan, Poland
6 Department of Behavioral Neuroscience, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR, United States
7 Pharmacology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
DOI
10.7287/peerj.preprints.1331v1
Published
Accepted
Subject Areas
Psychiatry and Psychology, Human-Computer Interaction
Keywords
attention, executive function, learning, motor, memory, cognition, neuropsychology, decision making, sex differences, human
Copyright
© 2015 Piper et al.
Licence
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ PrePrints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
Cite this article
Piper BJ, Mueller ST, Geerken AR, Dixon KL, Kroliczak G, Olsen RH, Miller JK. 2015. Reliability and validity of neurobehavioral function on the Psychology Experimental Building Language test battery in young-adults. PeerJ PrePrints 3:e1331v1

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.

Author Comment

This is a submission to PeerJ for review.

Supplemental Information

raw data for the validity study

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1331v1/supp-1

raw data for the reliability data

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1331v1/supp-2