| Popis: |
Background/Objectives:The NIH Toolbox® for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function is a compilation of computerized measures designed to assess sensory, motor, emotional, and cognitive functioning across the lifespan. 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.Methods:Guided by the Joanna Briggs Methods Manual for Scoping Reviews, records were identified via 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 group discussion.Results:Ultimately, 281 publication records were included in this scoping review (nJournal Articles= 104, nConference Abstracts=84, nClinical Trial Registrations=86, nTheses/Dissertations=7). The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery was by far the most utilized of the four batteries in the measurement system (nCognition=225, nEmotion=49, nMotor=29, and nSensation=16). The most represented clinical category was neurological disorders (n=111), followed by psychological disorders (n=39) and cancer (n=31). The vast majority (96.8%) of journal articles and conference abstracts reporting 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.Conclusion:NIH Toolbox measures have been widely used among individuals with various clinical conditions across the lifespan. Our results lay the groundwork to support the feasibility and utility of administering NIH Toolbox measures in research conducted with clinical populations and in clinical settings, and further suggest that these measures may be of value for implementation in fast-paced clinical settings as part of routine practice. |
