Each test adapts a published paradigm from cognitive science, neuropsychology and psychometrics. The battery is organized by the Cattell-Horn-Carroll framework and aligned with clinical gold standards like the WAIS-V.
The battery is organized according to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability (Carroll, 1993; McGrew, 2009), the predominant framework in modern cognitive assessment. CHC integrates Cattell's fluid-crystallized distinction, Horn's multi-factor model, and Carroll's massive factor-analytic synthesis of decades of psychometric data.
CHC offers empirical integration (70+ years of factor-analytic research), clinical utility (aligns with practitioner expectations and existing instruments like the WAIS-V), and measurement transparency (clear definitions of narrow abilities that guide principled test selection).
| Domain | CHC Broad Ability | WAIS-V Index | Narrow Abilities |
|---|---|---|---|
| Processing Speed | Gs | PSI | Perceptual Speed, Inspection Time |
| Working Memory | Gsm | WMI | Memory Span, WM Capacity, Attention |
| Fluid Reasoning | Gf | PRI | Inductive Reasoning, Spatial Relations |
| Verbal Comprehension | Gc | VCI | Vocabulary, Verbal Knowledge |
| Executive Function | Gf + Gs + Attn | Composite | Inhibition, Flexibility, Planning |
| Attention | Gs (Narrow) | PSI | Sustained, Selective, Vigilance |
| Dyscalculia Screening | Gq | N/A | Number Sense, Subitizing, Arithmetic |
The full battery requires approximately 145 minutes. All tests are delivered via jsPsych (de Leeuw, 2015) with millisecond-precision timing and run in the browser.
| Test | Domain | Paradigm Source | Primary Measure | Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Symbol Coding | Speed | SDMT (Smith, 1973) | Correct pairs / 90s | ~3 min |
| Simple Reaction Time | Speed | Jensen (2006) | Median RT (ms) | ~4 min |
| Digit Span (forward and backward) | WM | WAIS-V (Wechsler, 2024) | Span length | ~11 min |
| Corsi Block-Tapping | WM | Corsi (1972) | Spatial span | ~7 min |
| N-Back (2-Back) | WM | Owen et al. (2005) | d-prime | ~6 min |
| Operation Span | WM | Turner & Engle (1989) | Words recalled | ~9 min |
| Matrix Reasoning | Fluid | Raven (1938) | Correct / 20 | ~2 min |
| Pattern Completion | Fluid | KABC-II (Kaufman, 2004) | Correct / 18 | ~2 min |
| Vocabulary | Verbal | WAIS-V (Wechsler, 2024) | Correct / 25 | ~6 min |
| Verbal Similarities | Verbal | WAIS-V (Wechsler, 2024) | Score (0-40) | ~4 min |
| Verbal Analogies | Verbal | Miller Analogies (1967) | Correct / 18 | ~5 min |
| Category Fluency | Verbal | Troyer et al. (1998) | Words / 60s | ~3 min |
| Stroop | Exec | Stroop (1935) | Interference (ms) | ~4 min |
| Trail Making A & B | Exec | Partington & Leiter (1949) | Completion time (s) | ~2 min |
| WCST Analogue | Exec | Grant & Berg (1948) | Perseverative errors | ~7 min |
| Tower of London | Exec | Shallice (1982) | Excess moves | ~4 min |
| Flanker Task | Attention | Eriksen & Eriksen (1974) | Flanker effect (ms) | ~2 min |
| Go/No-Go | Attention | Aron et al. (2007) | False alarm rate | ~5 min |
| Stop-Signal Task | Attention | Logan (1994) | SSRT (ms) | ~6 min |
| CPT Analogue | Attention | Rosvold et al. (1956) | d-prime, vigilance | ~15 min |
| Subitizing | Dyscalculia | Kaufman et al. (1949) | Accuracy, slope | ~5 min |
| Magnitude Comparison | Dyscalculia | Moyer & Landauer (1967) | Distance effect (ms) | ~5 min |
| Dot Comparison | Dyscalculia | Piazza et al. (2010) | Weber fraction | ~4 min |
| Arithmetic Fluency | Dyscalculia | WRAT-5 (Wilkinson, 2017) | Correct / 60s | ~6 min |
| Number Line Estimation | Dyscalculia | Siegler & Booth (2004) | % Absolute Error | ~6 min |
Every test below includes its CHC alignment, task structure, scoring methodology, the published paradigm it's based on, and known limitations. Expand a domain to see the full specifications.
Each normed test's raw score is compared with the published mean and standard deviation for your age band. That gives a z-score, a percentile and a standard score (mean 100, SD 15). Timed tests where a lower score is better are reversed first, so a higher standard score always means a better result. Every score is printed with a 90 percent confidence band and a descriptor on the seven-level AACN scale. Scores are reported test by test: no domain composites are computed.
Twenty tests are scored against published adult norms. Every comparison uses an age-band table taken from a published study or manual, including WAIS-IV/V (Wechsler, 2008; 2024), Tombaugh (2004), Strauss, Sherman & Spreen (2006), and NIH Toolbox validation samples. The scoring engine page lists the tables test by test, with the sample behind each one.
Spanish reports: Animal fluency in Spanish is scored against the NEURONORMA project (Peña-Casanova et al., 2009; Casals-Coll et al., 2013), with age-based scaled scores adjusted for years of education, built on Spanish adults. Word counts do not transfer from one language to another, so this is the one table that differs. The other tests use the same published tables as English; most of them are nonverbal or timed.
Nine tests do not have published adult norms that fit them. Their results are reported as the accuracy you reached next to the chance level, never as a percentile or a descriptor.
Sessions that are empty or physically impossible are excluded first. A report needs one usable normed test in each of five core areas: processing speed, working memory, attention, executive function and reasoning. If an area is missing, the report lists the tests still needed.
Interpretation guidance: Focus on relative strengths and weaknesses within the individual's profile rather than on any single score. Browser versions of these tasks are compared with norms from similar, not identical, tests. Scores from this battery are not diagnostic and should never be used for clinical decisions without professional evaluation.
Unlike clinical evaluations, there is no examiner present to observe behavior, assess effort, or note concerning presentations. Behavioral observations are unavailable.
Participants may test in suboptimal environments (noisy rooms, interruptions, poor lighting). There is no way to ensure standardized conditions.
There is no stand-alone validity test. The report uses engagement signals and the testing conditions you report, but low motivation cannot always be told apart from a true cognitive difficulty.
Scores are compared with published norms collected on paper or clinical versions of similar tasks, not on these browser versions. Screen, input device and browser timing can shift a score, so small differences should be read cautiously.
Convergent validity (vs WAIS-V), discriminant validity, and predictive validity have not been established for these browser versions.
Visuospatial abilities are underrepresented. Long-term declarative memory, expressive language, naming, and constructional abilities are not assessed. Individuals with suspected neurocognitive disorders need comprehensive evaluation including these missing domains.
Norms cover adults, and some age ranges are better represented in the published tables than others; the report notes this where it applies. Spanish reports use NEURONORMA for animal fluency and the international tables for the other tests. There are no norms for adolescents or for languages other than English and Spanish.
Dominguez, C. (2026). Neuropsych Cognitive Battery: Technical Manual, Version 1.0. Retrieved from neuropsych.io