↓ Skip to main content

FAS and CFL Forms of Verbal Fluency Differ in Difficulty: A Meta-analytic Study

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Neuropsychology, May 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 108)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
FAS and CFL Forms of Verbal Fluency Differ in Difficulty: A Meta-analytic Study
Published in
Applied Neuropsychology, May 2008
DOI 10.1080/09084280802083863
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The Controlled Oral Word Association (COWA) Test is a brief and sensitive measure of executive cognitive dysfunction. There are two commonly used forms of the test, one using the letters F, A, and S, and the other using C, F, and L. This study examines the relative difficulty of the two forms using a meta-analytic approach that includes multiple samples of normal individuals. The effects of age, education, gender composition, exclusion criteria, and age of study are also examined. Results indicate that the CFL form of the test is more difficult and that age, education, and the use of strict exclusion criteria influence performance. Performance is more variable for the FAS form, and age and age of study influence performance variability.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 118 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 23%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Master 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 28 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 20%
Neuroscience 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 27 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 August 2026.
All research outputs
#4,112,634
of 33,704,742 outputs
Outputs from Applied Neuropsychology
#8
of 108 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,653
of 135,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Neuropsychology
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,704,742 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 108 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 135,485 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them