4.5 Article

A practical guide for researchers and reviewers using the ABCD Study and other large longitudinal datasets

Journal

DEVELOPMENTAL COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 55, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2022.101115

Keywords

Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development; (ABCD) Study; Adolescent development; Longitudinal research; Open research; Practical guide

Funding

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [R25MH125545]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper serves as a guide for researchers and reviewers working with the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study data, highlighting the features, strengths, and limitations of the data, as well as analytical and methodological considerations. It also explores efforts related to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in the ABCD Study and other large-scale datasets, aiming to increase accessibility and transparency in the field of developmental cognitive neuroscience.
As the largest longitudinal study of adolescent brain development and behavior to date, the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study (R) has provided immense opportunities for researchers across disciplines since its first data release in 2018. The size and scope of the study also present a number of hurdles, which range from becoming familiar with the study design and data structure to employing rigorous and reproducible ana -lyses. The current paper is intended as a guide for researchers and reviewers working with ABCD data, high-lighting the features of the data (and the strengths and limitations therein) as well as relevant analytical and methodological considerations. Additionally, we explore justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion efforts as they pertain to the ABCD Study and other large-scale datasets. In doing so, we hope to increase both accessibility of the ABCD Study and transparency within the field of developmental cognitive neuroscience.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available