The ecological validity of executive tests in a severely brain injured sample
Abstract
It is unclear how well performance on recently developed, specialized executive tests, reflects problems that patients and their relatives complain of in real life. The ecological validity of four specialised tests of executive function: the Hayling and Brixton Tests, and the Zoo Map and Key Search sub-tests from the Behavioural Assessment of Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS) battery, was assessed against the Dysexecutive Questionnaire from the BADS in a sample of 59 severely brain injured individuals. Results indicated that only the Hayling C was significantly negatively correlated (r=-.26, P<.05) with the informant version of the Dysexecutive Questionnaire. An index of insight was not correlated with any of the executive tests. It is concluded that these tests have limited ecological validity when used to assess patients following severe head trauma.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Past studies found EF tests to have low-order correlations that are often nonsignificant with patient self-ratings and significant others' ratings of dysexecutive symptoms in patients with frontal lobe injuries.
“Past studies found EF tests to have low-order correlations that are often nonsignificant with patient self-ratings and those of significant others of the dysexecutive symptoms they observe in patients with frontal lobe injuries”
From Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests (2010) · cites this paper as Wood & Liossi, 2006
Combinations of EF tests share just 12%-20% of the variance with EF ratings.
“Combinations of EF tests do not fair much better, sharing just 12% -20% of the variance with EF ratings.”
From Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests (2010) · cites this paper as Wood & Liossi, 2006
The variance shared between any single EF test and EF ratings typically ranges from 0% to 10%.
“These studies typically find that the variance shared between any single EF test and EF ratings ranges from just 0% to 10%.”
From Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests (2010) · cites this paper as Wood & Liossi, 2006
EF tests have low or no ecological validity when judged against ratings of EF in daily life or direct observations of EF performance in natural settings.
“Most troubling from a clinical perspective is that EF tests have low or no ecological validity when judged against ratings of EF in daily life or direct observations of EF performance in natural settings.”
From Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests (2010) · cites this paper as Wood & Liossi, 2006
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 118
- Authors
- WOOD, R., & LIOSSI, C.
- Affiliations
- Swansea University (GB)
- University of Southampton (GB)
- Corresponding author
- WOOD, R
- ORCID
- LIOSSI, C
- Venue
- Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-08
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 429-437
- ISSN
- 0887-6177 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2006509403
- Cited by
- 118
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 5.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Keywords
- ecological validity, executive function, severe brain injury, dysexecutive syndrome, Hayling test, Dysexecutive Questionnaire, informant ratings, insight, head trauma
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Brain Injuries, Cognition Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Malingering, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Problem Solving, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results, Multivariate Analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
