CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,055Psychological Testing and AssessmentHistorical and Modern Theater StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Ecological Validity of Neuropsychological Tests: A Review of the Literature on Everyday Cognitive Skills

Chaytor, Naomi, Schmitter-Edgecombe, Maureen·2003·Neuropsychology Review
DOI 10.1023/b:nerv.0000009483.91468.fb
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Evaluating the ecological validity of neuropsychological tests has become an increasingly important topic over the past decade. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of the research on the ecological validity of neuropsychological tests, as it pertains to everyday cognitive skills. This review is presented in the context of several theoretical issues facing ecological validity research. Overall, the research suggests that many neuropsychological tests have a moderate level of ecological validity when predicting everyday cognitive functioning. The strongest relationships were noted when the outcome measure corresponded to the cognitive domain assessed by the neuropsychological tests. Several other factors that may moderate the degree of ecological validity established for neuropsychological tests are in need of further exploration. These factors include the effects of the population being tested, the approach utilized (verisimilitude vs. veridicality), the person completing the outcome measure (significant other vs. clinician), illness severity, and time from injury until evaluation. In addition, a standard measurement of outcome for each cognitive domain is greatly needed to allow for comparison across studies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/b:nerv.0000009483.91468.fb

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Traditionally, neuropsychological tests are associated with a moderate degree of ecological validity.

    “Traditionally, neuropsychological tests are associated with moderate degree of ecological validity (31)”

    From Neuropsychological Research in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Current Status and Future Directions (2021) · cites this paper as [31]

  • Individuals may display intact performance on a task in a quiet room but show significant difficulties in everyday settings due to the marked impact of psychopathological symptoms on cognitive functions.

    “individuals may display intact performance on a task in a quiet room but may show significant difficulties in everyday settings due to the marked impact of psychopathological symptoms on cognitive functions (31)”

    From Neuropsychological Research in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Current Status and Future Directions (2021) · cites this paper as [31]

  • The task impurity problem in neuropsychology is a longstanding issue inherent to cognitive testing, where several interrelated but distinct cognitive demands are reflected in a single test score.

    “The ‘task impurity problem’ in neuropsychology is a longstanding issue inherent to cognitive testing, where a several interrelated but distinct cognitive demands are reflected in a single test score (31)”

    From Neuropsychological Research in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Current Status and Future Directions (2021) · cites this paper as [31]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Franzen, M. D., and Arnett, P. A. (1997). The validity of neuropsychological assessment procedures. In: Reese, H. W., and Franzen, M. D. (eds.), Biological and Neuropsychological Mechanisms: Life-Span Developmental Psychology, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 51–69.
  2. Franzen, M. D., and Wilhelm, K. L. (1996). Conceptual foundations of ecological validity in neuropsychology. In: Sbordone, R. J., and Long, C. J. (eds.), Ecological Validity of Neuropsychological Testing, GR Press/St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL, pp. 91–112.
  3. Goldstein, G. (1996). Functional considerations in neuropsychology. In: Sbordone, R. J., and Long, C. J. (eds.), Ecological Validity of Neuropsychological Testing, GR Press/St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL, pp. 75–89.
  4. Guilmette, T. J., and Kastner, M. P. (1996). The prediction of vocational functioning from neuropsychological data. In: Sbordone, R. J., and Long, C. J. (eds.), Ecological Validity of Neuropsychological Testing, GR Press/St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL, pp. 387–411.
  5. Long, C. J. (1996). Neuropsychological tests: A look at our past and the impact that ecological issues may have on our future. In: Sbordone, R. J., and Long, C. J. (eds.), Ecological Validity of Neuropsychological Testing, GR Press/St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL, pp. 1–14.
  6. Long, C. J., and Collins, L. F. (1997). Ecological validity and forensic neuropsychological assessment. In: McCaffrey, R. J., Williams, A. D., Fisher, J. M., and Laing, L. C. (eds.), The Practice of Forensic Neuropsychology: Meeting Challenges in the Courtroom, Plenum, New York, pp. 153–164.
  7. Long, C. J., and Kibby, M. Y. (1995). Ecological validity of neuropsychological tests: A look at neuropsychology's past and the impact that ecological issues may have on its future. Adv. Med. Psychother. 8: 59–78.
  8. Osmon, D. C. (1999). Complexities in the evaluation of executive functions. In: Sweet, J. J. (ed.), Forensic Neuropsychology: Fundamentals and Practice, Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 185–226.
  9. Sbordone, R. J. (1997). The ecological validity of neuropsychological testing. In: Horton, A. M., Wedding, D., and Webster, J. (eds.), The Neuropsychology Handbook, Volume 1: Foundations and Assessment, 2nd edn., Springer, New York, pp. 365–392.
  10. Wilson, B. A., Alderman, N., Burgess, P., Emslie, H., and Evans, J. J. (1996). Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS), Thames Valley Test Company, Bury St. Edmunds, England.
  11. Wilson, B. A., Cockburn, J., and Baddeley, A. D. (1985). The Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test Manual, Thames Valley Test Company, Bury St. Edmunds, England.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Chaytor, N., & Schmitter-Edgecombe, M.
Affiliations
Washington State University (US)
ORCID
Chaytor, Naomi
Venue
Neuropsychology Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2003-12
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
181-197
ISSN
  • 1040-7308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6660
DOI
10.1023/b:nerv.0000009483.91468.fb
OpenAlex
W1971466676
Cited by
1,055
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 63 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 33
FWCI
13.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Neuropsychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Washington State University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
ecological validity, neuropsychological assessment, functional outcome measures, verisimilitude, veridicality, outcome measure validity, cognitive domain, injury severity, time since injury
MeSH terms
Cognition Disorders, Environment, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results

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