CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Historical and Modern Theater StudiesPsychological Testing and AssessmentPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Psychometric validation of the Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX)

Open access
Shaw, Simone, Oei, Tian P. S., Sawang, Sukanlaya·2015·Psychological Assessment
DOI 10.1037/a0038195
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study reported on the validation of the psychometric properties, the factorability, validity, and sensitivity of the Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX) in 3 clinical and nonclinical samples. A mixed sample of 997 participants--community (n = 663), psychiatric (depressed [n = 92] and anxious [n = 122]), and neurologically impaired (n = 120)--completed self-report questionnaires assessing executive dysfunction, depression, anxiety, stress, general self-efficacy, and satisfaction with life. Before analyses the data were randomly split into 2 subsets (A and B). Exploratory factor analysis performed on Subset A produced a 3-factor model (Factor 1: Inhibition, Factor 2: Volition, and Factor 3: Social Regulation) in which 15 of the original 20 items provided a revised factor structure that was superior to all other structures. A series of confirmatory factor analyses performed on Subset B confirmed that this revised factor structure was valid and reliable. The revised structure, labeled the DEX-R, was found to be a reliable and valid tool for assessing behavioral symptoms of dysexecutive functioning in mixed community, psychiatric, and neurological samples.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0038195

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Burgess, P.W. (1997). Theory and methodology in executive function. In P. Rabbit (Ed.), Methodology of frontal and executive function (pp. 81-16). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
  2. Burgess, P. W., Alderman, N., Evans, J. J., Wilson, B. A., Emslie, H., & Shallice, T. (1996). Modified six element test. In B. A.Wilson, N. Alderman, P. W. Burgess, H. Emslie, & J. J. Evans (Eds.), Behavioural assessment of the dysexecutive syndrome. Bury St.
  3. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1990). LISREL-IV user's guide (3rd ed.). Mooresville, NC: Scientific Software.
  4. Oei, T. P. S., & Boschen, M., (2009). Clinical effectiveness of a group cognitive behaviour therapy for anxiety disorders: A benchmark study, Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23, 950-957
  5. Rao, V., & Lyketsos, C. G. (2000). The benefits and risks of ECT for patients with primary dementia who also suffer from depression. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 15(8), 729-735.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Shaw, S., Oei, T. P. S., & Sawang, S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2015-03
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
138-147
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
DOI
10.1037/a0038195
OpenAlex
W2005497749
Cited by
50
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure (Coventry University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Napier Research Repository (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
Dysexecutive Questionnaire, executive dysfunction, psychometric validation, factor structure, inhibition, volition, social regulation, depression, anxiety, neurological deficit, self-report questionnaire
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Traumatic, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reference Values, Reproducibility of Results, Self Efficacy, Young Adult, Executive Function

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