CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 69Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchCognitive Functions and MemoryTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances

Assessment of executive functioning in children after TBI with a naturalistic open-ended task: A pilot study

Chevignard, Mathilde P., Servant, Violette, Mariller, Aude, Abada, Geneviève, Pradat-Diehl, Pascale, Laurent-Vannier, Anne·2009·Developmental Neurorehabilitation
DOI 10.1080/17518420902777019
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose Traumatic brain injury (TBI) often leads to executive functions (EF) deficits, resulting in severe longstanding disabilities in daily life activities. The sensitivity and ecological validity of neuropsychological tests have been questioned. The aim of this study was to pilot a novel open-ended naturalistic task and to compare it to other standardized assessments of EF in children post-TBI. Methods Ten children aged 8-14, with moderate-to-severe TBI, and 18 matched controls participated in the study. The clinical group was assessed using cognitive tests and parent-based questionnaires of EF. An interactive ecological cooking task was designed. Results Analyses indicated mild-to-moderate executive deficits in the cognitive tests in approximately half of the TBI group. For the experimental cooking task, all quantitative and qualitative variables were significantly impaired for the TBI group compared to the control group and failure in the cooking task was associated with lower scores in cognitive tests of EF. The task was able to discriminate the TBI children from the control group. Conclusion This pilot study highlights the role of naturalistic assessments, to complement standardized tests in assessing patients' dysexecutive impairments in complex activities of daily living post-childhood TBI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17518420902777019

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Provided definitions did not seem to serve as a conceptual framework for the study in all cases; specifically, Chevignard et al. (2009), whose explicit definition included the requirement to predict functional outcome, continued to refer to the test as ecologically valid despite having failed to find associations between the test and two different measures of daily functioning.

    “Interestingly, provided definitions did not seem to serve as a conceptual framework for the study in all cases. Specifically, Chevignard et al. (2009), whose explicit definition included the requirement to predict functional outcome, continued to refer to the test in question as ecologically valid despite having failed to find associations between the test and two different measures of daily”

    From Conceptualization of the term 'ecological validity' in neuropsychological research on executive function assessment: a systematic review and call to action (2024) · cites this paper as Chevignard et al., 2009

  • Chevignard et al. (2009) continued to describe the test in question as being ecologically valid despite their own empirical findings that contradicted the definition provided by the authors themselves.

    “For example, as noted earlier, Chevignard et al. (2009) continued to describe the test in question as being ecologically valid, despite their own empirical findings that contradicted the definition provided by the authors themselves.”

    From Conceptualization of the term 'ecological validity' in neuropsychological research on executive function assessment: a systematic review and call to action (2024) · cites this paper as Chevignard et al., 2009

  • Some studies in the present review that failed to find any associations between the test and functional outcome nevertheless continued to describe their tests as ecologically valid.

    “Conversely, some studies in the present review that failed to find any associations between the test and functional outcome nevertheless continued to describe their tests as ecologically valid (Chevignard et al., 2009; Clark et al., 2017; Gilboa et al., 2019), contradicting the most prevalent conceptualizations of EV, at least as evidenced in the present review.”

    From Conceptualization of the term 'ecological validity' in neuropsychological research on executive function assessment: a systematic review and call to action (2024) · cites this paper as Chevignard et al., 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chevignard, M. P., Servant, V., Mariller, A., Abada, G., Pradat-Diehl, P., & Laurent-Vannier, A.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Hôpitaux de Saint Maurice (FR)
Corresponding author
Chevignard, Mathilde P.
ORCID
Venue
Developmental Neurorehabilitation
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2009-01
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
76-91
ISSN
  • 1363-8491 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-8423
  • 1751-8431
DOI
10.1080/17518420902777019
OpenAlex
W2019671552
Cited by
69
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Developmental Neurorehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, executive dysfunction, children, naturalistic assessment, cooking tasks, ecological validity, activities of daily living, neuropsychological assessment
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adolescent, Brain Injuries, Child, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Motor Skills, Neuropsychological Tests, Parents, Pilot Projects, Psychomotor Performance, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Task Performance and Analysis, Case-Control Studies

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