Cited by 28Historical and Modern Theater StudiesPsychological Testing and AssessmentHealth Education and Validation

Ecological validity in neurocognitive assessment: Systematized review, content analysis, and proposal of an instrument

Open access
Pinto, Joana O., Dores, Artemisa R., Peixoto, Bruno, Barbosa, Fernando·2025·Applied Neuropsychology: Adult

Abstract

Objectives The main objectives of this study are to identify the dimensions of Ecological Validity (EV) within the definitions of this concept, understand how they are operationalized in neurocognitive tests, and propose a checklist for EV attributes in neurocognitive tests. Method A systematized review was combined with content analysis of the selected papers, using the inductive method. We analyzed 82 studies on the EV of neurocognitive tests, 19 literature reviews and 63 empirical studies. Based on this review, we identified the relevant criteria for evaluating EV. Results EV is a multidimensional concept with two main dimensions: representativeness and generalization. Representativeness involves the subdimensions simplicity-complexity and artificial-natural and several criteria organized on a continuum from low EV to high EV. Generalization is dependent on representativeness and is influenced by different cognitive and non-cognitive factors. We propose six stages for operationalizing EV, from defining the objectives of the neurocognitive assessment to the methodology for scoring and interpreting the results. Conclusion This systematized review helps to operationalize the concept of EV by providing a tool for evaluating and improving EV while developing new tests. Further studies with a longitudinal design can compare the predictive value of tests with higher versus lower EV-checklist scores.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/23279095.2023.2170800

Cites

122 of 122 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Executive functioning tests with ecological validity are often associated with instrumental activities of daily living (I-ADL).

    “Executive functioning tests with ecological validity are often associated with instrumental activities of daily living (I-ADL) [7,8] and reflect the functional and predictive relationship between neurocognitive assessment performance and real-world behavior [9].”
  • Few studies have systematically explored the ecological validity of different assessment tools.

    “Despite the importance of neuropsychological assessments for predicting functional outcomes across personal, educational/occupational, and community contexts, few studies have systematically explored the ecological validity of different assessment tools or investigated the relationship between cognition and activities of daily living (ADL) [7].”
  • VR provides more precise information than self-reported measures that lack contextual specificity.

    “The use of these enhances ecological validity by situating responses within specific contexts, involving meaningful tasks that replicate real-life activities and providing more precise information than self-reported measures that lack contextual specificity [6,7].”
  • VR enhances ecological validity by situating responses within specific contexts.

    “The use of these enhances ecological validity by situating responses within specific contexts, involving meaningful tasks that replicate real-life activities and providing more precise information than self-reported measures that lack contextual specificity [6,7].”
  • Few studies have investigated the relationship between cognition and activities of daily living (ADL).

    “Despite the importance of neuropsychological assessments for predicting functional outcomes across personal, educational/occupational, and community contexts, few studies have systematically explored the ecological validity of different assessment tools or investigated the relationship between cognition and activities of daily living (ADL) [7].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pinto, J. O., Dores, A. R., Peixoto, B., & Barbosa, F.
Affiliations
  • Universidade do Porto (PT)
  • Cooperativa de Ensino Superior Politécnico e Universitário (PT)
Corresponding author
Pinto, Joana O.
Venue
Applied Neuropsychology: Adult
Published
2023-02-08
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
577-594
ISSN
  • 2327-9095 (ISSN-L)
  • 2327-9109
OpenAlex
W4319655983
Cited by
28
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9
FWCI
1.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Neuropsychology Adult (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion)
Funders
FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e (UIDB/05210/2020)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
ecological validity, neuropsychological assessment, neurocognitive tests, representativeness, generalization, test development
MeSH terms
Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, 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