Cited by 72Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchCognitive Functions and MemoryDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Development and Evaluation of an Ecological Task to Assess Executive Functioning Post Childhood TBI: The Children's Cooking Task

Chevignard, Mathilde P., Catroppa, Cathy, Galvin, Jane, Anderson, Vicki·2010·Brain Impairment

Abstract

Purpose:Traumatic brain injury (TBI) often leads to executive functions deficits, which may be responsible for severe and longstanding disabilities in everyday activities. Sensitivity and ecological validity of neuropsychological tests of executive functions have been questioned. The aims of this study were to pilot an ecological open-ended assessment of executive functions in children, the ‘Children's Cooking Task’ (CCT), specifically to report its reliability, discriminant validity and concurrent validity.Methods:Twenty-five children with mild (n= 10) or moderate-to-severe TBI (n= 15), and 21 matched controls (aged 8 to 20 years) participated in the study. An open-ended cooking task was designed to test multi-tasking abilities. It required the preparation of two simple recipes using specific instructions. Outcome measures included the number of errors and an overall qualitative analysis of the task. Validating measures of executive functions included the Delis Kaplan Executive Function System, the Six-Part Test and two questionnaires completed by the child's primary care-giver: the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function and the Dysexecutive Questionnaire for Children.Results:Internal consistency of the Children's Cooking Task was high (Cronbach's alpha = .86), as was test–retest reliability (ICC = .89). Children with moderate-to-severe TBI, as well as children with mild TBI made significantly more errors in the Children's Cooking Task in comparison to controls (p<…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1375/brim.11.2.125

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • Some studies that found evidence for the test's ability to predict functional outcome did not link their results with the term EV, referring instead to convergent or concurrent validity.

    “Interestingly, as mentioned earlier, some studies that did find evidence for the test ' s ability to predict functional outcome did not link their study results with the term EV, referring instead to convergent or concurrent validity (Chevignard et al., 2010; Finnanger et al., 2022; Gilboa et al., 2019; Kenworthy et al., 2020; Oliveira et al., 2016; Orkin Simon et al., 2022; Pishdadian et al., 202”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chevignard, M. P., Catroppa, C., Galvin, J., & Anderson, V.
Affiliations
Royal Children's Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Chevignard, Mathilde P.
Venue
Brain Impairment
Published
2010-09-01
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
125-143
ISSN
  • 1443-9646 (ISSN-L)
  • 1839-5252
OpenAlex
W2128361018
Cited by
72
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Brain Impairment (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
executive function, pediatric traumatic brain injury, ecological assessment, cooking tasks, multitasking, test reliability, discriminant validity, concurrent validity, moderate to severe TBI, open-ended assessment

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