CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19Developmental and Educational NeuropsychologyCognitive Functions and MemoryHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Assessment of Executive Function in Everyday Life—Psychometric Properties of the Norwegian Adaptation of the Children’s Cooking Task

Open access
Finnanger, Torun G., Andersson, Stein, Chevignard, Mathilde, Johansen, Gøril O., Brandt, Anne E., Hypher, Ruth E., Risnes, Kari, Rø, Torstein B. +1 more·2022·Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2021.761755PMC PMC8852328
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: There are few standardized measures available to assess executive function (EF) in a naturalistic setting for children. The Children’s Cooking Task (CCT) is a complex test that has been specifically developed to assess EF in a standardized open-ended environment (cooking). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, sensitivity and specificity, and also convergent and divergent validity of the Norwegian version of CCT among children with pediatric Acquired Brain Injury (pABI) and healthy controls (HCs). Methods: The present study has a cross-sectional design, based on baseline data derived from a multicenter RCT. Seventy-five children with pABI from two university hospitals with parent-reported executive dysfunction and minimum of 12 months since injury/completed cancer therapy, as well as 59 HCs aged 10–17 years, were assessed with CCT using total errors as the main outcome measure. The pABI group completed tests assessing EF (i.e., inhibition, cognitive flexibility, working memory, and planning) on the impairment level within the ICF framework (performance-based neuropsychological tests and the Behavioral Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome for Children), and on the participation level (questionnaires). In addition, they completed tests of intellectual ability, processing speed, attention, learning, and memory. Finally, overall functional outcome (pediatric Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended) was evaluated for the children with pABI. Results: Acceptable internal consistency and good inter-rater reliability were found for the CCT. Children with pABI performed significantly worse on the CCT than the HCs. The CCT identified group membership, but the sensitivity and specificity were overall classified as poor. Convergent validity was demonstrated by associations between the CCT and performance-based tests assessing inhibition, cognitive flexibility, and working memory, as well as teacher-reported executive dysfunction (questionnaires). Divergent validity was supported by the lack of association with performance-based measures of learning and memory, attention, and verbal intellectual ability. However, there was a moderate association between the CCT and performance-based tests of processing speed. Lastly, better performance on the CCT was associated with a better functional outcome. Conclusion: Our study with a relatively large sample of children with pABI and HC’s demonstrated good psychometric properties of the CCT. CCT performance was associated with the overall level of disability and function, suggesting that CCT is related to the level of activity in everyday life and participation in society. Hence, our study suggests that the CCT has the potential to advance the assessment of EF by providing a valid analysis of real-world performance. Nevertheless, further research is needed on larger samples, focusing on predictors of task performance, and evaluating the ability of CCT to detect improvement in EF over time. The patterns of error and problem-solving strategies evaluated by the CCT could be used to inform neuropsychological rehabilitation treatmentand represent a more valid outcome measure of rehabilitation interventions.

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 · 10.3389/fnhum.2021.761755

Cites

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

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”

    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 Finnanger et al., 2022

    The Results section (Convergent Validity—Association Between CCT and Other Measures of EF; page unavailable) reports that better Children’s Cooking Task performance was associated with less disability and better functional outcome, and presents this finding under convergent validity. That supports the claim about terminology and an outcome relationship, but the reported association does not establish that the test predicts future functional outcome. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 111 · Cited by 19

Research works printed but not linked: 90

  1. Anderson V. (2001). Assessing executive functions in children: biological, psychological and developmental considerationst. Pediatr. Rehabil. 4, 119– 136. 10.1080/13638490110091347 11831564 · DOI
  2. Anderson V. Catroppa C. (2005). Recovery of executive skills following paediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI): a 2 year follow-up. Brain Inj. 19, 459– 470. 10.1080/02699050400004823 16101268 · DOI
  3. Anderson V. Catroppa C. (2006). Advances in postacute rehabilitation after childhood-acquired brain injury: a focus on cognitive, behavioral and social domains. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 85, 767– 778. 10.1097/01.phm.0000233176.08480.22 16924189 · DOI
  4. Anderson V. Catroppa C. Morse S. Haritou F. Rosenfeld J. (2000). Recovery of intellectual ability following traumatic brain injury in childhood: impact of injury severity and age at injury. Pediatr. Neurosurg. 32, 282– 290. 10.1159/000028956 10971189 · DOI
  5. Araujo G. C. Antonini T. N. Anderson V. Vannatta K. A. Salley C. G. Bigler E. D.. (2017). Profiles of executive function across children with distinct brain disorders: traumatic brain injury, stroke and brain tumor. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 23, 529– 538. 10.1017/S1355617717000364 28502261 · DOI
  6. Ardila A. Pineda D. Rosselli M. (2000). Correlation between intelligence test scores and executive function measures. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 15, 31– 36. 10.1016/S0887-6177(98)00159-0 14590565 · DOI
  7. Baggetta P. Alexander P. A. (2016). Conceptualization and operationalization of executive function. Mind, Brain and Educ. 10, 10– 33. 10.1111/mbe.12100 · DOI
  8. Beauchamp M. Anderson V. (2013). Cognitive and psychopathological sequelae of pediatric traumatic brain injury. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 112, 913– 920. 10.1016/B978-0-444-52910-7.00013-1 23622301 · DOI
  9. Beauchamp M. Catroppa C. Godfrey C. Morse S. Rosenfeld J. V. Anderson V. (2011). Selective changes in executive functioning ten years after severe childhood traumatic brain injury. Dev. Neuropsychol. 36, 578– 595. 10.1080/87565641.2011.555572 21667362 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Beers S. R. Wisniewski S. R. Garcia-Filion P. Tian Y. Hahner T. Berger R. P.. (2012). Validity of a pediatric version of the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended. J. Neurotrauma 29, 1126– 1139. 10.1089/neu.2011.2272 22220819 PMC3325553 · DOI
  11. Best J. R. Miller P. H. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. Child Dev. 81, 1641– 1660. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01499.x 21077853 PMC3058827 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Brandt A. E. Finnanger T. G. Hypher R. E. Rø T. B. Skovlund E. Andersson S.. (2021). Rehabilitation of executive function in chronic paediatric brain injury: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 19: 253. 10.1186/s12916-021-02129-8 34724955 PMC8561897 · DOI
  13. Brinkman T. M. Ness K. K. Li Z. Huang I.-C. Krull K. R. Gajjar A.. (2018). Attainment of functional and social independence in adult survivors of pediatric CNS tumors: a report from the St Jude Lifetime Cohort Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 36, 2762– 2769. 10.1200/JCO.2018.77.9454 30091946 PMC6145833 · DOI
  14. Burgess P. W. (1997). “ Theory and methodology in executive function research,” in Theory and Methodology of Frontal and Executive Function, ed Rabbitt P. (Hove, UK: Psychology Press), pp. 81– 116.
  15. Burgess P. Shallice T. (1991). “ Higher-order cognitive impariments and frontal lobe lesions in man,” in Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction, eds Levin H. S. Eisenberg H. M. Benton A. L. (New York: Oxford University Press), 125– 138.
  16. Burgess P. W. Stuss D. T. (2017). Fifty years of prefrontal cortex research: impact on assessment. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 23, 755– 767. 10.1017/S1355617717000704 29198274 · DOI
  17. Catroppa C. Anderson V. (2009). Traumatic brain injury in childhood: rehabilitation considerations. Dev. Neurorehabil. 12, 53– 61. 10.1080/17518420802634476 19253095 · DOI
  18. Catroppa C. Anderson V. A. Muscara F. Morse S. A. Haritou F. Rosenfeld J. V.. (2009). Educational skills: long-term outcome and predictors following paediatric traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 19, 716– 732. 10.1080/09602010902732868 19306233 · DOI
  19. Chevignard M. P. Servant V. Mariller A. Abada G. Pradat-Diehl P. Laurent-Vannier A. (2009). Assessment of executive functioning in children after TBI with a naturalistic open-ended task: a pilot study. Dev. Neurorehabil. 12, 76– 91. 10.1080/17518420902777019 19340660 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Chevignard M. P. Soo C. Galvin J. Catroppa C. Eren S. (2012). Ecological assessment of cognitive functions in children with acquired brain injury: a systematic review. Brain Inj. 26, 1033– 1057. 10.3109/02699052.2012.666366 22715895 · DOI
  21. Chevignard M. P. Taillefer C. Picq C. Poncet F. Noulhiane M. Pradat-Diehl P. (2008). Ecological assessment of the dysexecutive syndrome using execution of a cooking task. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 18, 461– 485. 10.1080/09602010701643472 18576272 · DOI
  22. Cicerone K. Levin H. Malec J. Stuss D. Whyte J. (2006). Cognitive rehabilitation interventions for executive function: moving from bench to bedside in patients with traumatic brain injury. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 18, 1212– 1222. 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1212 16839293 · DOI
  23. Demetriou C. Ozer B. U. Essau C. A. (2015). “ Self-report questionnaires,” in The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology, eds Cautin R. L. Lilienfeld S. O. (Wiley Online Library), 1– 6. 10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp507 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Diamond A. (2006). “ The early development of executive functions,” in Lifespan Cognition: Mechanisms of Change, eds Bialystok E. Craik F. I. M. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 70– 95.
  25. Fagerland M. W. Lydersen S. Laake P. (2015). Recommended confidence intervals for two independent binomial proportions. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 24, 224– 254. 10.1177/0962280211415469 21996567 · DOI
  26. Field A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. UK: Sage Publications Ltd.
  27. Field A. P. (2005). “ Intraclass correlation,” in Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, eds Everitt B. S. Howell D. C. (Wiley Online Library). 10.1002/0470013192.bsa313 · DOI
  28. Fleming K. A. Heintzelman S. J. Bartholow B. D. (2016). Specifying associations between conscientiousness and executive functioning: mental set shifting, not prepotent response inhibition or working memory updating. J. Pers. 84, 348– 360. 10.1111/jopy.12163 25564728 PMC4492903 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Fogel Y. Rosenblum S. Hirsh R. Chevignard M. Josman N. (2020). Daily performance of adolescents with executive function deficits: an empirical study using a complex-cooking task. Occup. Ther. Int. 2020: 3051809. 10.1155/2020/3051809 32099539 PMC7026736 · DOI
  30. Franzen M. D. Wilhelm K. L. (1996). “ Conceptual foundations of ecological validity in neuropsychology,” in Ecological Validity of Neuropsychological Testing, (Delray Beach, FL: Gr Press/St Lucie Press, Inc.), 91– 112.
  31. Friedman N. P. Miyake A. (2017). Unity and diversity of executive functions: individual differences as a window on cognitive structure. Cortex 86, 186– 204. 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.023 27251123 PMC5104682 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Fry A. F. Hale S. (2000). Relationships among processing speed, working memory and fluid intelligence in children. Biol. Psychol. 54, 1– 34. 10.1016/s0301-0511(00)00051-x 11035218 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Goldberg E. Podell K. (2000). Adaptive decision making, ecological validity and the frontal lobes. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 22, 56– 68. 10.1076/1380-3395(200002)22:1;1-8;FT056 10649545 · DOI
  34. Halligan S. Altman D. G. Mallett S. (2015). Disadvantages of using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to assess imaging tests: a discussion and proposal for an alternative approach. Eur. Radiol. 25, 932– 939. 10.1007/s00330-014-3487-0 25599932 PMC4356897 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Hart T. Whyte J. Kim J. Vaccaro M. (2005). Executive function and self-awareness of “real-world” behavior and attention deficits following traumatic brain injury. J. Head Trauma Rehabil. 20, 333– 347. 10.1097/00001199-200507000-00005 16030440 · DOI
  36. Hendry K. Ownsworth T. Beadle E. Chevignard M. P. Fleming J. Griffin J.. (2016). Cognitive deficits underlying error behavior on a naturalistic task after severe traumatic brain injury. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 10: 190. 10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00190 27790099 PMC5063844 · DOI
  37. Hypher R. E. Brandt A. E. Risnes K. Rø T. B. Skovlund E. Andersson S.. (2019). Paediatric goal management training in patients with acquired brain injury: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 9: e029273. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029273 PMC6688684 31375619 · DOI
  38. Hypher R. Andersson S. Finnanger T. G. Brandt A. E. Hoorelbeke K. Lie H. C.. (2021). Fatigue following pediatric acquired brain injury: interplay with associated factors in a clinical trial population compared to healthy controls. Neuropsychology 35, 609– 621. 10.1037/neu0000753 34197132 · DOI
  39. International Test Commission (2017). The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (Second Edition). [www.InTestCom.org]. Available online at: https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf.
  40. Jacobs R. Harvey A. S. Anderson V. (2011). Are executive skills primarily mediated by the prefrontal cortex in childhood? Examination of focal brain lesions in childhood. Cortex 47, 808– 824. 10.1016/j.cortex.2010.06.002 20673886 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Josman N. Goffer A. Rosenblum S. (2010). Development and standardization of a “Do-Eat” activity of daily living performance test for children. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 64, 47– 58. 10.5014/ajot.64.1.47 20131564 · DOI
  42. Jurado M. B. Rosselli M. (2007). The elusive nature of executive functions: a review of our current understanding. Neuropsychol. Rev. 17, 213– 233. 10.1007/s11065-007-9040-z 17786559 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Karr J. E. Areshenkoff C. N. Rast P. Hofer S. M. Iverson G. L. Garcia-Barrera M. A. (2018). The unity and diversity of executive functions: a systematic review and re-analysis of latent variable studies. Psychol. Bull. 144, 1147– 1185. 10.1037/bul0000160 30080055 PMC6197939 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Karver C. L. Wade S. L. Cassedy A. Taylor H. G. Stancin T. Yeates K. O.. (2012). Age at injury and long-term behavior problems after traumatic brain injury in young children. Rehabil. Psychol. 57, 256– 265. 10.1037/a0029522 22946613 PMC3750969 · DOI
  45. Keith Conners C. Sitarenios G. Ayearst L. E. (2018). “ Conners’ Continuous Performance Test Third Edition,” in Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology, eds Kreutzer J. S. DeLuca J. Caplan B. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 929– 933.
  46. Krasny-Pacini A. Chevignard M. Lancien S. Escolano S. Laurent-Vannier A. De Agostini M.. (2017a). Executive function after severe childhood traumatic brain injury–Age-at-injury vulnerability periods: the TGE prospective longitudinal study. Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 60, 74– 82. 10.1016/j.rehab.2016.06.001 27566925 · DOI
  47. Krasny-Pacini A. Servant V. Alzieu C. Chevignard M. (2017b). Ecological prospective memory assessment in children with acquired brain injury using the children’s cooking task. Dev. Neurorehabil. 20, 53– 58. 10.3109/17518423.2015.1058298 26222344 · DOI
  48. Lenroot R. K. Gogtay N. Greenstein D. K. Wells E. M. Wallace G. L. Clasen L. S.. (2007). Sexual dimorphism of brain developmental trajectories during childhood and adolescence. Neuroimage. 36, 1065– 1073. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.053 17513132 PMC2040300 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Leventer R. J. De Luca C. R. (2010). “ Developmental trajectories of executive functions across the lifespan,” in Executive Functions and the Frontal Lobes, eds Anderson V. Jacobs R. Anderson Peter J. 1st edition (New York, NY: Psychology Press). 10.4324/9780203837863 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Lewis M. W. Babbage D. R. Leathem J. M. (2011). Assessing executive performance during cognitive rehabilitation. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 21, 145– 163. 10.1080/09602011.2010.543867 21229458 · DOI
  51. Lezak M. D. Howieson D. B. Loring D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological Assessment, 4th ed. USA: Oxford University Press.
  52. Li L. Liu J. (2013). The effect of pediatric traumatic brain injury on behavioral outcomes: a systematic review. Dev. Med. Child. Neurol. 55, 37– 45. 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2012.04414.x 22998525 PMC3593091 · DOI
  53. Lydersen S. Langaas M. Bakke Ø. (2012). The exact unconditional z-pooled test for equality of two binomial probabilities: optimal choice of the berger and boos confidence coefficient. J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 82, 1311– 1316. 10.1080/00949655.2011.579969 · DOI
  54. Manchester D. Priestley N. Jackson H. (2004). The assessment of executive functions: coming out of the office. Brain Inj. 18, 1067– 1081. 10.1080/02699050410001672387 15545205 · DOI · Paper page
  55. McCauley S. R. Wilde E. A. Anderson V. A. Bedell G. Beers S. R. Campbell T. F.. (2012). Recommendations for the use of common outcome measures in pediatric traumatic brain injury research. J. Neurotrauma 29, 678– 705. 10.1089/neu.2011.1838 21644810 PMC3289848 · DOI
  56. Michaeli O. Kassis I. Shachor-Meyouhas Y. Shahar E. Ravid S. (2014). Long-term motor and cognitive outcome of acute encephalitis. Pediatrics 133, e546– 552. 10.1542/peds.2013-3010 24534397 · DOI
  57. Miyake A. Friedman N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: four general conclusions. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21, 8– 14. 10.1177/0963721411429458 22773897 PMC3388901 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Moffitt T. E. Arseneault L. Belsky D. Dickson N. Hancox R. J. Harrington H.. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth and public safety. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 108, 2693– 2698. 10.1073/pnas.1010076108 21262822 PMC3041102 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Norman D. A. Shallice T. (1986). “ Attention to action,” in Consciousness and Self-Regulation, eds Davidson R. J. Schwartz G. E. Shapiro D. (Boston, MA: Springer), 1– 18. 10.1007/978-1-4757-0629-1_1 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Norris G. Tate R. L. (2000). The behavioural assessment of the dysexecutive syndrome (BADS): ecological, concurrent and construct validity. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 10, 33– 45. 10.1080/096020100389282 · DOI
  61. O’Connor C. Robertson I. H. Levine B. (2011). The prosthetics of vigilant attention: random cuing cuts processing demands. Neuropsychology 25, 535– 543. 10.1037/a0022767 21463046 · DOI
  62. Palmer S. L. Leigh L. (2009). Survivors of pediatric posterior fossa tumors: cognitive outcome, intervention and risk-based care. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 13, 171– 178. 10.1016/j.ejon.2008.09.002 19019733 PMC2720440 · DOI
  63. Park S. H. Goo J. M. Jo C.-H. (2004). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: practical review for radiologists. Korean J. Radiol. 5, 11– 18. 10.3348/kjr.2004.5.1.11 15064554 PMC2698108 · DOI
  64. Perinetti G. (2018). StaTips part IV: selection, interpretation and reporting of the intraclass correlation coefficient. South Eur. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Res. 5, 3– 5. 10.5937/sejodr5-17434 · DOI
  65. Perneger T. V. (1998). What’s wrong with bonferroni adjustments. BMJ 316, 1236– 1238. 10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236 9553006 PMC1112991 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Petersen S. E. Posner M. I. (2012). The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after. Ann. Rev. Neurosci. 35, 73– 89. 10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150525 22524787 PMC3413263 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Poncet F. Swaine B. Taillefer C. Lamoureux J. Pradat-Diehl P. Chevignard M. (2015b). Reliability of the cooking task in adults with acquired brain injury. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 25, 298– 317. 10.1080/09602011.2014.971819 25384200 · DOI
  68. Prigatano G. Altman I. (1990). Impaired awareness of behavioral limitations after traumatic brain injury. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 71, 1058– 1064. 2256806
  69. Resch C. Anderson V. A. Beauchamp M. H. Crossley L. Hearps S. J. C. van Heugten C. M.. (2019). Age-dependent differences in the impact of paediatric traumatic brain injury on executive functions: a prospective study using susceptibility-weighted imaging. Neuropsychologia 124, 236– 245. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.12.004 30528585 · DOI
  70. Rosenblum S. Frisch C. Deutsh-Castel T. Josman N. (2015). Daily functioning profile of children with attention deficit hyperactive disorder: a pilot study using an ecological assessment. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 25, 402– 418. 10.1080/09602011.2014.940980 25054849 · DOI
  71. Royall D. R. Lauterbach E. C. Cummings J. L. Reeve A. Rummans T. A. Kaufer D. I.. (2002). Executive control function: a review of its promise and challenges for clinical research. A report from the committee on research of the American neuropsychiatric association. J. Neuropsychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 14, 377– 405. 10.1176/jnp.14.4.377 12426407 · DOI
  72. Ryan N. P. Anderson V. Godfrey C. Beauchamp M. H. Coleman L. Eren S.. (2014). Predictors of very-long-term sociocognitive function after pediatric traumatic brain injury: evidence for the vulnerability of the immature “social brain”. J. Neurotrauma 31, 649– 657. 10.1089/neu.2013.3153 24147615 · DOI · Paper page
  73. Salthouse T. A. Atkinson T. M. Berish D. E. (2003). Executive functioning as a potential mediator of age-related cognitive decline in normal adults. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 132, 566– 594. 10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.566 14640849 · DOI · Paper page
  74. Schwartz M. F. Reed E. S. Montgomery M. Palmer C. Mayer N. H. (1991). The quantitative description of action disorganisation after brain damage: a case study. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 8, 381– 414. 10.1080/02643299108253379 · DOI
  75. Shallice T. Burgess P. (1996). The domain of supervisory processes and temporal organization of behaviour. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 351, 1405– 1411. 10.1098/rstb.1996.0124 8941952 · DOI
  76. Shallice T. Cooper R. (2011). The Organisation of Mind. Oxford Scholarship Online. 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199579242.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  77. Shao Z. Janse E. Visser K. Meyer A. S. (2014). What do verbal fluency tasks measure? Predictors of verbal fluency performance in older adults. Front. Psychol. 5: 772. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00772 25101034 PMC4106453 · DOI
  78. Spencer-Smith M. Anderson V. (2009). Healthy and abnormal development of the prefrontal cortex. Dev. Neurorehabil. 12, 279– 297. 10.3109/17518420903090701 20477558 · DOI
  79. Stokes J. Pogge D. Wecksell B. Zaccario M. (2011). Parent-child discrepancies in report of psychopathology: the contributions of response bias and parenting stress. J. Pers. Assess. 93, 527– 536. 10.1080/00223891.2011.594131 21859293 · DOI
  80. Stuss D. T. (2011). Traumatic brain injury: relation to executive dysfunction and the frontal lobes. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 24, 584– 589. 10.1097/WCO.0b013e32834c7eb9 21968550 · DOI
  81. Stuss D. T. Alexander M. P. (2000). Executive functions and the frontal lobes: a conceptual view. Psychol. Res. 63, 289– 298. 10.1007/s004269900007 11004882 · DOI · Paper page
  82. Stuss D. T. Knight R. T. (2013). Principles of Frontal Lobe Function. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  83. Tate R. Kennedy M. Ponsford J. Douglas J. Velikonja D. Bayley M.. (2014). INCOG recommendations for management of cognition following traumatic brain injury, part III: executive function and self-awareness. J. Head Trauma Rehabil. 29, 338– 352. 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000068 24984096 · DOI · Paper page
  84. Thurman D. J. (2016).; The epidemiology of traumatic brain injury in children and youths: a review of research since 1990. J. Child Neurol. 31, 20– 27. 10.1177/0883073814544363 25123531 · DOI
  85. Toglia J. (2015). Weekly Calendar Planning Activity (WCPA): A Performance Test of Executive Function. Bethesda, MD: AOTA Press. 23106990
  86. Toussaint-Thorin M. Marchal F. Benkhaled O. Pradat-Diehl P. Boyer F. C. Chevignard M. (2013). Executive functions of children with developmental dyspraxia: assessment combining neuropsychological and ecological tests. Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 56, 268– 287. 10.1016/j.rehab.2013.02.006 23582179 · DOI
  87. Wechsler D. (2014). “ WISC-V: Wechsler intelligence scale for children-fifth edition,” in Technical and Interpretive Manual, (San Antonio, TX: PsychCorp).
  88. Wilson B. A. Evans J. J. Gracey F. (2009). “ Goal setting as a way of planning and evaluating neuropsychological rehabilitation,” in Neuropsychological Rehabilitation: Theory, Models, Therapy and Outcome, eds Bateman A. Wilson B. A. Gracey F. Evans J. J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 37– 46.
  89. Wood R. L. Liossi C. (2006). The ecological validity of executive tests in a severely brain injured sample. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 21, 429– 437. 10.1016/j.acn.2005.06.014 16879945 · DOI · Paper page
  90. Wood R. L. Liossi C. (2007). The relationship between general intellectual ability and performance on ecologically valid executive tests in a severe brain injury sample. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 13, 90– 98. 10.1017/S1355617707070129 17166307 · DOI

Authors
Finnanger, T. G., Andersson, S., Chevignard, M., Johansen, G. O., Brandt, A. E., Hypher, R. E., Risnes, K., Rø, T. B., & Stubberud, J.
Affiliations
  • St Olav's University Hospital (NO)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
Corresponding author
Stubberud, Jan
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-02-03
Volume
15
Pages
761755-761755
ISSN
1662-5161 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fnhum.2021.761755
PMC
PMC8852328
OpenAlex
W4212779480
Cited by
19
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Universitetet i Oslo
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
executive function, pediatric acquired brain injury, psychometric properties, Norwegian adaptation, naturalistic assessment, convergent and discriminant validity, sensitivity and specificity, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, working memory, processing speed, functional outcome, children and adolescents, executive dysfunction, social participation (health and rehabilitation), ICF framework

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