Litcius/Paper detail

Pitfalls in research on ecological validity of novel executive function tests: A systematic review and a call to action.

Yana Suchy, Michelle Gereau Mora, Libby A. DesRuisseaux, Madison A. Niermeyer, Stacey L. Brothers

2024Psychological Assessment14 citationsDOI

Abstract

= 19), an overwhelming majority relied on behavioral rating scales, utilized small sample sizes and participant-to-variable ratios, and failed to control for covariates and multiple comparisons. Poor scientific rigor was particularly pronounced in studies of "naturalistic" tests. The present systematic review reveals significant conceptual, methodological, and statistical flaws among an overwhelming majority of studies that claim to have found support for the EV of a novel face-valid test of EF. We call upon authors, reviewers, and editors to safeguard the scientific rigor of research in this area. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Topics & Concepts

Ecological validityPsychologyFace validityTest (biology)Predictive validityExternal validityClinical psychologyMEDLINEApplied psychologyCognitive psychologyPsychometricsCognitionSocial psychologyEcologyPsychiatryBiologyLawPolitical scienceFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchMental Health Research Topics
Pitfalls in research on ecological validity of novel executive function tests: A systematic review and a call to action. | Litcius