Assessment of executive functions.

Authors

Mauricio A Garcia-Barrera, Julie A Suhr

Published in

Psychological assessment. Volume 38. Issue 8. Pages 517-519.

Abstract

Assessment of executive functions (EF) relies on two broadly distinct approaches: objective (i.e., performance-based neuropsychological measures) and subjective (i.e., rating-scale instruments). Debate persists regarding whether these methods capture different aspects of the same construct or fundamentally different constructs altogether. This special issue presents four empirical studies and a meta-analysis, examining the convergence and divergence of objective and subjective EF measures across the lifespan, spanning toddlers through assessment-seeking adults. Collectively, the studies confirm weak objective-subjective associations, revealing a developmental trajectory in which convergence is modest in early toddlerhood, small but detectable in preschool (although not sustained over longitudinal follow-up), and largely negligible by mid-childhood and adulthood. This pattern is attributed to progressive differentiation of EF constructs and increasing influence of contextual, rater-specific, and other variables. Notably, subjective EF ratings were more strongly associated with psychological distress than with objective task performance in adult samples, while rater type moderated association strength across development. Validity concerns were also highlighted, as self-report EF scales demonstrated vulnerability to noncredible responding. Taken together, findings support treating objective and subjective EF measures as complementary but noninterchangeable sources of clinical information. Multimethod assessment approaches, incorporation of validity measures, cautious interpretation of elevated rating-scale scores, and further examination of ecological validity issues are recommended for both clinical practice and future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

PMID:
42530988
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 31 Jul 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.