Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35349054›Full record

SynthesisNeuropsychology review2022

A Systematic Review of the Validity and Reliability of Assessment Tools for Executive Function and Adaptive Function Following Brain Pathology among Children and Adolescents in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Kwabena Kusi-Mensah, Nana Dansoah Nuamah, Stephen Wemakor, Joel Agorinya, Ramata Seidu, Charles Martyn-Dickens, Andrew Bateman

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Kwabena Kusi-MensahDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Clifford Allbutt Building, Cambridge Biomedical Campus CB2 OAH, Cambridge, UK. kpk27@cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0165-8405
Nana Dansoah NuamahPantang Hospital, Accra, Ghana.ORCID 0000-0003-4554-5517
Stephen WemakorDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7087-6364
Joel AgorinyaAccra Psychiatric Hospital, Accra, Ghana.ORCID 0000-0002-3963-1710
Ramata SeiduAccra Psychiatric Hospital, Accra, Ghana.ORCID 0000-0002-1226-5837
Charles Martyn-DickensKomfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, P. O. Box 1934, Kumasi, Ghana.ORCID 0000-0002-6659-9111
Andrew BatemanDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Clifford Allbutt Building, Cambridge Biomedical Campus CB2 OAH, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2547-5921
37 Military Hospital · GHKomfo Anokye Teaching Hospital · GHUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Essex · GBUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Minimal but increasing number of assessment instruments for Executive functions (EFs) and adaptive functioning (AF) have either been developed for or adapted and validated for use among children in low and middle income countries (LAMICs). However, the suitability of these tools for this context is unclear. A systematic review of such instruments was thus undertaken. The Systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist (Liberati et al., in BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 339, 2009). A search was made for primary research papers reporting psychometric properties for development or adaptation of either EF or AF tools among children in LAMICs, with no date or language restrictions. 14 bibliographic databases were searched, including grey literature. Risk of bias assessment was done following the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) guidelines (Mokkink et al., in Quality of Life Research, 63, 32, 2014). For EF, the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF- multiple versions), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), Go/No-go and the Rey-Osterrieth complex figure (ROCF) were the most rigorously validated. For AFs, the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales (VABS- multiple versions) and the Child Function Impairment Rating Scale (CFIRS- first edition) were most validated. Most of these tools showed adequate internal consistency and structural validity. However, none of these tools showed acceptable quality of evidence for sufficient psychometric properties across all the measured domains, particularly so for content validity and cross-cultural validity in LAMICs. There is a great need for adequate adaptation of the most popular EF and AF instruments, or alternatively the development of purpose-made instruments for assessing children in LAMICs.Systematic Review Registration numbers: CRD42020202190 (EF tools systematic review) and CRD42020203968 (AF tools systematic review) registered on PROSPERO website ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ).

Indexed as

Developing CountriesQuality of LifeAdolescentBrainChildExecutive FunctionHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesAdaptive functionAssessment instrumentsChildrenDeveloping countriesExecutive FunctionPsychometricsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35349054
PMCPMC9630223
OpenAlexW4221052254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.