ReviewBrain sciences2024
Principles for Adapting Assessments of Executive Function across Cultural Contexts.
Review in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring a Range of Potential Factors Promoting and Constraining EF in South African Preschoolers.Developmental science · 2026Article
- Adaptive habits: understanding executive function and its development.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2026Review
- Executive Function from Observation and Reflection Tool (EFFORT): Validation of a Culturally Adaptable and Publicly Available Item Bank in Seven Countries.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Standard EF tasks can still have predictive validity within diverse cultural contexts.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- The case for contextually grounded executive function measurement.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Reply to Mazzaferro et al. and Niebaum: The limits of alignment: Grounding executive functions without assuming special contexts.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Executive functions in adults: scoping review of computerized neuropsychological batteries.Dementia & neuropsychologia · 2026Review
- Developing an Open Multi-Domain Assessment Battery Using Laboratory Tasks for Children in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026Article
- The cultural construction of "executive function".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Validation of an Adaptive Assessment of Executive Functions (Adaptive Cognitive Evaluation-Explorer): Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Analyses of Cognitive Task Performance.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Problem solving is embedded in context… so how do we measure it?Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Direct assessments of executive functions (EFs) are increasingly used in research and clinical settings, with a central assumption that they assess "universal" underlying skills. Their use is spreading globally, raising questions about the cultural appropriateness of assessments devised in Western industrialized countries. We selectively reviewed multidisciplinary evidence and theory to identify sets of cultural preferences that may be at odds with the implicit assumptions of EF assessments. These preferences relate to motivation and compliance; cultural expectations for interpersonal engagement; contextualized vs. academic thinking; cultural notions of speed and time; the willingness to be silly, be incorrect, or do the opposite; and subject-matter familiarity. In each case, we discuss how the cultural preference may be incompatible with the assumptions of assessments, and how future research and practice can address the issue. Many of the cultural preferences discussed differ between interdependent and independent cultures and between schooled and unschooled populations. Adapting testing protocols to these cultural preferences in different contexts will be important for expanding our scientific understanding of EF from the narrow slice of the human population that has participated in the research to date.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.