ReviewJournal of Intelligence2024
Concurrent Validity of Virtual Reality-Based Assessment of Executive Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of Intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immersive virtual reality assessments of working memory and psychomotor skills: A comparison between immersive and non-immersive assessments.Journal of neuropsychology · 2026Article
- Nesplora Ice Cream test: a normative study of a virtual reality-based executive function assessment in adults.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Current limitations in technology-based cognitive assessment for severe mental illnesses: a focus on feasibility, reliability, and ecological validity.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This meta-analysis investigated the concurrent validity between virtual reality (VR)-based assessments and traditional neuropsychological assessments of executive function, with a focus on subcomponents such as cognitive flexibility, attention, and inhibition. A total of 1605 articles were identified through searches of PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect from 2013 to 2023. After removing duplicates, 1313 articles were screened based on their titles and abstracts, with 77 articles selected for full-text eligibility review. Of these, nine articles fully met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this study. The effect size for overall executive function was assessed, with subcomponents categorized based on the specific assessment tools used in the studies. The effect size for each subcomponent-cognitive flexibility, attention, and inhibition-was then analyzed to provide a more detailed understanding of their relationships with traditional measures. The results revealed statistically significant correlations between VR-based assessments and traditional measures across all subcomponents. Additionally, sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings, even when low-quality studies were excluded. These results support the use of VR-based assessments as a valid alternative to traditional methods for evaluating executive function. Moreover, the study highlights the potential of VR-based assessments as a valid alternative to traditional methods, emphasizing the need to address variability in executive function subcomponents and integrate diverse cognitive and motor metrics for greater ecological validity.
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.