ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Validation of an Adaptive Assessment of Executive Functions (Adaptive Cognitive Evaluation-Explorer): Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Analyses of Cognitive Task Performance.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- When spacing meets color: how executive functions impact the use of perceptual cues during arithmetic problem solving.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Mood and Age Predict Cognitive Complaints in Memory Clinic Patients: A Machine-Learning and Linear Modeling Approach.European journal of neurology · 2026Article
- A Digital Tool for Assessing the Distinct Effects of Depression, Anxiety, and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) on Children's Emotional Cognitive Bias: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Combined accelerated theta burst stimulation and reading instruction for the treatment of persistent developmental dyslexia: methodology and preliminary findings.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExecutive functions (EFs) predict positive life outcomes and educational attainment. Consequently, it is imperative that our measures of EF constructs are both reliable and valid, with advantages for research tools that offer efficiency and remote capabilities.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate reliability and validity evidence for a mobile, adaptive measure of EFs called Adaptive Cognitive Evaluation-Explorer (ACE-X).
methodsWe collected data from 2 cohorts of participants: a test-retest sample (N=246, age: mean 35.75, SD 11.74 y) to assess consistency of ACE-X task performance over repeated administrations and a validation sample involving child or adolescent (5436/6052, 89.82%; age: mean 12.78, SD 1.60 years) and adult participants (484/6052, 8%; age: mean 38.11, SD 14.96 years) to examine consistency of metrics, internal structures, and invariance of ACE-X task performance. A subset of participants (132/6052, 2.18%; age: mean 37.04, SD 13.23 years) also completed a similar set of cognitive tasks using the Inquisit platform to assess the concurrent validity of ACE-X.
resultsIntraclass correlation coefficients revealed most ACE-X tasks were moderately to very reliable across repeated assessments (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.45-0.79; P<.001). Moreover, in comparisons of internal structures of ACE-X task performance, model fit indices suggested that a network model based on partial correlations was the best fit to the data (χ
conclusionsThese findings suggest that ACE-X is a reliable and valid research tool for understanding EFs and their relations to outcome measures.
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.