ReviewDementia & neuropsychologia2026
Executive functions in adults: scoping review of computerized neuropsychological batteries.
Review in Dementia & neuropsychologia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computerized assessment of executive functions (EF) has the potential to increase access to more cost-effective diagnostics, considering the relevance of these skills for quality of life and adaptive functioning. Objective: This study conducted a scoping review to identify computerized fixed batteries for assessing EF in adults. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the United States National Library of Medicine (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library (Reviews), PsychNet, and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) databases, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Results: A total of 15,704 records were identified, of which 62 studies met the eligibility criteria. In these, 42 batteries were mapped, which together encompassed 174 tasks associated with executive domains. No battery exclusively assesses EF, and most were developed for computerized application in a supervised face-to-face format. It was also observed that there was no explicit theoretical basis in the construction of the instruments, evidencing important conceptual gaps. Conclusion: There are fixed computerized batteries applicable to the assessment of EF in adults, although not specific, reflecting the advance of digitalization in neuropsychological practice. The findings highlight the need for cross-cultural adaptations and psychometric validation studies that strengthen the theoretical basis and diagnostic accuracy of these instruments.
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.