ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
Executive functions in research and practice: a multimethod review of behavioral, subjective, and neurobiological assessment tools.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. 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.
- Effects of Physical Activity Interventions on Cognitive Flexibility in Children with ADHD: A Systematic Review.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Hot and Cool Executive Functions in Middle Childhood: Evidence for a Weak but Process-Specific Relationship.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Home Parenting Environment and Executive Function Development in 5- to 6-Year-Old Children: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study Using Multivariate Latent Growth Modeling.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Executive functions (EFs) are higher-order cognitive control processes that enable goal-directed behavior, self-regulation, and adaptive functioning across the lifespan. A widely adopted theoretical framework conceptualizes core executive functions as inhibitory control, updating of working memory representations, and cognitive flexibility, rather than treating working memory as an executive function per se. Despite extensive research, the accurate assessment of executive functions remains a major challenge due to their multidimensional and context-dependent nature. This narrative review, informed by systematic search principles, synthesizes peer-reviewed literature published between 2000 and 2024 on executive function assessment. Searches were conducted in Scopus, PubMed, JSTOR, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and HEAL-Link. A total of 85 sources were screened, with 12 representative empirical studies and reviews selected for synthesis. Four major assessment approaches were identified: performance-based tests, computerized assessments, rating scales, and neuroimaging techniques. Each approach offers unique strengths, but also significant limitations related to ecological validity, subjectivity, accessibility, and cost. No single method adequately captures the complexity of executive functioning. The review argues for a multimethod assessment framework integrating behavioral, subjective, and neurobiological measures, and highlights the need for cross-cultural validation, digital innovation, and early identification to improve research and applied practice.
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.