Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41931470›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Psychometric validation and cultural adaptation of executive functioning scale in Malaysian University students.

Hao Yin, Muhammad Syawal Amran

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hao YinFaculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1916-5354
Muhammad Syawal AmranFaculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Addressing the lack of culturally-appropriate assessment tools, this study adapted and validated the Executive Functioning Scale (EFS) for use within a Malaysian university student population. Utilizing a sample of 629 university students, we conducted a comprehensive psychometric evaluation of the adapted scale. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) supported a refined 50-item, six-factor structure that accounted for 65.87% of the total variance. Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed that a second-order hierarchical model-in which the six first-order factors loaded onto a single, higher-order Executive Functioning construct-provided an excellent fit to the data (CMIN/df = 1.447, CFI = .976, RMSEA = .026). Critically, its fit was virtually indistinguishable from a more complex first-order model, strongly favoring the hierarchical conceptualization on the basis of parsimony. The scale also demonstrated strong discriminative validity, effectively differentiating between high- and low-performing groups across all dimensions. Collectively, the findings establish the Malaysian-adapted EFS as a robust and valid instrument for assessing the multifaceted nature of executive functioning. This research provides the first psychometrically sound tool for measuring executive functioning tailored to this population, offering a critical resource for future cross-cultural research, clinical diagnostics, and educational interventions. The validated scale facilitates a more nuanced understanding of cognitive constructs within a non-Western higher education context.

Indexed as

Executive FunctionPsychometricsStudentsAdolescentAdultFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMalaysiaMaleReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesUniversitiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41931470
PMCPMC13048388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.