Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-fn92c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-21T12:49:32.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preliminary Psychometrics for the Executive Function Challenge Task: A Novel, “Hot” Flexibility, and Planning Task for Youth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2020

Lauren Kenworthy Open the ORCID record for Lauren Kenworthy [Opens in a new window] ,
Andrew Freeman ,
Allison Ratto ,
Katerina Dudley ,
Kelly K. Powell ,
Cara E. Pugliese ,
John F. Strang ,
Alyssa Verbalis  and
Laura G. Anthony
Lauren Kenworthy*
Affiliation:
Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders – Children’s National Medical Center, Rockville, MD, USA
Andrew Freeman
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA
Allison Ratto
Affiliation:
Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders – Children’s National Medical Center, Rockville, MD, USA
Katerina Dudley
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience – University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Kelly K. Powell
Affiliation:
Yale Child Study Center – Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
Cara E. Pugliese
Affiliation:
Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders – Children’s National Medical Center, Rockville, MD, USA
John F. Strang
Affiliation:
Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders – Children’s National Medical Center, Rockville, MD, USA
Alyssa Verbalis
Affiliation:
Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders – Children’s National Medical Center, Rockville, MD, USA
Laura G. Anthony
Affiliation:
Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders – Children’s National Medical Center, Rockville, MD, USA Department of Psychiatry – University of Colorado School of Medicine; Pediatric Mental Health Institute – Children’s Hospital of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
*
*Correspondence and reprint requests to: Lauren Kenworthy, Ph.D., Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders, Children’s National Medical Center, 15245 Shady Grove Road, Suite 350, Rockville, MD20850, USA. Email: lkenwort@childrensnational.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Executive functions (EF) drive health and educational outcomes and therefore are increasingly common treatment targets. Most treatment trials rely on questionnaires to capture meaningful change because ecologically valid, pediatric performance-based EF tasks are lacking. The Executive Function Challenge Task (EFCT) is a standardized, treatment-sensitive, objective measure which assesses flexibility and planning in the context of provocative social interactions, making it a “hot” EF task.

Method:

We investigate the structure, reliability, and validity of the EFCT in youth with autism (Autism Spectrum Disorder; n = 129), or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with flexibility problems (n = 93), and typically developing (TD; n = 52) youth.

Results:

The EFCT can be coded reliably, has a two-factor structure (flexibility and planning), and adequate internal consistency and consistency across forms. Unlike a traditional performance-based EF task (verbal fluency), it shows significant correlations with parent-reported EF, indicating ecological validity. EFCT performance distinguishes youth with known EF problems from TD youth and is not significantly related to visual pattern recognition, or social communication/understanding in autistic children.

Conclusions:

The EFCT demonstrates adequate reliability and validity and may provide developmentally appropriate, treatment-sensitive, and ecologically valid assessment of “hot” EF in youth. It can be administered in controlled settings by masked administrators.

Keywords

AutismBehaviorADHDCognitionObjectiveMeasurement

Information

Type
Brief Communication
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 26 , Issue 7 , August 2020 , pp. 725 - 732
Copyright
Copyright © INS. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Barkley, R.A., & Fischer, M. (2011). Predicting impairment in major life activities and occupational functioning in hyperactive children as adults: Self-reported executive function (EF) deficits versus EF tests. Developmental Neuropsychology, 36, 137–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgess, P.W., Alderman, N., Forbes, C., Costello, A., Coates, L.M.A., Dawson, D.R., Anderson, N.D., Gilbert, S.J., Dumontheil, I., & Channon, S. (2006). The case for the development and use of “ecologically valid” measures of executive function in experimental and clinical neuropsychology. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 12, 194–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chevignard, M., Pillon, B., Pradat-Diehl, T., Taillerfer, C., Rousseau, S., Le Bras, C., & Dubois, B. (2000). An ecological approach to planning dysfunction: Script execution. Cortex, 36, 649–669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delis, D.C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J.H. (2001). The Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System: Examiner’s Manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
DuPaul, G.J., Power, T.J., Anastopoulos, A.D., & Reid, R. (1998). ADHD Rating Scale IV: Checklists, Norms, and Clinical Interpretation. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, N.P. & Miyake, A. (2017). Unity and diversity of executive functions: Individual differences as a window on cognitive structure. Cortex, 86, 186–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gioia, G.A., Isquith, P.K., Guy, S., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). BRIEF: Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Gioia, G.A., Isquith, P.K., Kenworthy, L., & Barton, C. (2002). Executive signatures: Profiles of everyday executive function in acquired and developmental disorders. Child Neuropsychology, 8, 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, H.H., & Rothbart, M.K. (1996). Prelocomotor and Locomotor Laboratory Temperament Assessment Battery, Lab-TAB; version 3.0. Technical Manual, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.Google Scholar
Holmes-Bernstein, J., & Waber, D.P. (1990). Developmental neuropsychological assessment. In Boulton, A. A., Baker, G. B., Hiscock, M. (Eds.), Neuropsychology: Neuromethods (Vol. 17) (pp. 311–371). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, N.S. & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenworthy, L., Anthony, L.G., Naiman, D.Q., Cannon, L., Wills, M.C., Luong-Tran, C., Adler Werner, M., Alexander, K.C., Strang, J., Bal, E., Sokoloff, J., & Wallace, G.L. (2014). Randomized controlled effectiveness trial of executive function intervention for children on the autism spectrum. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55, 374–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kraybill, M.L., Thorgusen, S.R., & Suchy, Y. (2013). The push-turn-taptap task outperforms measures of executive functioning in predicting declines in functionality: Evidence-based approach to test validation. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 27, 238–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, K., Bull, R., & Ho, R.M.H. (2013). Developmental changes in executive functioning. Child Development, 84, 1933–1953.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miodovnik, A., Harstad, E., Sideridis, G., & Huntington, N. (2015). Timing of the diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics, 136, 830–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyake, A. & Friedman, N.P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miyake, A., Friedman, N.P., Emerson, M.J., Witzki, A.H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T.D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moffitt, T.E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R.J., Harrington, H., Houts, R., Poulton, R., Roberts, B.W., Ross, S., Sears, M.R., Thomson, W.M., & Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academic of Sciences, 108, 2693–2698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, M.J. (2010). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the context of autism spectrum disorders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 12, 382–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ozga, J.E., Povroznik, J.M., Engler-Chiurazzi, E.B., & Vonder Haar, C. (2018). Executive (dys)function after traumatic brain injury: Special considerations for behavioral pharmacology. Behavioural Pharmacology, 29, 617–637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poland, S.E., Monks, C.P., & Tsermentseli, S. (2014). Cool and hot executive function as predictors of aggression in early childhood: Differentiating between the function and form of aggression. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 34, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prencipe, A., Kesek, A., Cohen, J., Lamm, C., Lewis, M.D., & Zelazo, P.D. (2011). Development of hot and cool executive function during the transition to adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 621–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pugliese, C.E., Anthony, L.G., Strang, J.F., Dudley, K., Wallace, G.L., Naiman, D.Q., & Kenworthy, L. (2016). Longitudinal examination of adaptive behavior in autism spectrum disorders: Influence of executive function. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 467–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, H.R., Miyake, A., & Hankin, B. (2015). Advancing understanding of executive function impairments and psychopathology: Bridging the gap between clinical and cognitive approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strang, J.F., Anthony, L.G., Yerys, B., Hardy, K.K., Wallace, G.L., Armour, A.C., Dudley, K., & Kenworthy, L. (2017). The flexibility scale: Development and preliminary validation of a cognitive flexibility measure in children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47, 2502–2518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toplak, M.E., West, R.F., & Stanovich, K.E. (2013). Practitioner review: Do performance based measures and ratings of executive function assess the same construct? The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 131–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011). MICE: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45, 1–67.Google Scholar
White, S.J. (2013). The triple I hypothesis: Taking another(’s) perspective on executive dysfunction in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 114–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willcutt, E.G., Doyle, A.E., Nigg, J.T., Faraone, S.V., & Pennington, B.F. (2005). Validity of the executive function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analytic review. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1336–1346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zelazo, P.D. & Cunningham, W.A. (2007). Executive function: Mechanisms underlying emotion regulation. In Gross, J.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Emotion Regulation (pp. 135–158). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kenworthy et al. supplementary material

Kenworthy et al. supplementary material 1

Download Kenworthy et al. supplementary material(File)
File 135.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kenworthy et al. supplementary material

Kenworthy et al. supplementary material 2

Download Kenworthy et al. supplementary material(File)
File 24.5 KB