Executive functioning rating scales: Ecologically valid or construct invalid?
Executive functioning rating scales: Ecologically valid or construct invalid?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/neu0000681
复制
发表时间：
2020-07
期刊：
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Elia F Soto;Michael J. Kofler;Leah J. Singh;Erica L Wells;Lauren N Irwin;Nicole B. Groves;C. E. Miller
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Elia F Soto;Michael J. Kofler;Leah J. Singh;Erica L Wells;Lauren N Irwin;Nicole B. Groves;C. E. Miller
目标 执行功能通常使用评级量表和绩效测试来衡量。然而，重复的证据表明跨方法关联较弱/不显着，这表明有效性是发散的而不是趋同的。目前的研究是第一个调查执行功能测试和评级的相对并发和预测有效性的研究，使用（a）多个黄金标准性能测试，（b）由多个信息提供者完成的多个标准化评级量表，以及（c）基于表现和基于评级的学业成绩评估 - 与执行功能具有密切理论联系的关键功能结果。方法 对 136 名患有 ADHD 和与执行功能障碍相关的其他形式的儿童精神病理学儿童（8-13 岁；68% 白人/非西班牙裔）进行过采样，完成了一系列平衡的执行功能和学业测试。家长/老师完成执行功能评级；老师还对孩子们的学习成绩进行了评分。结果 执行功能测试/评级关联程度较低（r = .30），并且显着低于学术测试/评级关联（r = .63）。相对于评级，执行功能测试显示出显着更高的跨方法预测有效性和显着更好的方法内预测；执行功能评级未能证明方法内预测有所改善。这两种方法都独特地预测了学术测试和评级。结论 这些发现重复了先前的证据，即执行功能测试和评级不能互换用作研究和临床应用中的执行功能测量，同时表明执行功能测试对于预测学术行为/成就可能具有更高的有效性。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2020 APA，保留所有权利）。
OBJECTIVE Executive functions are commonly measured using rating scales and performance tests. However, replicated evidence indicates weak/nonsignificant cross-method associations that suggest divergent rather than convergent validity. The current study is the first to investigate the relative concurrent and predictive validities of executive function tests and ratings using (a) multiple gold-standard performance tests, (b) multiple standardized rating scales completed by multiple informants, and (c) both performance-based and ratings-based assessment of academic achievement-a key functional outcome with strong theoretical links to executive function. METHOD A well-characterized sample of 136 children oversampled for ADHD and other forms of child psychopathology associated with executive dysfunction (ages 8-13; 68% Caucasian/non-Hispanic) completed a counterbalanced series of executive function and academic tests. Parents/teachers completed executive function ratings; teachers also rated children's academic performance. RESULTS The executive function tests/ratings association was modest (r = .30) and significantly lower than the academic tests/ratings association (r = .63). Relative to ratings, executive function tests showed significantly higher cross-method predictive validity and significantly better within-method prediction; executive function ratings failed to demonstrate improved within-method prediction. Both methods uniquely predicted academic tests and ratings. CONCLUSION These findings replicate prior evidence that executive function tests and ratings cannot be used interchangeably as executive function measures in research and clinical applications, while suggesting that executive function tests may have superior validity for predicting academic behavior/achievement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).