Our knowledge of the functions of the prefrontal cortex, often called executive, supervisory, or control, has been transformed over the past 50 years. After operationally defining terms for clarification, we review the impact of advances in functional, structural, and theoretical levels of understanding upon neuropsychological assessment practice as a means of identifying 11 principles/challenges relating to assessment of executive function. Three of these were already known 50 years ago, and 8 have been confirmed or emerged since. Key themes over this period have been the emergence of the use of naturalistic tests to address issues of “ecological validity”; discovery of the complexity of the frontal lobe control system; invention of new tests for clinical use; development of key theoretical frameworks that address the issue of the role of prefrontal cortex systems in the organization of human cognition; the move toward considering brain systems rather than brain regions; the advent of functional neuroimaging, and its emerging integration into clinical practice. Despite these huge advances, however, practicing neuropsychologists are still desperately in need of new ways of measuring executive function. We discuss pathways by which this might happen, including decoupling the two levels of explanation (information processing; brain structure) and integrating very recent technological advances into the neuropsychologist’s toolbox. (JINS, 2017, 23, 755–767)

This article considers the scientific process whereby new and better clinical tests of executive function might be developed, and what form they might take. We argue that many of the traditional tests of executive function most commonly in use (e.g., the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; Stroop) are adaptations of procedures that emerged almost coincidentally from conceptual and experimental frameworks far removed from those currently in favour, and that the prolongation of their use has been encouraged by a sustained period of concentration on “construct-driven” experimentation in neuropsychology. This resulted from the special theoretical demands made by the field of executive function, but was not a necessary consequence, and may not even have been a useful one. Whilst useful, these tests may not therefore be optimal for their purpose. We consider as an alternative approach a function-led development programme which in principle could yield tasks better suited to the concerns of the clinician because of the transparency afforded by increased “representativeness” and “generalisability.” We further argue that the requirement of such a programme to represent the interaction between the individual and situational context might also provide useful constraints for purely experimental investigations. We provide an example of such a programme with reference to the Multiple Errands and Six Element tests. (JINS, 2006, 12, 194–209.)

Shallice and Burgess (1991) reported the utility of the Multiple Errands Test (MET) in discriminating executive deficits in three frontal lobe patients with preserved high IQ, who were otherwise unimpaired on tests of executive function. The aim of this study was to ascertain the value of a simplified version of the MET (MET–SV) for use with the range of people more routinely encountered in clinical practice. Main findings were as follows: 1) The test discriminated well between neurological patients and controls, and the group effects remained when the difference in current general cognitive functions (WAIS–R FSIQ) was taken into account. 2) The best predictors of performance in the healthy control group (n = 46) were age and the number of times participants asked for help (with more requests associated with poorer performance). 3) In the neurological group, two clear patterns of failure emerged, with performance either characterized by rule breaking or failure to achieve tasks. These two patterns were associated with different dysexecutive symptoms in everyday life. 4) The patients not only made more errors than controls, but also different ones. A scoring method that took this into account markedly increased test sensitivity. 5) Many patients passed traditional tests of executive frontal lobe function but still failed the MET–SV. This pattern was strongly associated with observed dysexecutive symptoms in everyday life. The results demonstrate the clinical utility of the test, and suggest that there are two common and independent sources of failure on multitasking tests in a general neurological population: memory dysfunction, and initiation problems. (JINS, 2003, 9, 31–44.)

Ninety-two mixed etiology neurological patients and 216 control participants were assessed on a range of neuropsychological tests, including 10 neuropsychological measures of executive function derived from 6 different tests. People who knew the patients well (relatives or carers) completed a questionnaire about the patient's dysexecutive problems in everyday life, and this paper reports the extent to which the tests predicted the patients' everyday life problems. All of the tests were significantly predictive of at least some of the behavioral and cognitive deficits reported by patients' carers. However, factor analysis of the patients' dysexecutive symptoms suggested a fractionation of the dysexecutive syndrome, with neuropsychological tests loading differentially on 3 underlying cognitive factors (Inhibition, Intentionality, and Executive Memory), supporting the conclusions that different tests measure different cognitive processes, and that there may be limits to the fractionation of the executive system. (JINS, 1998, 4, 547–558.)