Extensive research shows that tests of executive functioning (EF) predict instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) but are nevertheless often criticized for having poor ecological validity. The Modified Six Elements Test (MSET) is a pencil-and-paper test that was developed to mimic the demands of daily life, with the assumption that this would result in a more ecologically valid test. Although the MSET has been extensively validated in its ability to capture cognitive deficits in various populations, support for its ability to predict functioning in daily life is mixed. This study aimed to examine the MSET’s ability to predict IADLs assessed via three different modalities relative to traditional EF measures.

Participants (93 adults aged 60 – 85) completed the MSET, traditional measures of EF (Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System; D-KEFS), and self-reported and performance-based IADLs in the lab. Participants then completed three weeks of IADL tasks at home, using the Daily Assessment of Independent Living and Executive Skills (DAILIES) protocol.

The MSET predicted only IADLs completed at home, while the D-KEFS predicted IADLs across all three modalities. Further, the D-KEFS predicted home-based IADLs beyond the MSET when pitted against each other, whereas the MSET did not contribute beyond the D-KEFS.

Traditional EF tests (D-KEFS) appear to be superior to the MSET in predicting IADLs in community-dwelling older adults. The present results argue against replacing traditional measures with the MSET when addressing functional independence of generally high-functioning and cognitive healthy older adult patients.

“Ecological validity” (EV) is classically defined as test’s ability to predict real-world functioning, either alone or together with test’s similarity to real-world tasks. In neuropsychological literature on assessment of executive functions (EF), EV is conceptualized inconsistently, leading to misconceptions about the utility of tests. The goal of this systematic review was to examine how EV is conceptualized in studies of EF tests described as ecologically valid.

MEDLINE and PsychINFO Databases were searched. PRISMA guidelines were observed. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, this search yielded 90 articles. Deductive content analysis was employed to determine how the term EV was used.

About 1/3 of the studies conceptualized EV as the test’s ability to predict functional outcomes, 1/3 as both the ability to predict functional outcome and similarity to real-world tasks, and 1/3 were either unclear about the meaning of the term or relied on notions unrelated to classical definitions (e.g., similarity to real-world tasks alone, association with other tests, or the ability to discriminate between populations).

Conceptualizations of the term EV in literature on EF assessment vary grossly, subsuming the notions of criterion, construct, and face validity, as well as sensitivity/specificity. Such inconsistency makes it difficult to interpret clinical utility of tests that are described as ecologically valid. We call on the field to require that, at minimum, the term EV be clearly defined in all publications, or replaced with more concrete terminology (e.g., criterion validity).