Evaluating the ecological validity of neuropsychological tests has become an increasingly important topic over the past decade. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of the research on the ecological validity of neuropsychological tests, as it pertains to everyday cognitive skills. This review is presented in the context of several theoretical issues facing ecological validity research. Overall, the research suggests that many neuropsychological tests have a moderate level of ecological validity when predicting everyday cognitive functioning. The strongest relationships were noted when the outcome measure corresponded to the cognitive domain assessed by the neuropsychological tests. Several other factors that may moderate the degree of ecological validity established for neuropsychological tests are in need of further exploration. These factors include the effects of the population being tested, the approach utilized (verisimilitude vs. veridicality), the person completing the outcome measure (significant other vs. clinician), illness severity, and time from injury until evaluation. In addition, a standard measurement of outcome for each cognitive domain is greatly needed to allow for comparison across studies.

The current study investigated ways to improve the ecological validity of the neuropsychological assessment of executive functioning through the formal assessment of compensatory strategies and environmental cognitive demands. Results indicated that the group of executive functioning tests (i.e., Trail Making Test, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Stroop, and Controlled Oral Word Association Test) accounted for 18-20% of the variance in everyday executive ability as measured by the Dysexecutive Questionnaire and Brock Adaptive Functioning Questionnaire. The addition of extra-test variables significantly increased the variance in everyday executive ability accounted for. The current study adds to the literature on the ecological validity of executive functioning assessment by highlighting the importance of extra-test variables when trying to understand the complex relationship between cognitive testing and real world performance.

for the Wireless Innovation for Seniors With Diabetes Mellitus (WISDM) Study Group IMPORTANCE Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides real-time assessment of glucose levels and may be beneficial in reducing hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. OBJECTIVE To determine whether CGM is effective in reducing hypoglycemia compared with standard blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in older adults with type 1 diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial conducted at 22 endocrinology practices in the United States among 203 adults at least 60 years of age with type 1 diabetes. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to use CGM (n = 103) or standard BGM (n = 100). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was CGM-measured percentage of time that sensor glucose values were less than 70 mg/dL during 6 months of follow-up. There were 31 prespecified secondary outcomes, including additional CGM metrics for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose control; hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ); and cognition and patient-reported outcomes, with adjustment for multiple comparisons to control for false-discovery rate. RESULTSOf the 203 participants (median age, 68 [interquartile range {IQR}, 65-71] years; median type 1 diabetes duration, 36 [IQR, years; 52% female; 53% insulin pump use; mean HbA 1c , 7.5% [SD, 0.9%]), 83% used CGM at least 6 days per week during month 6. Median time with glucose levels less than 70 mg/dL was 5.1% (73 minutes per day) at baseline and 2.7% (39 minutes per day) during follow-up in the CGM group vs 4.7% (68 minutes per day) and 4.9% (70 minutes per day), respectively, in the standard BGM group (adjusted treatment difference, −1.9% (−27 minutes per day); 95% CI, −2.8% to −1.1% [−40 to −16 minutes per day]; P <.001). Of the 31 prespecified secondary end points, there were statistically significant differences for all 9 CGM metrics, 6 of 7 HbA 1c outcomes, and none of the 15 cognitive and patient-reported outcomes. Mean HbA 1c decreased in the CGM group compared with the standard BGM group (adjusted group difference, −0.3%; 95% CI, −0.4% to −0.1%; P <.001). The most commonly reported adverse events using CGM and standard BGM, respectively, were severe hypoglycemia (1 and 10), fractures (5 and 1), falls (4 and 3), and emergency department visits (6 and 8).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among adults aged 60 years or older with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring compared with standard blood glucose monitoring resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in hypoglycemia over 6 months. Further research is needed to understand the long-term clinical benefit.