Hebrew version of the Jansari assessment of Executive Functions for Children (JEF-C^©): Translation, adaptation and validation

Abstract

The Jansari assessment of Executive Functions for Children (JEF-C ©) is a non-immersive computerized assessment of executive functions (EFs). This study aimed to create a cross-culturally adapted Hebrew version, JEF-C(H) © and to assess reliability and validity in the Israeli context. Forty typically developing Israeli children and adolescents, aged 11-18 years, were assessed with JEF-C(H) ©. In addition, participants and their parents filled in the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF). JEF-C(H) © was found to be feasible in Israeli children and adolescents. The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha = 0.79). Most of the JEF-C(H) © subtests and the Average score showed significant positive moderate to high correlations with age, ranging from 0.40 to 0.78 demonstrating construct validity. Multiple significant correlations were also found between the JEF-C(H) © Average score and the BRIEF indices as well as total score in the Parent and Self-report questionnaires. These preliminary findings support the reliability and validity of this version. Current findings demonstrate the potential clinical utility of JEF-C(H) © as an ecologically valid tool for Israeli children and adolescents in the assessment of EFs.

Available Virtual Reality-Based Tools for Executive Functions: A Systematic Review

“…Specifically, patients performed significantly worse on most of the JEF-C subscales and total scores, with 41.4% patients classified as having severe executive dysfunction (Gilboa et al, 2019 ). Recently, the same authors developed an adapted Hebrew version, JEF-C (H) and assessed reliability and validity in the Israeli context, involving typically developing Israeli children and adolescents (aged 11–18 years) (Orkin Simon et al, 2020 ). Overall, results showed the potential clinical utility of JEF-C (H) as a VR-based tool for an ecologically valid evaluation of executive functioning in Israeli children and adolescents.…”

“…Overall, results showed the potential clinical utility of JEF-C (H) as a VR-based tool for an ecologically valid evaluation of executive functioning in Israeli children and adolescents. Expressly, data indicated that JEF-C (H) showed interesting psychometric properties (e.g., acceptable internal consistency) for measuring EFs performance of young Israeli sample (Orkin Simon et al, 2020 ).…”

Pitfalls in research on ecological validity of novel executive function tests: A systematic review and a call to action.

“…Interestingly, two of the articles that did not explicitly link EV to prediction of functioning (relying instead on participant feedback about the test’s face validity) nevertheless did examine the associations between test performance and functional outcome measures. Of these two, one did not find any associations between the outcome and the test of interest (Gilboa et al, 2019), and the other did find associations but referred to these as evidence of “concurrent validity” instead (Orkin Simon et al, 2022).…”

Conceptualization of the term “ecological validity” in neuropsychological research on executive function assessment: a systematic review and call to action

“…The remaining seven articles (23%) did not rely on the prediction of functional outcomes as evidence of EV. Instead, three (10%) relied on appearance (i.e., verisimilitude), either alone (Orkin Simon et al, 2022) or in combination with tests’ associations with other measures (Doherty et al, 2015; Jovanovski et al, 2012); and four articles (13%) based their conclusions about EV on tests’ associations with other tests of EF (La Paglia et al, 2012, 2014; Raspelli et al, 2011), or a correlation between the virtual and the real versions of the same test (Laloyaux et al, 2014). Interestingly, three articles examined correlations between the test and functional outcome but did not link the results of these procedures to EV; instead, these articles used alternative “validity” terminology, referring to convergent (Gilboa et al, 2019; Kenworthy et al, 2020) and concurrent validity (Orkin Simon et al, 2022).…”

“…Additionally, wholly erroneous conceptualizations have also begun to emerge, conflating EV with sensitivity to brain injury (Torralva et al, 2012), tests’ ability to differentiate groups (Kallweit et al, 2020; Montgomery et al, 2010), or construct or concurrent validity evidenced by associations with other tests (Doherty et al, 2015; Jovanovski et al, 2012; La Paglia et al, 2012, 2014; Laloyaux et al, 2014; Raspelli et al, 2011). Importantly, for some authors, EV appears to have become completely decoupled from prediction of functional outcome, as some studies that examined the association between the test and functional outcome failed to draw any connection between their results and EV (Alderman et al, 2003; Chevignard et al, 2010; Chicchi Giglioli et al, 2021; Finnanger et al, 2022; Júlio et al, 2019; Laloyaux et al, 2014; Longaud-Valès et al, 2016; Moriyama et al, 2002; O’Shea et al, 2010; Oliveira et al, 2016; Orkin Simon et al, 2022; Verdejo-García & Pérez-García, 2007; Zartman et al, 2013). Notably, some authors even claimed evidence of EV in face of their own negative findings about veridicality (Chevignard et al, 2009; Clark et al, 2017; Gilboa et al, 2019).…”