Latent Structure of Executive Functioning/Learning Tasks in the CogState Computerized Battery

Abstract

This study tested whether executive functioning (EF)/learning tasks from the CogState computerized test battery show a unitary latent structure. This information is important for the construction of composite measures on these tasks for applied research purposes. Based on earlier factor analytic research, we identified five CogState tasks that have been labeled as EF/learning tasks and examined their intercorrelations in a new sample of Finnish birth cohort mothers ( N = 233). Using confirmatory factor analyses, we compared two single-factor EF/learning models. The first model included the recommended summative scores for each task. The second model exchanged summative scores for first test round results for the three tasks providing these data, as initial task performance is expected to load more heavily on EF. A single-factor solution provided a good fit for the present five EF/learning tasks. The second model, which was hypothesized to tap more onto EF, had slightly better fit indices, χ2(5) = 1.37, p = .93, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .02, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .00, 90% CI = [.00–.03], comparative fit index (CFI) = 1.00, and more even factor loadings (.30–.56) than the first model, χ2(5) = 4.56, p = .47, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .00, 90% CI = [.00–.09], CFI = 1.00, factor loadings (.20–.74), which was hypothesized to tap more onto learning. We conclude that the present CogState sum scores can be used for studying EF/learning in healthy adult samples, but call for further research to validate these sum scores against other EF tests.

Maternal Executive Functioning, Emotional Availability and Psychological Distress During Toddlerhood: A FinnBrain Birth Cohort Study

“…The participants completed a 12-task Cogstate test battery, from which five tasks thought to tap into EF were included in this study. The task outcome variables thought to best capture EF-related variance were utilized, in line with a previous factor analytic study (Nordenswan et al, 2020). As EF is engaged especially during the early stages of cognitive task performance, the first test round's result was selected instead of all rounds' summative score (for any tasks that had multiple test rounds).…”

“…The five task scores were standardized, calculated into an EF average score, and re-standardized. The tasks included in the EF composite are described briefly below, and in more detail in Nordenswan et al (2020).…”

“…However, the five EF tasks in our composite primarily measured working memory and set-shifting but not inhibitory control-a limitation of our study. Also, it should be noted that the EF tasks we used incorporate notable elements of learning, and could be more broadly defined as "EF/learning tasks" (Nordenswan et al, 2020). Finally, self-report questionnaires were used to assess psychological distress.…”

Maternal Psychological Distress and Executive Functions Are Associated During Early Parenthood – A FinnBrain Birth Cohort Study

“…EFs were measured with a composite score encompassing five Cogstate tasks. The Cogstate test battery includes computerized adaptations of standard neuropsychological tests ( Nordenswan et al, 2020 ). As any EF task engages both general (EF) and task-specific cognitive processes, it is preferable to base EF assessment on multiple tasks ( Friedman and Miyake, 2017 ).…”

“…In accordance with a previous factor analytic study, the task outcome variables thought to best capture EF-related variance were used. Within a sample of general population mothers from the FinnBrain Birth Cohort ( Karlsson et al, 2018 ), Nordenswan et al (2020) explored the intercorrelation between five Cogstate tasks that in previous studies had been labeled as EF/learning tasks; the Two Back Test (TWOB), the Set-Shifting Test (SETS), the Groton Maze Learning Test (GML), the Continuous Paired Associate Learning Test (CPAL), and the International Shopping List Test (ISL). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated that a single-factor solution was a good fit for the five tasks.…”