Objective: “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. Method: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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).

中文翻译：

---

执行功能评估神经心理学研究中术语“生态有效性”的概念化：系统回顾和行动呼吁

目标：“生态有效性”（EV）传统上被定义为测试单独或与测试与现实世界任务的相似性一起预测现实世界功能的能力。在关于执行功能 (EF) 评估的神经心理学文献中，EV 的概念不一致，导致对测试效用的误解。本系统综述的目的是探讨在被描述为生态有效的 EF 测试研究中 EV 是如何概念化的。方法：检索MEDLINE和PsychINFO数据库。遵守 PRISMA 指南。应用纳入和排除标准后，该搜索产生了 90 篇文章。采用演绎内容分析来确定 EV 一词的使用方式。结果：大约 1/3 的研究将 EV 概念化为测试预测功能结果的能力，1/3 的研究将 EV 概念化为预测功能结果以及与现实世界任务的相似性的能力，1/3 的研究不清楚该术语或依赖于与经典定义无关的概念（例如，与现实世界任务的相似性、与其他测试的关联或区分人群的能力）。结论：关于 EF 评估的文献中，EV 一词的概念差异很大，包括标准、结构、表面效度以及敏感性/特异性的概念。这种不一致使得很难解释被描述为生态有效的测试的临床效用。我们呼吁该领域至少要求在所有出版物中明确定义 EV 一词，或者替换为更具体的术语（例如，标准有效性）。