article · Brain Sciences
Direct assessments of executive functions are widely employed across clinical and research settings under the premise that they measure universal skills. However, as these tools spread globally, concerns arise regarding the suitability of instruments designed primarily in Western industrialised settings. An analysis of multidisciplinary theory and evidence highlights several cultural factors that conflict with the assumptions embedded in standard testing protocols. These include differences in motivation, compliance, expectations for interpersonal interaction, and familiarity with test subject matter. Additional conflicts stem from varying perspectives on speed and time, preferences for contextualised versus academic reasoning, and willingness to appear silly or incorrect. Many of these preferences diverge significantly between interdependent and independent societies, as well as between schooled and unschooled groups. Adapting protocols to account for these cultural variations is essential for developing a more representative understanding of executive function worldwide.
Executive function assessments influence clinical diagnoses, educational interventions, and developmental research globally. If these tools reflect only Western cultural values, they risk mischaracterising the cognitive abilities of individuals in diverse global communities. Adapting assessment protocols ensures that cognitive measures are fair, accurate, and culturally relevant beyond the narrow populations traditionally studied.
This research provides conceptual guidelines that could inform the redesign of clinical and educational diagnostic tools. Potential users include psychometricians, test publishers, and clinical practitioners seeking to localise cognitive assessment products for diverse markets. Because this work presents theoretical principles and evidence reviews rather than a validated assessment tool, it represents early-stage research that requires practical development and field validation before commercial deployment.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Direct assessments of executive functions (EFs) are increasingly used in research and clinical settings, with a central assumption that they assess "universal" underlying skills. Their use is spreading globally, raising questions about the cultural appropriateness of assessments devised in Western industrialized countries. We selectively reviewed multidisciplinary evidence and theory to identify sets of cultural preferences that may be at odds with the implicit assumptions of EF assessments. These preferences relate to motivation and compliance; cultural expectations for interpersonal engagement; contextualized vs. academic thinking; cultural notions of speed and time; the willingness to be silly, be incorrect, or do the opposite; and subject-matter familiarity. In each case, we discuss how the cultural preference may be incompatible with the assumptions of assessments, and how future research and practice can address the issue. Many of the cultural preferences discussed differ between interdependent and independent cultures and between schooled and unschooled populations. Adapting testing protocols to these cultural preferences in different contexts will be important for expanding our scientific understanding of EF from the narrow slice of the human population that has participated in the research to date.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci14040318
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
