Six elements test vs D-KEFS: what does "Ecological Validity" tell us?

Abstract

Objective: Extensive research shows that tests of executive functioning (EF) predict instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) but are nevertheless often criticized for having poor ecological validity. The Modified Six Elements Test (MSET) is a pencil-and-paper test that was developed to mimic the demands of daily life, with the assumption that this would result in a more ecologically valid test. Although the MSET has been extensively validated in its ability to capture cognitive deficits in various populations, support for its ability to predict functioning in daily life is mixed. This study aimed to examine the MSET's ability to predict IADLs assessed via three different modalities relative to traditional EF measures.

Method: Participants (93 adults aged 60 - 85) completed the MSET, traditional measures of EF (Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System; D-KEFS), and self-reported and performance-based IADLs in the lab. Participants then completed three weeks of IADL tasks at home, using the Daily Assessment of Independent Living and Executive Skills (DAILIES) protocol.

Results: The MSET predicted only IADLs completed at home, while the D-KEFS predicted IADLs across all three modalities. Further, the D-KEFS predicted home-based IADLs beyond the MSET when pitted against each other, whereas the MSET did not contribute beyond the D-KEFS.

Conclusions: Traditional EF tests (D-KEFS) appear to be superior to the MSET in predicting IADLs in community-dwelling older adults. The present results argue against replacing traditional measures with the MSET when addressing functional independence of generally high-functioning and cognitive healthy older adult patients.