Ecological validity of neuropsychological interventions: A systematic review.
Saved in:
| Title: | Ecological validity of neuropsychological interventions: A systematic review. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Pinto, Joana O. (AUTHOR), Pontes, Diogo (AUTHOR), Peixoto, Bruno (AUTHOR), Dores, Artemisa R. (AUTHOR), Barbosa, Fernando (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Applied Neuropsychology: Adult. Jan/Feb2026, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p275-294. 20p. |
| Subjects: | Validity of statistics, Cognitive rehabilitation, Evaluation methodology, Evidence gaps |
| Abstract: | Background: The concept of ecological validity (EV) in neuropsychological interventions (NI) has been consistently advocated, but there is a lack of reviews focused on how EV is operationalized in NI programmes. This review aims to address this gap by exploring the outcome measures more commonly used for assessing EV and to understand the main characteristics of programmes with good EV. Method: A literature search was conducted to identify studies that examined the EV of NI programmes, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane Collaboration Guidelines. Results: A total of twenty-seven studies were included in this review. Among these, only three studies explicitly described the procedures used to assess EV. Additionally, almost half of the studies assumed that interventions had good EV based on the characteristics of the programmes. The inconsistent assessment of EV of NI programmes prevented the identification of specific characteristics of programmes demonstrating good EV. Conclusion: This systematic review reveals a significant gap in the literature concerning the operationalization of EV within the field of NI. Further research is required to establish a consistent definition of EV in the context of NI and to develop criteria for its effective operationalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Applied Neuropsychology: Adult is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: The concept of ecological validity (EV) in neuropsychological interventions (NI) has been consistently advocated, but there is a lack of reviews focused on how EV is operationalized in NI programmes. This review aims to address this gap by exploring the outcome measures more commonly used for assessing EV and to understand the main characteristics of programmes with good EV. Method: A literature search was conducted to identify studies that examined the EV of NI programmes, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane Collaboration Guidelines. Results: A total of twenty-seven studies were included in this review. Among these, only three studies explicitly described the procedures used to assess EV. Additionally, almost half of the studies assumed that interventions had good EV based on the characteristics of the programmes. The inconsistent assessment of EV of NI programmes prevented the identification of specific characteristics of programmes demonstrating good EV. Conclusion: This systematic review reveals a significant gap in the literature concerning the operationalization of EV within the field of NI. Further research is required to establish a consistent definition of EV in the context of NI and to develop criteria for its effective operationalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 23279095 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/23279095.2024.2328694 |
