A Systematic Review of the Validity and Reliability of Assessment Tools for Executive Function and Adaptive Function Following Brain Pathology among Children and Adolescents in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Minimal but increasing number of assessment instruments for Executive functions (EFs) and adaptive functioning (AF) have either been developed for or adapted and validated for use among children in low and middle income countries (LAMICs). However, the suitability of these tools for this context is unclear. A systematic review of such instruments was thus undertaken. The Systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist (Liberati et al., in BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 339, 2009). A search was made for primary research papers reporting psychometric properties for development or adaptation of either EF or AF tools among children in LAMICs, with no date or language restrictions. 14 bibliographic databases were searched, including grey literature. Risk of bias assessment was done following the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) guidelines (Mokkink et al., in Quality of Life Research, 63, 32, 2014). For EF, the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF- multiple versions), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), Go/No-go and the Rey-Osterrieth complex figure (ROCF) were the most rigorously validated. For AFs, the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales (VABS- multiple versions) and the Child Function Impairment Rating Scale (CFIRS- first edition) were most validated. Most of these tools showed adequate internal consistency and structural validity. However, none of these tools showed acceptable quality of evidence for sufficient psychometric properties across all the measured domains, particularly so for content validity and cross-cultural validity in LAMICs. There is a great need for adequate adaptation of the most popular EF and AF instruments, or alternatively the development of purpose-made instruments for assessing children in LAMICs.Systematic Review Registration numbers: CRD42020202190 (EF tools systematic review) and CRD42020203968 (AF tools systematic review) registered on PROSPERO website ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ).

Assessment Tools for Executive Function and Adaptive Function Following Brain Pathology Among Children in Developing Country Contexts: a Scoping Review of Current Tools.

Several tools have been developed to assess executive function (EFs) and adaptive functioning, although in mainly Western populations. Information on tools for low-and-middle-income country children is scanty. A scoping review of such instruments was therefore undertaken.We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis- Scoping Review extension (PRISMA-ScR) checklist (Tricco et al., in Annals of Internal Medicine 169(7), 467-473, 2018). A search was made for primary research papers of all study designs that focused on development or adaptation of EF or adaptive function tools in low-and-middle-income countries, published between 1st January 1894 to 15th September 2020. 14 bibliographic databases were searched, including several non-English databases and the data were independently charted by at least 2 reviewers.The search strategy identified 5675 eligible abstracts, which was pruned down to 570 full text articles. These full-text articles were then manually screened for eligibility with 51 being eligible. 41 unique tools coming in 49 versions were reviewed. Of these, the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF- multiple versions), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), Go/No-go and the Rey-Osterrieth complex figure (ROCF) had the most validations undertaken for EF tests. For adaptive functions, the tools with the most validation studies were the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales (VABS- multiple versions) and the Child Function Impairment Rating Scale (CFIRS- first edition).There is a fair assortment of tests available that have either been developed or adapted for use among children in developing countries but with limited range of validation studies. However, their psychometric adequacy for this population was beyond the scope of this paper.