Nick Alderman

TL;DR: In this article, the authors used different tests and procedures for testing out a theoretical model than they would for trying to predict the likelihood of successful return to work for a brain-injured patient.

TL;DR: The extent to which the tests predicted the patients' everyday life problems was significantly predictive of at least some of the behavioral and cognitive deficits reported by patients' carers, supporting the conclusions that different tests measure different cognitive processes and that there may be limits to the fractionation of the executive system.

TL;DR: This article considers the scientific process whereby new and better clinical tests of executive function might be developed, and what form they might take, and considers as an alternative approach a function-led development programme which in principle could yield tasks better suited to the concerns of the clinician because of the transparency afforded by increased “representativeness” and “generalisability.

TL;DR: The results demonstrate the clinical utility of the test, and suggest that there are two common and independent sources of failure on multitasking tests in a general neurological population: memory dysfunction, and initiation problems.

TL;DR: Crawford et al. as mentioned in this paper developed an ecologically valid test for assessing patients with dysexecutive syndrome with attention and executive function, which was used to assess patients with Attention and Executive Function.