Executive Function Performance in Young, Middle-Aged, and Older Adults

A Research Report

Submitted

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements

For the Degree

Master of Arts

Claire Davis, Maddisen Heun, & Tina Kise

University of Northern Iowa

May 2014

APPROVAL SHEET

Title: Executive Function Performance in Young, Middle-Aged, and Older Adults

Name of Candidate: Claire Davis, Maddisen Heun, & Tina Kise

Research Project Approved: _________________________________________

Angela N. Burda, Ph.D.

Research Director

_________________________________________

Todd Bohnenkamp, Ph.D.

Second Reader

ABSTRACT

The performance of adults across the lifespan on executive function tests administered by

speech-language pathologists is lacking. This study sought to provide additional normative data

of executive functioning in normal aging adults. In addition, performance differences across the

three age groups was investigated. One hundred and five participants completed two executive

function tests, the Behavioral Assessment of Dysexecutive Strategies and Functional Assessment

of Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies (BADS; Wilson, Alderman, Burgess, Emslie, &

Evans, 1996; FAVRES; MacDonald, 2005). Participants were equally divided into the following

three age groups: young, middle-aged, and older adults who ranged in age from 20-88 years old.

Older adults demonstrated statistically significantly lower scores compared to young and middle-

aged adults for each test. However, no significant differences were found between young and

middle-aged adults. Further research is necessary to determine a definitive pattern of executive

function performance in normal aging adults of differing ages.

Performance of adults across the lifespan on executive function tests

Executive function is a term that encompasses numerous abilities involving higher level

cognitive processes including: initiating, forming goals, applying knowledge and judgment in

problem solving situations, sequencing, carrying out plans to completion, inhibiting

inappropriate behaviors, and organizing pertinent information (Crawford & Channon, 2002;

Jurado & Rosselli, 2007; Pickens, Ostwald, Murphy-Pace, & Bergstrom, 2010). In essence,

intact executive functioning facilitates dynamic adaptations to novel and varied situations.

Morality and ethical behavior can also be contained in the area of executive function (Jurado &

Rosselli, 2007), although these areas are not typically included in assessment tools.

Adequately evaluating executive function can be challenging because of the vast

repertoire of skills needed. Further complicating the matter is that there is relatively sparse

normative data for executive function test performance in healthy adults. Yet, medically-based

speech-language pathologists (SLPs) need to know how well adults across the lifespan perform

on executive function tests. Some researchers report that executive function performance

decreases with age and declines earlier in the lifespan than previously believed (Allain, Nicoleau,

Pinon, Etcharry-Bouyx, Barré, Berrut, & Gall, 2005; Garden, Phillips, & MacPherson, 2001).

Others report that generally there is little executive function decline until old age (Singh-Manoux

et al., 2012). Although Singh-Manoux et al. (2012) report that cognitive declines in those under

60 years of age are typically not clinically important, this may not be valid as individuals with

Alzheimer’s Disease can show slight cognitive changes 10-20 years prior to the diagnosis (Collie

et al., 2001; Tondelli et al., 2012). Such changes could potentially include executive function

changes. If older adults develop executive dysfunction, their functional status may be

significantly affected (Pickens et al., 2010). They may be unable to start or stop actions, or

change current or future plans when faced with novel tasks or interruptions. In addition, the

ability to autonomously make decisions may be called into question when a person displays

characteristics of executive function impairment (Pickens et al., 2010). This could impact the

implementation of an advance directive, or the ability to provide informed consent to a medical

procedure or care.

Of the research done on executive function performance in adults, Garden, Phillips, and

MacPherson (2001) found no evidence that middle-aged adults (53-64 years) struggled with

changing tasks or following task rules on a subtest similar to the six elements subtest from the

Behavioural Assessment of Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS; Wilson, Alderman, Burgess, Emslie,

& Evans, 1996). This suggests that in middle-age, there is not an age-related effect on open-

ended planning abilities. In fact, the authors reported that real-world performance on tasks

requiring executive skills were rather robust even on the cusp of early age-related neurological

change (Garden et al., 2001). Although healthy middle-aged adults did well on one subtest of the

BADS, Allain et al. (2005) reported that compared to healthy younger adults (19-50 years old),

healthy older adults (72-97 years) demonstrated difficulties in planning and completing the Zoo

Map subtest of the BADS.

Two executive function tests available to clinicians include the Functional Assessment of

Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies (FAVRES; MacDonald, 2005) and the previously

mentioned BADS (Wilson et al., 1996). The FAVRES assesses four high level cognitive-

communication skills that can occur frequently in daily life: “planning an event, scheduling a

workday, making a decision, and building a case” (MacDonald & Johnson, 2005, p. 896).

According to the examiner’s manual, executive functions assessed within the FARVES are

planning, sequencing, controlling inhibitions, and “sequencing, organizing and prioritizing tasks

with time constraints” (MacDonald & Johnson, 2005, p. 897). Tasks generally contain some sort

of restrictions, such as in the scheduling of a workday or certain meetings occuring at specific

times. In addition, persons must complete generation and prediction tasks. For example, after

writing a letter of complaint for shoddy workmanship on a home repair, patients are asked to

verbally generate a list of items one would want covered by homeowner’s insurance. An

example of a predicting task for planning a children’s activity would be asking the patient to

state what are two good things and two bad things that could happen at the chosen event. As

opposed to laboratory measures, ecologically valid tasks tend to give a better idea of one’s daily

functioning (Erwin & Hunter, 1984; Moriyama et al., 2002; Sussman et al., 1986), possibly

helping to predict individuals’ behaviors in daily life (Franzen & Wilhelm, 1996; Silver, 2000).

Thus, these functional tasks mirror the real-world demands of receiving substantial pieces of

information that must be understood and organized before using the information to perform the

task at hand. The FARVES was normed on 101 healthy adults ages 17-89 years, and 52 adults

with an acquired brain injury, however, no information is included in the examiner’s manual on

specific age-related performance (MacDonald, 2005).

The BADS is a battery of tests (i.e., subtests) that determine the severity of dysexecutive

impairments by evaluating high-level tasks such as “planning, organising, initiating, monitoring

and adapting behaviour” (Chamberlain, 2003, p. 33). There are six subtests in which participants

provide verbal and written responses, as well as a more hands-on activity. One test asks temporal

judgment questions, such as “How long does it take to clean the windows of an average sized

house?” and “How long does it take to blow up a party balloon?” Another task provides the

patient with a zoo map and rather open-ended instructions to visit several exhibits while abiding

by a set of rules. After completing this task, patients are again given the same zoo map with more

specific instructions on the sequence of exhibits to visit, while again abiding by the previously

indicated rules. The normative sample was composed of 216 healthy adults, grouped by the

following age brackets: 16-40, 41-65, and 65-87 (Wilson et al., 1996). Although the test authors

noted that participants in the norming group under the age of 65 performed significantly better

than those over 65, comparisons between the young and middle-aged adults are not included

(Wilson et al., 1996).

Speech-language pathologists will likely work with several populations whom exhibit

executive dysfunction, such as persons who have traumatic brain injury, a genetic syndrome,

vascular disease, multiple sclerosis, dementia, or other degenerative diseases (Geffner, 2007;

Royall, Palmer, Chiodo, & Polk, 2004). Impaired executive function can result in deficits in

pragmatics, discourse, memory, attention, and strategic thinking (Geffner, 2007) that negatively

impact daily functional living. As Salthouse, Atkinson, and Berish (2003) note, “Because

disruption of central control processes might result in the impairment of relevant behavior even if

the component processes are intact, executive functioning clearly has the potential to affect

performance in a wide variety of cognitive variables” (p. 566). In addition, Singh-Manoux et al.

(2012) report, “poor cognitive status is perhaps the single most disabling condition in old age”

(p. 1). Crawford and Channon (2002) note that clinical assessments are generally based on

traditional executive tasks rather than tasks that are functional and representative of real-life,

allowing for gross misestimates of performance. Yet, information from reliable and valid

assessment tools are needed in order to develop appropriate treatment plans (Murray, 2012).

Having data on how adults across the lifespan perform on executive function tests can provide

SLPs with useful information in deciding if their patients’ performance is age-appropriate or if it

denotes some type of impairment. There is not currently enough data to provide this information.

For this study, the following research questions were addressed: 1) What are young, middle-

aged, and older adults’ mean performance on executive function tests? 2) Are there statistically

significant differences in performance between age groups on executive function tests?

Methodology

Participants. One-hundred and five native English speaking participants (49 men, 56

women) volunteered for this study. A power analysis for an effect size of .08 with an alpha of .05

indicated that a total sample size of 105 was needed. Participants were equally divided into the

following three age groups (i.e. 35 individuals in each group): Young, Middle-Aged, and Older.

Young participants ranged in age from 20-39 years (M = 27.31 years, SD = 5.25), Middle-Aged

participants ranged in age from 40-59 years (M = 50.31 years, SD = 5.27), and Older participants

were aged age 60 and older (M = 69.83 years, SD = 8.21). Participant inclusion criteria were

comprised of the following: no history of any neurological damage or events (e.g. TIAs),

possessed at least a high school level of education, and passed a pure tone hearing screening with

tones presented at 20 dB HL at the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hertz. Older

participants were included if they had no greater than a mild hearing loss in their better ear,

defined as no greater than 40 dB hearing loss at any of the previously documented frequencies

(Burda, Casey, Foster, Pilkington, & Reppe, 2006; Burda, Scherz, Hageman, & Edwards, 2003).

Participants were also required to score a minimum of 26 or higher on the Mini Mental State

Examination (MMSE; Folstein, Folstein, & Fanjiang, 2001). MMSE means and standard

deviations were as follows: Young: M = 29.00 (SD = 1.41), Middle-Aged: M = 29.46 (SD =

0.78), and Older: M = 28.34 (SD = 1.59). The overwhelming majority of participants completed

or was in the process of completing some type of post-high school education. Young adults

averaged 6.66 years (SD = 2.84) of college, Middle-Aged adults averaged 3.06 years (SD = 2.22)

of college, and Older adults averaged 5.03 years (SD = 3.16) of college.

Stimuli and Procedures. Participants were recruited from small, mid-sized, and large

urban and rural communities in the Midwest. Participants were administered the FAVRES

(MacDonald, 2005) and the BADS (Wilson, Emslie, Evans, Alderman, & Burgess 1996) in a

counterbalanced manner. Tests were administered according to the protocols outlined in the

corresponding tests manuals. Testing was completed in a single session; breaks were provided as

needed. Experimental sessions typically lasted approximately 120 minutes.

Data Analysis. Participants’ responses were scored according to the procedures found in

the respective test manuals. Four raw scores are obtained for each subtest on the FAVRES: Time

raw score, Accuracy raw score, Rationale raw score, and Reasoning Subskills raw score. Raw

scores are multi-dimensional in nature. Participants earn the highest points possible for the most

appropriate response. When individuals provide a related response that is reasonable in nature,

points will be earned but not the full points possible. Raw scores are converted to standard

scores. Similar to raw scores, four scores are obtained: Time standard score, Accuracy standard

score, Rationale standard score, and Reasoning subskills standard score. Raw scores are also

used to calculate the Total Score for the test. The mean standard score is 100 with a standard

deviation of 15.

Raw scores on the BADS are converted to profile scores. Profile scores can range from a

score of 0- 4. Some subtests, such as the Modified Six Elements Test, have timed components

which can factor into the calculation of the profile score. The test authors denote that the

performance of normal controls suggest that time to plan or complete an item captures an

essential element of executive functions. Summing the profile scores for each of the six tests

leads to an overall profile score. Thus, if a patient completes the entire test, he or she could earn

a Total Profile Score ranging from 0-24.

Reliability. Subtest raw scores were used to calculate inter- and intra-rater reliability.

Inter- and intra-rater reliability was conducted on approximately 20% of a randomly chosen

sample (i.e. 15 participants). For inter-rater reliability, the investigator’s scores were correlated

with scores of a trained speech-language pathology graduate student. For intra-rater reliability,

the investigators scored protocols from the randomly chosen sample twice. The second scoring

took place two weeks after the initial scoring. Pearson r correlations were then calculated. Inter-

rater reliability for the FAVRES was r = ___, while intra-rater reliability was r = ___. Inter-rater

reliability for the BADS was r = ___, while intra-rater reliability was r = ___.

Results

Data Analysis

Overall mean scores on the BADS and the FAVRES were obtained for participant groups

(see Tables 1 and 2). In both tests, older adults generally had the lowest mean scores compared

to the other two age groups. There were some exceptions. For example, on the BADS, middle-

aged adults had the highest mean score for the Action Program while young adults had the

lowest mean scores. On the FAVRES, older adults had the lowest mean standard scores for

accuracy and rationale measures. For measures of time, however, young adults had the lowest

mean standard scores for Task 1 (Planning an Event), while middle-aged adults had the lowest

mean scores for Task 2 (Scheduling a Day).

Table 1 Mean and Standard Deviations of BADS Profile Scores for Young, Middle-Aged, and

Older Adults

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of FAVRES Standard Scores for Young, Middle-Aged,

and Older Adults

FAVRES Tasks Total

SS*

Possible

Young Adults

(N = 35)

Middle-Aged Adults

(N = 35)

Older Adults

(N = 35)

Accuracy SS* M SD M SD M SD

Task 1 108 100.94 16.02 95.51 18.40 87.91 20.58

Task 2 106 90.46 21.26 96.89 18.43 73.31 32.79

BADS Subtests

Total

Score

Possible

Young Adults

(N = 35)

Middle-Aged Adults

(N = 35)

Older Adults

(N = 35)

M SD M SD M SD

Rule-Shift

Cards 4 3.40 .65 3.80 .47 3.23 1.00

Action

Program 4 3.46 1.22 3.89 .53 3.60 .81

Key Search 4 3.26 .95 2.86 1.17 2.77 1.00

Temporal

Judgment 4 1.20 .63 1.31 .68 1.17 .57

Zoo Map 4 2.89 .99 2.51 1.09 2.09 1.20

Modified Six

Elements

4 3.66 .76 3.74 .89 3.40 .81

Total Points

Score 24 17.89 1.95 17.97 2.26 16.26 2.56

Standard Score 100 98.97 9.34 99.37 10.69 91.29 12.19

Task 3 107 95.86 15.81 95.11 17.09 90.23 29.64

Task 4 106 82.00 30.77 71.89 30.39 57.31 39.73

Total Test 111 88.40 21.22 85.80 19.48 65.91 35.36

Rationale SS*

Task 1 106 101.77 14.94 97.23 21.34 87.31 31.84

Task 2 109 90.31 14.94 95.37 19.50 88.74 18.50

Task 3 103 92.60 22.03 89.74 28.09 72.31 39.94

Task 4 107 80.11 31.89 82.20 28.26 67.17 33.55

Total Test 111 89.20 20.85 88.37 17.98 68.09 27.17

Time SS*

Task 1 132 105.91 16.09 109.60 9.54 105.97 12.20

Task 2 144 101.23 18.99 93.83 25.28 94.06 25.00

Task 3 130 104.51 9.82 100.11 13.78 94.49 21.43

Task 4 135 109.00 11.77 105.77 10.60 105.54 11.78

Total Test 126 107.89 14.82 104.06 11.71 101.03 17.91

Reasoning SS*

142 91.09 13.42 84.80 35.26 82.71 13.96

Note: SS* = Standard Score

A series of two-factor Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were conducted with Bonferroni

correction for multiple comparisons using Age as the independent variable and Score as the

dependent variable. Several statistically significant differences occurred in both tests. On the

BADS, the results showed an effect for the Rule Shift Card test, F (2, 104) = 5.46, (p ≤ .006); the

Zoo Map test, F (2, 104) = 4.65, (p ≤ .012); the BADS Total Profile Score, F (2, 104) = 6.34, (p

≤ .003); and the BADS Standard Score, F (2, 104) = 6.22, (p ≤ .003). (See table 3). Tukey’s post

hoc testing indicated that middle-aged adults had statistically significantly higher scores on the

Rule Shift Card test compared to older adults (Tukey’s Value = .57, p ≤ .005), while young

adults scored significantly higher on the Zoo Map task than did older adults (Tukey’s Value =

.80, p ≤ .008). For the BADS Total Profile score, both young and middle-aged adults had

significantly higher scores on the BADS Total Profile Score compared to older adults (Tukey’s

Value = 1.62, p ≤ .009) and (Tukey’s Value = 1.71, p ≤ .006), respectively. In addition, young

and middle-aged adults had statistically higher scores on the BADS Standard Score compared to

the older adults (Tukey’s Value = 7.68, p ≤ .01) and (Tukey’s Value = 8.09, p ≤ .006)

respectively.

On the FARVES, the results showed an effect for Accuracy scores on the following

subtests: Task 1 (Planning an Event), F (2, 104) = 4.41, (p ≤ .014); Task 2 (Scheduling a Day), F

(2, 104) = 8.91, (p ≤ .0001); Task 4 (Letter of Complaint), F (2, 104) = 4.68, (p ≤ .011); and

Accuracy Total, F (2, 104) = 7.63, (p ≤ .001). Significant differences also occurred for Rationale

scores for the following: Task 1, F (2, 104) = 3.39, (p ≤ .038); Task 2, F (2, 104) = 3.16, (p ≤

.046); Task 3 (Choosing a Gift), F (2, 104) = 4.41, (p ≤ .015); and Rationale Total, F (2, 104) =

10.03, (p ≤ .0001). Finally, statistically significant differences occurred for Task 3 Time scores,

F (2, 104) = 3.56, (p ≤ .032). Results from Tukey’s post hoc testing revealed that for Accuracy

scores, young adults had statistically significantly higher scores on Task 1 than older adults

(Tukey’s Value = 13.02, p ≤ .011). Young and middle-aged adults scored higher on Task 2 than

older adults (Tukey’s Value = 18.71, p ≤ .006) and (Tukey’s Value = 23.57, p ≤ .000)

respectively. Young adults also scored significantly higher on Task 4 compared to older adults

(Tukey’s Value = 24.68, p ≤ .008). Young and middle-aged adults had significantly higher

Accuracy Total scores than older adults (Tukey’s Value = 22.48, p ≤ .002) and (Tukey’s Value =

19.88, p ≤ .006) respectively. For Rationale scores, Tukey’s post hoc testing indicated that young

adults had statistically significant higher scores than older adults Tasks 1, 2, and 3 (Tukey’s

Value = 14.46, p ≤ .033, Tukey’s Value = 10.57, p ≤ .038, and Tukey’s Value = 20.29, p ≤ .019,

respectively). Young and middle-aged adults had significantly higher Rationale Total scores

compared to older adults (Tukey’s Value = 21.11, p ≤ .000) and (Tukey’s Value = 20.28, p ≤

.001), respectively. Finally, young adults had higher Task 3 Time scores than older adults

(Tukey’s Value = 10.02, p ≤ .024).

Overall, age did appear to affect performance on both the BADS and the FAVRES. Older

adults had statistically significantly lower scores compared to young and middle-aged adults on

several subtests. There were no significant differences between young and middle-aged adults.

This study is one of relatively few which has investigated the performance of young,

middle-aged, and older healthy adults’ performance on executive function tests, specifically the

FAVRES and the BADS. Overall, there were no performance differences between young and

middle-aged adults. These findings are similar to Burda et al. (2014) in which young and middle-

aged adults had no significant performance differences on the FAVRES and BADS except for

the Rule Card Shift Test. In Burda et al.’s (2014) study, middle-aged adults had significantly

higher mean scores than the young adults. In the current study, there was no difference between

young and middle-aged adults on the Rule Shift Card subtest. Findings from this study are also

similar to Garden et al. (2001) who found no evidence of middle-aged adults having difficulty

with changing tasks or following task rules on a subtest similar to the six elements subtest of the

BADS. Although the test authors of the BADS noted that participants in the norming group

under the age of 65 performed significantly better than those over 65, comparisons between the

young and middle-aged adults are not included (Wilson et al., 1996). Within this study, the older

adult group collectively performed better on the third subtest of the FAVRES as compared to the

other three subtests, although they also took more time to complete that test compared to the

young and middle-aged adults.

In the current study, older adults, however, typically had statistically significant lower

test scores compared to young and middle-aged adults, despite having a high level of education.

Results of this study concur with Allain et al. (2005) and Garden et al.’s (2001) assertions that

executive function performance decreases with age and may decline earlier in the lifespan than

previously believed. In addition, Allain et al. (2005) reported older adults had poorer

performance on the Zoo map subtest of the BADS compared to young adults. Participants in the

older adult group of the current study were relatively young (M age = 69.83), yet had the

majority of the lowest mean scores on both the FAVRES and BADS. Results from the current

study also correspond with Singh-Manoux et al’s. (2012) report that there is generally little

executive function decline until old age, although again, mean age of the older adults of this

study was still less than 70 years old. While Singh-Manoux et al. (2012) also believe that

cognitive declines in individuals under 60 years of age are usually not clinically important, this

study cannot comment on this due to it being cross-sectional and not longitudinal. The FAVRES,

arguably one of the most ecologically valid executive function test available to SLPs,

nevertheless demonstrated declines in the current study’s older adult group. It is important to

note, however, that while the older adults in the current study performed at a lower level than

young and middle-aged adults, all older adult participants self-reported that they did not have

any history of neurological events (e.g., TIA, stroke). They also were living independently at the

time of testing.

There are several possible explanations for the general lower performance of older adults

seen in this study. Numerous older adults struggled with the generative naming tasks, and forgot

to provide an adequate number of responses to the first question asked within each of the

FARVES subtests, lowering the overall score. Some older adults also demonstrated a decline of

Theory of Mind compared to the young and middle-aged adult participants. It is possible that

many of the older adults were out of practice in solving the types of problems presented in the

FARVES and the BADS, and felt additional pressure during the testing period due to the

challenging nature of the two tests. This could have attributed to older adults going through the

materials too quickly and missing steps, or becoming fatigued and wanting to finish the tests.

The FAVRES examiner’s manual offers no figures on specific age-related performance

(MacDonald, 2005); our data adds to this information that was previously unavailable. Within

the BADS, the authors did not have comparisons between young and middle-aged adults; our

data adds to this collection of information.

There are several limitations to this study. Fatigue may have been an issue for the older

adults. Although many completed testing in two hours, some required two and a half hours in

order to complete all tasks. Breaks were given but were often short. Older adults may have had

different performance if longer breaks were employed or if each test was administered on

different days. In addition, participant groups as a whole were highly educated and few

participants represented minority populations, limiting the generalization of the study’s findings

(Ellis, 2009; Scheffner Hammer, 2011). Considering persons’ race/ethnicity is essential when

interpreting tests for adults who have neurologically-based acquired communication disorders

(Ellis, 2009). Adults from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds may perform

differently on these tests (Scheffner Hammer, 2012). Another limitation is that testing took place

in participants’ own homes where multiple distractions were present. This could lead to lower

overall scores due to lack of participants’ attention. In addition, lower scores were repeatedly

reported for a majority of participants on the BADS Test 4: Temporal Judgment and Test 2:

Scheduling. Participant frustration was also observed on these Tests. Scoring on both tests was

strict and rigid and did not leave room for flexibility of varying answers. Finally, this study was

cross-sectional in nature. Thus, we are unable to conclude whether or not current participants’

performance on cognitive tests predicts future outcomes, as well as how performance changes

over time.

Future research options include testing a more randomized participant pool that

represents a variety of diverse populations that encompass all levels of socioeconomic status,

individuals with little formal education, and races. To reduce fatigue during testing, researchers

suggest that testing take place over two days in an environment free of distractions as opposed to

one long session in their home. Lastly, completing a longitudinal study to determine progression

overtime is recommended. In conclusion, young and middle-aged adults often had a higher

performance on executive functioning tests than older adults.

References

Allain, P., Nicoleau, S., Pinon, K., Etcharry-Bouyx, F., Barré, J., Berrut, G., & Gall, D. L.

(2005). Executive functioning in normal aging: A study of action planning using the Zoo

Map Test. Brain and Cognition, 57, 4-7. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.011.

Burda, A., Baker, K., Burns, A., Butler, C., Clark, L., Cook, W., Drury, H., Dunham, K.,

Flatness, J., Goettsch, K., Johnson, M., Laudick, A., Lowe, J., Roesler, J., Rohde, J.,

Sorenson, E., & Young, M. (2014). Performance of young and middle-aged adults on

cognitive tests. Journal of Medical Speech-Language-Pathology, 21, ??-??.

Burda, A.N, Casey, A.M., Foster, T.R., Pilkington, A.K., & Reppe, E.A. (2006). Effects of

accent and age on transcription of medically related utterances: A pilot study.

Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27, 110-116.

Burda, A.N., Scherz, J.A., Hageman, C.F., & Edwards, H.T. (2003). Effects of age on

understanding speakers with Spanish or Taiwanese accents. Perceptual and Motor Skills,

97, 11-20.

Chamberlain, E. (2003). Behavioral assessment of the dysexeuctive syndrome (BADS). [Review

of the test Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome, by Wilson, B. A.,

Alderman, N., Burgess, P. W., Emslie, H., & Evans, J. J. Journal of Occupational

Psychology, Employment and Disability, 5(2), 33-37. Available from

http://www.gov.uk.government/collections/journal-of-occupational-psychology-

employment-and-disability-issn-1746-0999-online.

Collie, A., Maruff, P., Shafiq-Antonacci, R., Smith, M., Hallup, M., Schofield, P. R., et al.

(2001). Memory decline in healthy older people: Implications for identifying mild

cognitive impairment. Neurology, 56, 1533-1538. doi: 10.1212/WNL.56.11.1533

Crawford, S., & Channon, S. (2002). Dissociation between performance on abstract tests of

executive function and problem solving in real-life-type situation in normal aging. Aging

& Mental Health, 6(1), 12-21. doi: 10.1080/13607860120101130

Ellis, C. (2009). Does race/ethnicity really matter in adult neurogenics? American Journal of

Speech-Language Pathology, 18, 310-314. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0039)

Erwin, J. E., & Hunter, J. J. (1984). Prediction of attrition in alcohol aftercare by scores on the

embedded figures test and two Piagetian tasks. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 52, 354–358.

Folsteitn, M. F., Folestein, S. E., & Fanjiang, G. (2001). Mini-mental state examination: Clinical

guide. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Franzen, M. D., & Wilhelm, K. L. (1996). Conceptual foundations of ecological validity in

neuropsychological assessment. In R. J. Sbordone & C. J. Long (Eds.) Ecological validity

of neuropsychological testing (pp. 91–112). St. Lucie Press, New York.

Garden, S. E., Phillips, L. H., & MacPherson, S. E. (2001). Midlife aging, open-ended planning,

and laboratory measures of executive function. Neuropsychology, 15, 472-482. doi:

10.1037/0894-4105.15.4.472

Geffner, D. (2007). Managing executive function disorders. Presented at the ASHA Convention,

New York. Retrieved from http:/asha.org/

Jurado, M. B., & Rosseli, M. (2007). The elusive nature of executive functions: A review of our

current understanding. Neuropsychology Review, 17, 213-233. doi: 10.1007/s11065-007-

9040-z

MacDonald, S. (2005). Function Assessment of Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies.

Ontario, Canada: CCD Publishing.

MacDonald, S., & Johnson, C. J. (2005). Assessment of subtle cognitive-communication deficits

following acquired brain injury: A normative study of the Functional Assessment of

Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies (FAVRES). Brain Injury, 19(11), 895-902.

Moriyama, Y., Mimura, M., Kato, M., Yoshino, A., Hara, T., Kashima, H., Kato, A., &

Watanabe, A. (2002). Executive dysfunction and clinical outcome in chronic alcoholics.

Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 26, 1239–1244. doi:

10.1097/01.ALC.0000026103.08053.86

Murray, L. (2012). Assessing cognitive function in older patients: The why, who, what, and how.

Perspectives on Gerontology, 17, 17-26. 10.1044/gero17.1.17

Pickens, S., Ostwald, S. K., Murphy-Pace, K., & Bergstrom, N. (2010). Evidence synthesis:

Systematic review of current executive function measures in adults with and without

cognitive impairments. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 8(3), 110-

125. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2010.00170.x

Royall, D. R., Palmer, R., Chiodo, L. K., & Polk, M. J. (2004). Declining executive control in

normal aging predicts change in functional status: The freedom house study. Journal of

the American Geriatrics Society, 52(3), 346-352. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52104.x

Salthouse, T. A., Atkinson, T. M., & Berish, D. E. (2003). Executive functioning as a potential

mediatory of age-related cognitive decline in normal adults. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 132(4), 566-594. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.566

Scheffner Hammer, C. (2011). Broadening our knowledge about diverse populations. American

Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20, 71-72. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2011/ed-02)

Silver, C. H. (2000). Ecological validity of neuropsychological assessment in childhood

traumatic brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 15, 973–988. doi:

10.1097/00001199-200008000-0002

Singh-Manoux, A., Kivimaki, M., Glymour, M. M., Elbaz, A., Berr, C., Ebmeier, K. P., Ferrie, J.

E., & Dugravot, A. (2012). Timing of onset of cognitive decline: Results from Whitehall

II prospective cohort study. British Medical Journal, 344, 1-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7622

Sussman, S., Rychtarik, R., G, Mueser, K., Glynn, S., & Prue, D. M. (1986). Ecological

relevance of memory tests and the prediction of relapse in alcoholics. Journal of Studies

on Alcohol and Drugs, 47, 305–310.

Tondelli, M., Wilcock, G. K., Nichelli, P., De Jager, C. A., Jenkinson, M., & Zamboni, G.,

(2012). Structural MRI changes detectable up to ten years before clinical Alzheimer’s

disease, Neurobiology of Aging, 33, e825–e836. doi:

10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2011.05.018

Wilson, B. A., Alderman, N., Burgess, P. W., Emslie, H., & Evans, J. J. (1996). Behavioural

Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome. London, England: Thames Valley Test

Company.

Table 1 Mean and Standard Deviations of BADS Profile Scores for Young, Middle-Aged, and

Older Adults

BADS

Subtests

Total

Score

Possible

Young Adults

(N = 35)

Middle-Aged Adults

(N = 35)

Older Adults

(N = 35)

M SD M SD M SD

Rule-Shift

Cards 4 3.40 .65 3.80 .47 3.23 1.00

Action

Program 4 3.46 1.22 3.89 .53 3.60 .81

Key Search 4 3.26 .95 2.86 1.17 2.77 1.00

Temporal

Judgment 4 1.20 .63 1.31 .68 1.17 .57

Zoo Map 4 2.89 .99 2.51 1.09 2.09 1.20

Modified

Six

Elements

4 3.66 .76 3.74 .89 3.40 .81

Total Points

Score 24 17.89 1.95 17.97 2.26 16.26 2.56

Standard

Score 100 98.97 9.34 99.37 10.69 91.29 12.19

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of FAVRES Standard Scores for Young, Middle-Aged,

and Older Adults

FAVRES Tasks Total

SS*

Possible

Young Adults

(N = 35)

Middle-Aged Adults

(N = 35)

Older Adults

(N = 35)

Accuracy SS* M SD M SD M SD

Task 1 108 100.94 16.02 95.51 18.40 87.91 20.58

Task 2 106 90.46 21.26 96.89 18.43 73.31 32.79

Task 3 107 95.86 15.81 95.11 17.09 90.23 29.64

Task 4 106 82.00 30.77 71.89 30.39 57.31 39.73

Total Test 111 88.40 21.22 85.80 19.48 65.91 35.36

Rationale SS*

Task 1 106 101.77 14.94 97.23 21.34 87.31 31.84

Task 2 109 90.31 14.94 95.37 19.50 88.74 18.50

Task 3 103 92.60 22.03 89.74 28.09 72.31 39.94

Task 4 107 80.11 31.89 82.20 28.26 67.17 33.55

Total Test 111 89.20 20.85 88.37 17.98 68.09 27.17

Time SS*

Task 1 132 105.91 16.09 109.60 9.54 105.97 12.20

Task 2 144 101.23 18.99 93.83 25.28 94.06 25.00

Task 3 130 104.51 9.82 100.11 13.78 94.49 21.43

Task 4 135 109.00 11.77 105.77 10.60 105.54 11.78

Total Test 126 107.89 14.82 104.06 11.71 101.03 17.91

Reasoning SS*

142 91.09 13.42 84.80 35.26 82.71 13.96

Note: SS* = Standard Score

Table 3 ANOVA of BADS for Young, Middle-Aged, and Older Adults

BADS Tasks

df F Sig.

Task 1

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

5.465 .006

Task 2 Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

2.057 .133

Task 3 Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

2.159 .121

Task 4 Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

.509 .603

Task 5 Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

4.651 .012

Task 6 Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

1.648 .198

Total Test Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

6.342 .003

Standard Score Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

6.226 .003

Table 4 ANOVA of FAVRES for Young, Middle-Aged, and Older Adults

FAVRES Tasks df F Sig.

Accuracy SS*

Task 1

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

4.415 .014

Task 2 Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

8.910 .000

Task 3 Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

.669 .515

Task 4 Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

4.688 .011

Total Test Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

7.637 .001

Rational SS*

Task 1

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

3.391 .038

Task 2 Between Groups

Within Groups

2

102

3.169 .046

Total 104

Task 3 Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

4.410 .015

Task 4 Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

2.360 .100

Total Test Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

10.039 .000

Table 4 cont.

Time SS*

Task 1

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

.939 .394

Task 2 Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

1.145 .322

Task 3 Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

3.558 .032

Task 4 Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

1.007 .369

Total Test Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

1.830 .166

Reasoning SS*

Total Test Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2

102

104

1.320 .272

Note: SS* = Standard Score

Table 5 Tukey’s Post Hoc Testing of BADS for Young, Middle-Aged, and Older Adults

BADS Tasks

(I) Age (J)

Age

Mean

Difference

Sig.

Task 1

1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

-.40000

.17143

.40000

.57143

-.17143

-.57143

.067

.600

.067

.005

.600

.005

Task 2 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

-.42857

-.14286

.42857

.28571

.14286

-.28571

.119

.785

.119

.383

.785

.383

Task 3 1.00

2.00

3.00

.40000

.48571

.249

.131

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

-.40000

.08571

-.48571

-.08571

.249

.937

.131

.937

Task 4 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

-.11429

.02857

.11429

.14286

-.02857

-.14286

.727

.980

.727

.608

.980

.608

Task 5 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

.37143

.80000

-.37143

.42857

-.80000

-.42857

.337

.237

.337

.237

.008

.237

Task 6 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

-.08571

.25714

.08571

.34286

-.25714

-.34286

.901

.394

.901

.194

.394

.194

Total Test 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

-.08571

1.62857

.08571

1.71429

-1.62857

.986

.009

.986

.006

.009

Table 5 cont.

2.00 -1.71429 .006

Standard Score 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

-.40000

7.68571

.40000

8.08571

-7.68571

-8.08571

.987

.010

.987

.006

.010

.006

Table 6 Tukey’s Post Hoc Testing of FAVRES for Young, Middle-Aged, and Older Adults

FAVRES Tasks

(I) Age (J)

Age

Mean

Difference

Sig.

Accuracy SS*

Task 1

1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

5.42857

13.02857

-5.42857

7.60000

-13.02857

-7.60000

.437

.011

.437

.201

.011

.201

Task 2 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

-4.85714

18.71429

4.85714

23.57143

-18.71429

-23.57143

.689

.006

.689

.000

.006

.000

Task 3 1.00

2.00

3.00

.62857

5.51429

.992

.543

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

-.62857

4.88571

-5.51429

-4.88571

.992

.619

.543

.619

Task 4 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

10.11429

24.68571

-10.11429

14.57143

-24.68571

-14.57143

.428

.008

.428

.176

.008

.176

Total Test 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

2.60000

22.48571

-2.60000

19.88571

-22.48571

-19.88571

.910

.002

.910

.006

.002

.006

Rational SS*

Task 1

1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

4.54286

14.45714

-4.54286

9.91429

14.45714

-9.91429

.704

.033

.704

.193

.033

.193

Task 2 1.00

2.00

3.00

3.94286

10.57143

.623

.038

Table 6 cont.

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

-3.94286

6.62857

-10.57143

-6.62857

.623

.267

.038

.267

Task 3 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

2.85714

20.29714

-2.85714

16.0000

-20.29714

-16.00000

.919

.019

.919

.078

.019

.078

Task 4 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

-2.08571

12.91429

2.08571

15.00000

-12.91429

-15.00000

.958

.200

.959

.116

.200

.116

Total Test 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

.82857

21.11429

-.82857

20.28571

-21.11429

-20.28571

.987

.000

.987

.001

.000

.001

Time SS*

Task 1

1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

-3.68571

-.05714

3.68571

3.62857

.05714

-3.6285

.458

1.000

.458

.469

1.000

.469

Task 2 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

7.40000

7.17143

-7.40000

-.22857

-7.17143

.22857

.382

.404

.382

.999

.404

.999

Task 3 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

4.40000

10.02857

-4.40000

5.62857

-10.02857

-5.62857

.475

.024

.475

.298

.024

.298

Task 4 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

3.22857

3.45714

-3.22857

.22857

-3.45714

-.22857

.465

.416

.465

.996

.416

.996

Total Test 1.00

2.00

3.00

3.82857

6.85714

.538

.141

Table 6 cont.

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

-3.82857

3.02857

-6.85714

-3.02857

.538

.677

.141

.677

Reasoning SS*

Total Test 1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

4.05714

8.37143

-4.05714

4.31429

-8.37143

-4.31429

.712

.240

.712

.681

.240

.681

Note: SS* = Standard Score