• Liena Ivanova University of Latvia
  • Ilze Plauca University of Latvia
  • Sandra Sebre University of Latvia
  • Malgozata Rascevska University of Latvia



EXAMINER test battery, executive functions, Latvian adaptation, young adulthood


The aim of this pilot-study was to assess reliability and validity of the Latvian version of the computerized executive functions test EXAMINER (Executive Abilities: Measures and Instruments for Neurobehavioral Evaluation and Research) in a sample of high school students and university students. The adaptation procedure included translation of the instructions and technical configuration of the test’s computerized version. The Latvian version of the EXAMINER includes tasks that measure executive functions of inhibition, set shifting and working memory updating. Participants included two sub-groups: 22 (14 males, 8 female) students from high school and 39 students (11 males, 28 female) from university.  Results showed statistically significant differences between both sub-groups on most of the EXAMINER tasks. The main tendency was that the high school students showed faster reaction time, but made more mistakes. Results also showed good reliability for most of the EXAMINER tasks and good criterion validity. Potential improvements of the test and its potential use in schools and clinics are discussed.

Author Biographies

  • Liena Ivanova, University of Latvia
    Department of Psychology, Lecturer
  • Ilze Plauca, University of Latvia
    Department of Psychology, Lecturer
  • Sandra Sebre, University of Latvia
    Department of Psychology, Professor
  • Malgozata Rascevska, University of Latvia
    Department of Psychology, Professor


Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology: A Journal on Normal and Abnormal Development in Childhood and Adolescence, 8 (2), 71-82. doi: 10.1076/chin.

Barkley, R. (2012). Executive functions: what they are, how they work, and why they evolved. New York: The Guilford Press.

Boelema, S. R., Harakeh, Z., Ormel, J., Hartman, C. A., Vollebergh, W. A. M., & van Zandvoort, M. J. E. (2014). Executive functioning shows differential maturation from early to late adolescence: Longitudinal findings from a TRAILS study. Neuropsychology, 28(2), 177–187.

Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2001). Delis-Kaplan executive function system. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.

EXAMINER (2011). Executive abilities: measures and instruments for neurobehavioral evaluation and research. User manual (EXAMINER). Memory and Aging Center, NIH Institute, University of California, San Francisco. (Electronic issue)

Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., Corley, R. P., & Hewitt, J. K. (2008). Individual differences in executive functions are almost entirely genetic in origin. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 137 (2), 201–225. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.201

Fuhs, M. W., Nesbitt, K. T., Farran, D. C., &Dong, N. (2014). Longitudinal associations between executive functioning and academic skills across content areas. Developmental Psychology, 50 (6), 1698–1709.

Goldstein, S., Naglieri, J. A., Princiotta, D., & Otero, T. M. (2014). Introduction: A history of executive functioning as a theoretical and clinical construct. In S. Goldstein & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.) Handbook of executive functioning. Springer: New York. (pp. 3-12).

Huizinga, M., Dolan, C. V., & van der Molen, M. W. (2006). Age-related change in executive function: Developmental trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44(11), 2017–2036.

Ikeda, Y., Okuzumi, H., & Kokubun, M. (2013). Age-related trends of stroop-like interference in animal size tests in 5- to 12-year-old children and young adults. Child Neuropsychology, 19(3), 276-291. doi:10.1080/09297049.2012.658364

International Test Commission (2005). International guidelines on test adaptation. []

Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Miura, T. K., & Colflesh, G. J. H. (2007). Working memory, attention control, and the N-back task: a question of construct validity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 615–622. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.615

Kramer, J.H. (2014). Special series introduction: NIH examiner and the assessment of executive functioning. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 20, 8-10. doi: 10.1017/S1355617713001185

Miyake, A., Friedman, N., Emerson, M., Witzki, A., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex frontal lobe tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49-100.

Naglieri, J. A., & Goldstein, S. (2014). Using the comprehensive executive function inventory (cefi) to access executive function: from theory to application. In S. Goldstein & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.) Handbook of executive functioning. Springer: New York. (pp. 159-170)

Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1-2), 8-13. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017

Possin, K. L., Lamarre, A. K., Wood, K. A., Mungas, D. M., & Kramer, J. H. (2013). Ecological validity and neuroanatomical correlates of the NIH EXAMINER executive composite score. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 19, 1–9. doi:10.1017/S1355617713000611

Thomason, M. E., Race, E., Burrows, B., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Glover, G. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2009). Development of spatial and verbal working memory capacity in the human brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(2), 316-332. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.21028