What lab-based and self-report executive function measures predict in real-world task performance.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether cognitive laboratory tests or self-report inventories more effectively predict performance in a real-world executive function (EF) task. METHOD: Data were collected from 71 healthy university students who completed a battery of cognitive tasks, self-report inventories, and an ecologically valid Library task incorporating behavioral and eye-tracking measures. RESULTS: Regression analyses revealed a dissociation in predictive validity between assessment methods. Lab-based EF measures showed a nonlinear association with task accuracy and uniquely predicted fixation behavior during instruction reading, indicating their relevance for goal-related and task-level performance. In contrast, self-report EF measures were more consistently associated with global eye-movement metrics, particularly fixation count and fixation rate, reflecting differences in attentional engagement and behavioral regulation. Across models, effect sizes were modest and neither assessment approach broadly predicted all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the findings support a complementary view of EF assessment, demonstrating that laboratory tasks and self-report inventories capture distinct aspects of executive functioning in ecologically valid contexts and highlighting the importance of aligning assessment methods with theoretically motivated real-world outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).