Executive function and intellectual disability: innovations, methods and treatment.

Sasson et al. (2022) wrote an editorial that introduces a full journal issue on executive function in people with intellectual disability. The authors scanned every paper in the issue and pulled out shared problems and new ideas.

They did not run new tests. Instead they mapped where the field stands and where it needs to go.

The big theme is messiness. Teams use different tests, different age cuts, and different rules for what “pass” looks like. This makes results hard to compare.

The editorial calls for two fixes: pick one standard test battery and stage tasks by developmental level, not just by age.

Thurm et al. (2020) said the same thing about IQ and adaptive scales: traditional tools often miss real change. Sasson et al. (2022) widen the lens and show the problem also hits executive-function work.

Halladay (2025) offers a concrete fix—use Vineland-3 and person-ability scores to dodge floor effects. That tactic fits hand-in-glove with the 2022 call for staged, ID-sensitive batteries.

Oliver (2014) flagged cognitive-process measurement as the next hot spot. The 2022 editorial proves he was right; the field is now trying to deliver on that promise.

If you test planning or working memory in clients with ID, you probably grab whatever checklist is closest. This paper says stop—pick one normed set and line up tasks by skill level, not birthday. Doing that will give you cleaner data, clearer graphs, and faster treatment tweaks.