Conflation between self-report and neurocognitive assessments of cognitive flexibility: a critical review of the Jingle Fallacy

ABSTRACT

Cognitive flexibility is a widely studied construct and is considered an important treatment target for several psychological disorders. The convergence of several independent fields of research has led to assumptions about the assessment of cognitive flexibility – assumptions that are not empirically supported and often conflate different notions of flexibility. This critical review discusses how the conflation of self-report and neurocognitive assessments has seemingly arisen from literature on eating disorders. We describe how seminal early observations of “inflexible” personality characteristics, communication competence research, and investigations of frontal lobe function after injury led to two methods of assessing “cognitive flexibility”. We discuss the impact that conflation of self-report and neurocognitive assessments has had on the field, and we provide recommendations for assessing cognitive flexibility in both research and clinical settings.

Key Points

What is already known about this topic:

(1) Self-report and neurocognitive assessments of “cognitive flexibility” are commonly used in research and clinical practice.

(2) There is uncertainty in the field about whether or not self-report and neurocognitive assessments of “cognitive flexibility” assess similar underlying constructs.

(3) Both clinicians and researchers are susceptible to the jingle fallacy.

What this topic adds:

(1) This narrative critique of the literature reveals that self-report and neurocognitive assessments of “cognitive flexibility” have gradually been conflated over time.

(2) Early research in eating disorders seems to have played an influential role in generating and reinforcing such conflation.

(3) The assumption that self-report and neurocognitive assessments of “cognitive flexibility” are causally linked has no empirical basis and yet it has been used to explain inflexible cognitions and behaviours in people with eating disorders.

KEYWORDS:

• Executive function
• neuropsychology
• personality
• feeding and eating disorders
• surveys and questionnaires

Disclosure statement

GLM has received support from: Reality Health, ConnectHealth UK, Seqirus, Kaiser Permanente, Workers’ Compensation Boards in Australia, Europe and North America, AIA Australia, the International Olympic Committee, Port Adelaide Football Club, and Arsenal Football Club. Professional and scientific bodies have reimbursed him for travel costs related to presentation of research at scientific conferences/symposia. He has received speaker fees for lectures on pain and rehabilitation. He receives book royalties from NOIgroup publications, Dancing Giraffe Press & OPTP. CB has received support from Workers’ Compensation Boards in Australia. All remaining authors (CAH, SM and AP) declare no potential conflicts of interest (personal or financial) with respect to the contents, authorship, or publication of this manuscript.

Data availability statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were collected or analysed in this manuscript.

Additional information

Funding

AP was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant [ID 1159953]. CB and GLM were supported by a NHMRC Leadership Investigator Grant [ID 1178444] to GLM. These funding bodies had no role in the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.