Alexander Luria developed one of the most interesting models for understanding the human brain’s functioning. This theory proposed that three functional units interact between different structures: the first is in charge of the regulation of wakefulness and tone; the second is in charge of the reception, process, and storage of information; the last unit is in charge of the programming, regulation, and verification of behavioral and cognitive activity (Luria, 1973, 1980, 1982).

The third functional unit is related to the work of the human prefrontal cortex (Derouesné, 2018), the structure responsible for the activation of the most developed mental activities of the nervous system, which are the executive functions (Cipolotti et al., 2020). These functions have been classically identified as the following mental abilities: (1) working memory, (2) inhibitory control, (3) emotional regulation, (4) monitoring, (5) planning, (6) organization, (7) initiative, and (8) cognitive flexibility (Téllez and Sánchez, 2016; Roche et al., 2020).

These eight executive functions have been described along with their theoretical development and in the different scales for their evaluation. However, this paper takes into consideration the functions of the frontal system described in Luria’s theory (Luris 1973, 1980): error correction, internal behavioral and cognition regulatory language, limbic system conscious regulation, decision making, future consideration of consequences of actions, goal-directed behavior, inhibitory control of automatic responses, creation of new behavioral repertories, and cognitive–behavioral activity verification, all functions that have not been included in the previous scales (Derouesné, 2018; Ramos-Galarza et al., 2019b).

Executive functions can be evaluated on three different levels: first, with specific experimental tasks that constitute neuropsychological tests developed with the aim of evaluating executive functions; second, with non-specific tasks that comprise tests created to evaluate different cognitive variables, such as intelligence, attention, and memory, which support the clinical evaluation of executive functions; and third, with scales or questionnaires based on daily life behavioral observation. It should be highlighted that the first two methods of evaluation have ecological validity limitations because the executive functions are not evaluated in real daily life. This explains why this paper proposes using the EOCL-1 scale (Appendix Table A1), which evaluates executive functions not previously considered based on the analysis of a subject’s daily situations (Damasio, 1994; García-Gómez, 2015; Pérez-Salas et al., 2016; Ramos-Galarza et al., 2019b).

The relevance of the assessment of executive functions through the application of questionnaires or scales lies in the contribution of daily life behaviors to the analysis. These types of tests have been found to have adequate ecological validity and reliability in evaluating these mental abilities in real contexts, which goes further than the artificial environment that a neuropsychological consulting room offers (Damasio, 1994; Pérez-Salas et al., 2016).

To determine the executive functions that were considered in previous scales, principal databases were reviewed, and scales such as Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions (BRIEF), Prefrontal Symptoms Inventory (PSI), Executive Functioning Scale for Families (EFS-F), Scale of Executive Functions of the Cáceres group (EFECO), Adult Executive Functioning Inventory (ADEXI), Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale (BDEFS), and many others were identified as the main contributors in this research line. These scales focus their evaluation on the eight classically recognized executive functions in favor of behavioral regulation and metacognition. The revised scales are described in Table 1.

As the results of the literature revision on the scales emerged, it became evident that the interest in assessing the executive functions classically recognized in the theories of Lezak (1995); Isquith and Gioia (2008), Baddeley (2012); Barkley (2014) did not consider certain executive functions, such as verification, error correction, and awakening state, which are key functions of the frontal lobe. In this context, it also became apparent that to consider the executive functions described in Luria’s theory, as part of the neuropsychological evaluation through daily life assessment, would be both enriching and innovating.

Thus, this investigation proposes using the EOCL-1 scale, which allows for the assessment of executive functions as described in the theory developed by Luria (Ramos-Galarza et al., 2019b), which assesses frontal lobe abilities that were not considered previously in scales or questionnaires, thus richly contributing to the executive functions’ instruments frame, as well as to its theoretical construction. Among the previous investigations, there is no published study about this scale and its psychometric properties; therefore, this article reports the results of the investigations that analyzed the factorial structure, internal consistency, and convergent validity of the EOCL-1 scale.

Based on Luria’s theoretical proposal, nine executive functions were identified that were not considered previously in the tests already developed: EF 1, Error correction; EF 2, Internal behavior and cognition regulatory language; EF 3, Limbic system conscious regulation; EF 4, Decision making; EF 5, Future consideration of consequences of actions; EF 6, Goal-directed behavior; EF 7, Inhibitory control of automatic responses; EF 8, Creation of new behavioral repertoires; and EF 9, Cognitive–behavioral activity verification. The content of the 27 items of the EOCL-1 scale were proposed by the research team after a deep analysis of Luria’s theory (Luria, 1973, 1980, 1982), together with the team’s clinical experience of treating people with frontal lobe impairments. This allowed comprehension of the differences between the pathological and normal states of executive functioning. The authors propose the following hypotheses in relation to EOCL-1 reliability:

Most of the scales developed to evaluate the executive functions focus on the deficits in these mental abilities, which negatively influences self-reporting. One of the scales that mainly focus on deficits is the Prefrontal Symptoms Inventory (Ruiz-Sánchez de León et al., 2012), an instrument that assesses the executive functions inversely to the direction that the EOCL-1 promotes. Based on that description, the next hypothesis proposes a convergent validity based on an inverse relationship between the Prefrontal Symptoms Inventory and the EOCL-1 scale, since the high scores in the executive function deficits of the people evaluated will correlate with low scores in the EOCL-1 scale.

Luria’s theory (Luria, 1973, 1980, 1982) proposes that the frontal brain system, the neuroanatomic structure responsible for executive functions, works on three levels: programming, verification, and regulation, and, as such, it allows humans to consciously regulate their behavior and cognition (Ramos-Galarza et al., 2019b). Based on this theoretical postulate, the next hypothesis about the scale’s factorial structure is proposed:

The executive function models that have been developed include those based on one executive central factor (Norman and Shallice, 1986; Barkley, 1997), as well as multiple factors (Gioia et al., 2002; García-Gómez, 2015; Ramírez et al., 2017; Kamradt et al., 2019), and have proposed the theoretical organization of these mental abilities. It is important to highlight that there are no conclusive results as yet, and, based on this description, the following two hypotheses are proposed, one based on a central executive factor and the other based on multiple factors:

The authors consider that based on Luria’s theory, there will be a model with a higher heuristic to comprehend humans’ executive functioning, and the following hypothesis proposes the model that will have the best adjustment level:

This article reports an analysis of the factorial structure of the EOCL-1 scale to assess executive functions based on Luria’s mental abilities theory. The aim of this investigation is to generate a significant contribution to the executive function research line, with the proposal of a measurement instrument to evaluate a variety of these mental abilities, which were not considered previously in other scales that assess daily life executive functions (Ramos-Galarza et al., 2019b).

The executive functions that are proposed in this investigation, within the scale’s factorial structure and after a revision of the previous scales, are a novel contribution to this research line. These functions include the executive frontal abilities of error correction, internal behavioral and cognition regulatory language, limbic system conscious regulation, decision making, future consideration of consequences of actions, goal-directed behavior, inhibitory control of automatic responses, creation of new behavioral repertoires, and cognitive–behavioral activity verification.

In the analysis of the EOCL-1 scale factorial structure, it was found that the three proposed models showed an adequate adjustment; however, the empirical evidence is not sufficient to accept one model as more valid than another, but the models proposed allow us to understand the executive functions’ organization from the proposed theory. The model of the unique factor could have a better adjustment, although future investigations are necessary to analyze the proposed hypothesis with greater depth.

This investigation contributes to the development of two new aspects within the executive function line of research. The first relates to theoretical construction, since, at the moment, there is not an absolute consensus as to how many executive functions can be generated by the prefrontal cortex. The second aspect pertains to the instruments that measure these mental abilities, since many of the observational scales for executive functions have arisen from the theories of classic neuropsychology and, as explained in this work, are missing the relevant mental abilities proposed by Alexander Luria.

Regarding the content of this instrument, it is important to highlight the purpose of the proposed items, since they are meant to evaluate the positive aspects of executive abilities, with the benefit of evaluating these in the different contexts in which human beings develop, such as in work, education, and social environments. Thus, the confusion that is often generated in the inversely proportional correlations could be avoided if the evaluation were allowed to focus naturally on people’s executive abilities, without the bias of evaluating their deficits.

In reference to the convergent validity, the contribution of this scale in favor of the assessment of executive functions is evident. Since an inverse relationship was found with the scale that evaluates the deficit of frontal functions, interest in developing different research lines around executive functions in other contexts naturally arises. Furthermore, the possibility is opened for applying the proposed scale in a clinical environment to study people with neuropsychological alterations and to look closer into human cognition and behavior in other areas of interest.

The inversely proportional correlation found in the convergent validity analysis is in concordance with our hypothesis assumptions, since the low punctuation in the EOCL-1 scale indicates a low level of executive functioning, inversely to the higher punctuations in the scale that assesses frontal lobe deficits. Therefore, the EOCL-1 scale is sensitive in detecting executive functioning deficits, as well as in assessing the typical performance of these mental abilities.

The results found and presented in this article are in accordance with previous literature, as well as with the proposals of the following scales: BRIEF (Roche et al., 2020), Executive Skills Questionnaire (Strait et al., 2019), ADEXI (Holst and Thorell, 2018), BDEFS (Barkley, 2011), the BDEFS–Children and Adolescents (Mashhadi et al., 2020), and the Multidomain Self-Report Assessment of Fronto-Executive Complaints in Spanish-Speaking Adults (Miranda et al., 2019), which have described the psychometric properties in favor of evaluating the executive functions related to behavioral conscious regulation, cognition, and emotion.

In relation to the impact of the scale proposed, it is important to highlight its free use in the clinical context as a screening tool to assess executive functions from the ecological perspective of daily life. Moreover, when considering the measurement of executive functions not previously considered in these types of observational scales of behavior, the possibility emerges of executing new investigations in which the impact of the executive functions is considered in the novel contexts in which individuals develop in educational, family, social, and personal arenas.

In addition, when considering novel executive functions and an assessment proposal, this study makes a significant contribution to the line of research on executive functions, which is still under theoretical construction and in which the methods for assessing these mental abilities are still in development. In this way, the proposed research has an impact in opening new lines of research in executive functions not previously considered through this method of evaluation, such as error correction, future consideration of consequences of actions, decision making, and other functions included in the scale.

Another theoretical implication that emerges from this research and from a broad theoretical review of the scales developed to evaluate executive functions lies in the use and foundation of classical theoretical models (Musso, 2009; Barkley, 2011; Baars et al., 2015; Herreras, 2016; García et al., 2018; Holst and Thorell, 2018; Antoniak et al., 2019; Korzeniowski and Ison, 2019; Strait et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019; Mashhadi et al., 2020; Roche et al., 2020). This research attempts to go beyond the established models by proposing such an assessment from the perspective of the behavioral observation of novel executive functions. Moreover, with this contribution, new theoretical models can be created that allow us to further understand the complexity that executive functions imply and to continue contributing to the study of the relations of these mental abilities of the frontal lobe and the processes of intervention in individuals who are suffering from acquired brain damage.

According to the influence of sociodemographic variables in the tested model, it was found that the gender variable during the invariance analysis had no influence in the EOCL-1 model, which explains why this construct has a similar behavior when applied to men and women. Finally, the limitation that must be declared about this investigation relates to the place where the sample was taken, in a specific city from Latin America, which has to be taken into account when generalizing the results. However, it is this very point on which future investigation lies, which is the interest in analyzing the psychometric behavior of the EOCL-1 scale in the different geographical contexts and cultures in which human beings develop in order to gain a deeper comprehension of the role that the executive functions play in daily life performance.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Comité de Ética de Investigación con Seres Humanos Universidad Tecnológica Indoamérica. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

CR-G contributed to the conceptualization, investigated the data, carried out the formal analysis and project administration, wrote the original draft, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. JC-C investigated the data, carried out the formal analysis, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. MB-P investigated the data, wrote the original draft, and carried out the formal analysis. PA-R investigated the data, wrote the original draft, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.