Executive functions (EF) refer to a set of high-level cognitive processes that allow individuals to manage and regulate their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors in a goal-directed manner (Diamond, 2013). These processes are crucial for adaptive functioning across various life domains, including academic achievement, social interactions, and behavior regulation (Jacobson et al., 2011). EF encompasses several key cognitive components, including inhibition (the ability to suppress impulses), cognitive flexibility (the ability to shift attention and adapt to changing demands), planning and organization (the ability to formulate and execute strategies), and working memory (the ability to hold and manipulate information in the mind) (Karbach and Unger, 2014). These cognitive abilities play a critical role in academic success and behavior, with research indicating that strong executive functioning skills are positively associated with better school performance and fewer behavioral problems in children and adolescents (Jacobson et al., 2011).

The development of executive functions (EF) is a dynamic and ongoing process that evolves across childhood and adolescence, driven by both biological maturation and environmental influences (Best and Miller, 2010). Central to this development is the maturation of key brain regions, particularly the prefrontal cortex, which governs many EF processes, including planning, decision-making, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility (Laureys et al., 2021). The prefrontal cortex undergoes significant structural and functional changes during adolescence, which coincide with the refinement of EF abilities. This period is marked by increased synaptic pruning and the strengthening of neural connections, allowing for more efficient cognitive control and higher-order thinking (Larsen and Luna, 2018). As a result, adolescence is considered a critical window for the development and refinement of EF (Friedman and Robbins, 2022), during which the brain becomes better equipped to handle complex cognitive tasks and adapt to new demands.

However, this period of rapid cognitive development also makes adolescents particularly vulnerable to deficits in EF. Impairments in executive functioning during this stage can have profound consequences, contributing to difficulties in academic performance, poor impulse control, and challenges in emotional regulation and social interactions (Bailey et al., 2018). These deficits may manifest as problems with time management, task prioritization, and organization, making it harder for adolescents to navigate the academic and social pressures of school (Knouse et al., 2014). Furthermore, EF deficits during this critical developmental phase can lead to long-term difficulties in adulthood (Miller et al., 2012), as poor executive functioning in adolescence has been linked to higher rates of academic underachievement, mental health issues, and behavioral problems (Ferguson et al., 2021). Therefore, adolescence represents a key period not only for the natural development of EF but also for targeted interventions aimed at supporting these cognitive skills, which are crucial for academic success, social adaptation, and overall well-being (Tervo-Clemmens et al., 2023; Poon, 2018).

Given the importance of EF in both academic and behavioral outcomes, accurately assessing these functions is essential. Several tools have been developed to measure EF in various contexts. In this scenario, two well-known scales are the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF2) (Gioia et al., 2015) and Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale (BDEFS) (Barkley, 2011).

The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF2), is a widely used tool for assessing executive functioning across various settings (Gioia et al., 2015). It comprehensively measures everyday executive functioning difficulties by gathering ratings from parents, teachers, and other informants. The BRIEF2 covers a wide range of EF domains, including inhibition, shift, emotional control, initiation, working memory, and organization, offering valuable insights into how EF deficits manifest in real-world contexts. Its strength lies in its ability to capture EF impairments as they appear in natural environments, making it particularly useful for understanding how executive functioning affects day-to-day functioning and academic performance.

On the other hand, the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale (Barkley, 2011), another prominent assessment tool, focuses on evaluating EF deficits within both home and school settings. It covers core areas such as self-regulation, organization, planning, and time management. One of the main advantages of the BDEFS is its emphasis on the impact of EF deficits on daily functioning, with a specific focus on how these deficits affect academic and social behaviors. It is particularly valuable for identifying issues related to time management and goal-directed behavior, which are common challenges in both educational and occupational contexts.

While the BRIEF2 and BDEFS provide valuable insights into executive functioning, their development within English-speaking contexts highlights the need for tools specifically designed for Spanish-speaking populations. The challenge lies in creating a scale that accurately evaluates executive functions within the unique cultural and educational frameworks of Spanish-speaking countries, particularly for university students in Latin America. This is crucial, as existing tools may not fully capture the nuances of the executive function challenges faced by these students. The University Executive Function Scale (UEF-1) represents a promising advancement in this area, having been created and validated specifically for Spanish-speaking university students (Ramos-Galarza et al., 2023). Its initial validation in Ecuadorian and Chilean populations demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including high reliability and validity (Tan et al., 2021). Developing such culturally sensitive tools is essential for accurately assessing and supporting the executive functioning of university students in Latin America.

However, the UEF-1 has not yet been evaluated in other Spanish-speaking contexts, particularly within the Cuban university population, where no specific EF assessment tools currently exist. In Cuba, generic tools designed for different clinical purposes have been adapted for evaluating EF, but these instruments may not fully capture the unique demands and challenges faced by university students in this context (Jiménez-Puig et al., 2019). Among the main challenges faced by university students in Latin American contexts are those related to language policy, political activism, neoliberal influences, educational inequities, mental health issues, and the need for pedagogical and technological adaptation (Cruz-Amarán et al., 2020; Hamel et al., 2016; Jhones and Larramendi, 2019; Mendoza, 2020; Ordorika, 2021). Furthermore, the tools used to assess executive functions in Cuba to date (e.g., Stroop, Tower of Hanoi, Bivalent Shape Test, Iowa Gambling Task) (Jiménez-Puig et al., 2019), according to Barkley’s extended phenotype model of executive functions (Barkley, 2012), focus on the instrumental-self-directed level and only evaluate the cross-temporal regulation of behavior during exceptionally brief assessment periods, without taking into account the self-regulation of the emotional and motivational components of executive functions.

This study aims to evaluate the psychometric properties of the University Executive Function Scale (UEF-1) in the Cuban university population. By assessing its reliability and validity, this research will contribute to a better understanding of the EF skills of Cuban students and provide a basis for developing targeted interventions to enhance these critical functions. Such interventions could play a significant role in supporting students’ academic success and emotional well-being.

Table 2 displays the values corresponding to the analysis of means, standard deviation, correlations between the total items, and their loadings. The items showed above-average approval rates and considerable variation. Specifically, the mean scores for the items ranged from 3.30 to 4.53, with an overall average of approximately 4.01, suggesting that participants tended to agree with the presented statements. The standard deviations varied significantly, with values ranging from 0.35 to 1.90, reflecting a considerable degree of variability in the responses. Additionally, the loadings for the items varied from 0.38 to 0.84, with the majority of items exhibiting strong loadings above 0.60, all loadings were significant (p < 0.001). The item-test correlations values (r) for the items ranged from 0.35 to 0.63, demonstrating moderate to strong relationships among the items.

Furthermore, the analysis revealed statistically significant correlations of moderate to large magnitudes between the factors of the scale, as shown in Table 3. Specifically, the correlations between the factors ranged from 0.235 to 0.614, with all correlations being statistically significant at the p < 0.001 level.

The seven-factor solution demonstrated satisfactory fit indices, indicating a robust model that aligns well with the data. Specifically, the chi-square statistic was χ²(413) = 1823.68, with a significance level of p < 0.001, suggesting that the model fits the observed data significantly better than a null model. Additionally, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was reported at 0.981, and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) was 0.979, both well above the commonly accepted threshold of 0.90, indicating a good fit. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was calculated at 0.056, with a 90% confidence interval ranging from 0.053 to 0.059, and a significance level of p < 0.001. The value we obtained for the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) was 0.05, which is considered acceptable.

These indices collectively suggest that the model adequately captures the underlying structure of the data. Consequently, the initial solution of the seven proposed factors in the original scale is confirmed. Given these strong fit indices, it was deemed unnecessary to test a second-order model that would consider a central factor of executive functions. This decision aligns with the findings from the original validation of the scale, which indicated that such a model did not yield an acceptable fit.

Additionally, reliability estimates were high for the total score (α = 0.91, ω = 0.91). Regarding factor analysis, there were predominantly medium values in conscious monitoring of responsibilities (α = 0.76, ω = 0.77), supervisory attention system (α = 0.83, ω = 0.83), behavior verification for learning (α = 0.76, ω = 0.76), decision making (α = 0.70, ω = 0.70), conscious regulation of emotions (α = 0.82, ω = 0.82), and task-solving element management (α = 0.76, ω = 0.76). There were medium-low values for the conscious regulation of behavior dimension (α = 0.65, ω = 0.65).

We calculated normative scores for the executive function scale adapted to the Cuban university population (UEF-C; see Table 4) to create a benchmark for interpreting individual performance. To derive these normative data, we systematically classified the factor scores into five quartiles based on the percentile calculations. We established cut-off points both overall and by gender, which allows for a more nuanced understanding of how different groups perform on the scale. The following cut-off points and classifications were established:

Very below average: pc < 5 (5th percentile)

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the UEF-1 in Cuban university students. The results obtained confirm the factorial structure of the original version composed of seven executive functions (Ramos-Galarza et al., 2023).

This research found an adequate fit of the seven-factor model originally proposed by Ramos-Galarza et al. (2023). The fit indices found by these authors (CFI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.04, and RMSEA = 0.04) resemble those obtained in the Cuban validation (CFI = 0.981; TLI = 0.979; RMSEA = 0.056,). These fit indices provide evidence of the validity of the model and the scale’s quality in terms of its structure and ability to measure the desired constructs (Finch, 2020; Barnes and Forde, 2021; Koran, 2020; McNeish and Wolf, 2023).

Similarly to the initial design of the scale, in this research, statistically significant and directly proportional correlations of large magnitudes were found between the evaluated executive functions (r = 0.23–0.61 in the Cuban population and r = 0.27–0.62 in the Ecuadorian and Chilean population) (Ramos-Galarza et al., 2023). The correlation analyses reveal that the factors are interrelated, suggesting that they may influence each other within the context of the studied construct (Schober et al., 2018; Tavakol and Wetzel, 2020).

The total reliability estimates of the original scale were similar to those obtained in the Cuban university population. However, the factor estimates in Cuban students showed slightly lower values than those obtained in the original scale (Ramos-Galarza et al., 2023). The main difference was observed in the dimension of conscious regulation of behavior (α = 0.65, ω = 0.65) compared to the original sample (α = 0.76 and ω = 0.74). However, all values are within the acceptable range of reliability (Dunn et al., 2013; Fu et al., 2022).

This research aligns with previous studies on executive functions in students. For example, Escolano-Pérez et al. (2022) and Ramos-Galarza et al. (2023) found that evaluating executive functions through behavioral observation is a reliable method for assessing these mental abilities. This approach allows for observation within a real-world context, providing insights into the functioning of executive functions such as inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, working memory, emotional regulation, and decision-making. These converging results highlight the importance of incorporating executive function development into university programs. By providing students with both knowledge and practical strategies for utilizing these skills, universities can contribute to improved academic performance, daily functioning, and future job prospects, as suggested by Prosen and Vitulic (2014) and Kamradt et al. (2021).

An executive function assessment scale specifically designed for the university context offers several advantages over existing scales that evaluate executive functions or frontal lobe abilities in the general adult population. Examples of such general scales include the Adult Executive Functioning Inventory (ADEXI), the Scale Assessment of Executive Functions-Adult (SAEF-A), and the EOCL-1 Scale for Assessing Executive Functions (El Houari et al., 2024; López et al., 2022; Ramos-Galarza et al., 2021). Firstly, the UEF-1 scale focuses on assessing the capabilities of executive functions rather than the deficits in these mental abilities, which is the primary concern of scales developed for the adult population. Secondly, the UEF-1 scale evaluates real-life situations faced by university students, providing a context in which the practical application of executive functions can be observed. Lastly, its free accessibility allows researchers worldwide to enhance the instrument, and, as demonstrated in this study, its psychometric properties can be analyzed in new contexts.

The present study has relevant implications regarding the assessment of executive functions in real-life situations of Cuban university students. First, the availability of the UEF-C as a reliable and valid instrument for the Cuban context provides a valuable tool for assessing executive functions in real-life situations of Cuban university students. This instrument can facilitate the profiling of performance, inform the development of tailored neuropsychological interventions, and contribute to enhancing students’ executive function skills, ultimately improving their academic and daily functioning. Additionally, our study replicates the findings from the original study, a critical aspect of ensuring that (neuro)psychological measures are applicable and meaningful across different cultural contexts. In this sense, our results play a crucial role in advancing our knowledge of cross-cultural variations in psychological constructs and ensuring the validity of psychological measures across diverse populations.

Despite the contributions of this study, several limitations warrant consideration. We were unable to conduct convergent validity tests with other measures of executive functioning due to the requirement of paid usage licenses for the most commonly used tools in this area. The lack of financial resources in Cuba limits our access to paid licenses for questionnaires and other assessment instruments, which in turn restricts our ability to make comparisons with established measures. It is important to highlight that this limitation does not diminish the relevance of our research; rather, it underscores the need to develop and validate accessible tools for assessing executive functioning in contexts where resources are scarce. In this sense, the UEF-1 emerges as a valuable alternative, not only for its free availability to Spanish-speaking populations but also for its potential to be used in economically constrained environments. Additionally, the exclusive use of self-reported data, the reliance on predominantly student samples, and the use of snowball sampling for participant recruitment may limit the generalizability of our findings. Future research should aim to address these limitations by incorporating diverse samples, employing objective measures of executive functions, and exploring the nomological validity and temporal stability of the UEF-1 scores over time.

In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into the psychometric properties of the UEF-1 in Cuban university students, confirming its validity and reliability as a measure of executive functions in this population. By advancing our understanding of executive functions and their assessment in diverse cultural contexts, this research contributes to the broader field of neuropsychological assessment and intervention, highlighting the importance of promoting executive function skills to support student’s academic success and daily functioning.