Cognitive flexibility can be thought of as the ability to effectively adapt one's cognitive and behavioural strategies in response to changing task or environmental demands. To substantiate the common inference that self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility provide ‘different windows into the same room’, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility are related in healthy adults. Ten databases and relevant grey literature were searched from inception. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were adhered to. Twenty-one articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. A multi-level random-effects meta-analysis revealed no relationship (0.05, 95% CI = −0.00 to 0.10). Random-effects meta-analyses raised the possibility that the Cognitive Flexibility Scale and the Trail Making Test – part B (time) may be related (0.19, 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.31). We conclude that the relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility is not large enough to be considered convincing evidence for the two assessment approaches sharing construct validity. These results have clear implications for assessing and interpreting cognitive flexibility research and clinical practice.

认知灵活性可以被认为是有效地调整一个人的认知和行为策略以响应不断变化的任务或环境需求的能力。为了证实自我报告和认知灵活性的神经心理学测试提供“同一个房间的不同窗口”的普遍推断，我们进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析，以确定自我报告和认知灵活性的神经心理学测试是否与健康相关。成年人。从一开始就搜索了十个数据库和相关的灰色文献。遵循系统评价和元分析的首选报告项目指南。21 篇文章符合我们的纳入标准。多水平随机效应荟萃分析显示没有关系（0.05，95% CI = -0.00 到 0.10）。随机效应荟萃分析提出了认知灵活性量表和路径制作测试 - B 部分（时间）可能相关的可能性（0.19，95% CI = 0.06 至 0.31）。我们得出结论，自我报告和认知灵活性的神经心理学测试之间的关系不足以被认为是两种评估方法共享构造效度的令人信服的证据。这些结果对评估和解释认知灵活性研究和临床实践具有明确的意义。我们得出结论，自我报告和认知灵活性的神经心理学测试之间的关系不足以被认为是两种评估方法共享结构效度的令人信服的证据。这些结果对评估和解释认知灵活性研究和临床实践具有明确的意义。我们得出结论，自我报告和认知灵活性的神经心理学测试之间的关系不足以被认为是两种评估方法共享构造效度的令人信服的证据。这些结果对评估和解释认知灵活性研究和临床实践具有明确的意义。