One aspect is the ability to adapt decision criteria or strategies when circumstances change. The Wisconsin Card Sorting Task is a classic example.

Here are some examples in the primate behavior / physiology domain:

Kuwabara M, Mansouri FA, Buckley MJ, Tanaka K. (2014) Cognitive control functions of anterior cingulate cortex in macaque monkeys performing a wisconsin card sorting test analog. J Neurosci. 34(22):7531-47.

Ferrera VP, Yanike M, Cassanello C. (2009) Frontal eye field neurons signal changes in decision criteria.

Nat Neurosci. 12(11):1458-62.

Pouget P, Logan GD, Palmeri TJ, Boucher L, Paré M, Schall JD. (2011) Neural basis of adaptive response time adjustment during saccade countermanding. J Neurosci. 31(35):12604-12.

Kim HF, Hikosaka O (2013) Distinct basal ganglia circuits controlling behaviors guided by flexible and stable values. Neuron 79(5):1001-10.

Valerio Mante, David Sussillo, Krishna V. Shenoy & William T. Newsome (2013) Context-dependent computation by recurrent dynamics in prefrontal cortex. Nature 503, 78–84

Right, Thank you!

From what I read, there are different aspects of cognitive flexibility.

1. As you say- ability to adapt decision criteria based on circumstantial changes.

2. Simultaneously consider two aspects of an object, idea, or situation

3. Knowing all possible options or alternatives

I'm not sure the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task really assesses all of these.

The WCST is limited, as you correctly note. It mainly tests the ability to shift feature-selective attention. Countermanding (i.e. stop-signal) and anti-saccade tasks test inhibitory control. Stroop, Eriksen and Simon-type interference tasks test cognitive control. I mention these because there is substantial human and animal literature on each, but this is hardly an exhaustive list.

May fluid intelligence be seen as a correlate of cognitive flexibility as well?

As Vincent said, the WCST assesses some aspects of cognitive flexibility; so does Trail Making Test B. The DKEFS battery has several tests including Fluency, interferencetasks which perhaps tap this function too.

A hypothesis I was considering was that in the area of style research, if one has a more moderate cognitive style (perhaps more external/internal or task/person oriented), the person might be more cognitively flexible. A person with a stronger preference of cognitive/learning/personality style might be less cognitively flexible. What do you think?

Did you mean anything like the cognitive flexibility described in the attached journal? It discusses the ability to switch between two different spatial dimensions.

Here's a fairly recent review of cognitive flexibility definitions I found helpful. Are you interested in application towards adult education, or children?

Ionescu, T. (2012). Exploring the nature of cognitive flexibility. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 190-200. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.11.001

I do include the ability to switch between different spatial dimensions as cognitive flexibility. I would prefer looking at cognitive flexibility in child education. However, most of the style research has focused on adults and not children. The VIEW assessment for example is designed for I believe 16 and up.

Thanks for Gal for the article by Ionescu... it looks really good! I'm reading :)

If you are interested in cognitive flexibility in children, there's a wide lit on that. You can read Cragg & Chevalier (2012) for a nice review of tasks that are typically used with kids:

Cragg, L., & Chevalier, N. (2012). The processes underlying flexibility in childhood. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 65(2), 209-32. doi:10.1080/17470210903204618

Also, the Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS) is the task to look for, as it is a widely used measure of switching in preschoolers. With older (primary school age) children, a computerized switching task is often used, or a "border version" of the DCCS.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you want to discuss further (my dissertation is about cognitive flexibility development in preschoolers, and I'm very interested in educational applications so I would love to hear your thoughts). 

Cheers,

Gal.

Wow, awesome! Yes, I'd love to chat! I can tell you what I'm looking at,etc. All feedback, ideas and advice would be really helpful

THIS DECEPTIVELY SIMPLE QUESTION IS VERY TRICKY AND COMPLICATED. COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY IS NOT A UNITARY CONSTRUCT; IT REALLY CANNOT BE DEFINED OPERATIONALLY BY ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE TASK USED TO MEASURE IT; THIS IS VERY LIKELY WHY DIFFERENT NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS CORRELATE WEAKLY EVEN THOUGH THESE TESTS ALL PURPORT TO MEASURE " COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY."

SOME TESTS LIKE THE WCST ARE BASED UPON AN ARTIFICIAL PARADIGM WITH QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS, AS IN THE SERIAL-ORDER PROCESSING PARADIGM WHICH STATES, " FIRST WE PERCEIVE, THEN WE THINK TO FORMULATE A RESPONSE, AND THEN WE EXECUTE A RESPONSE."  THIS IS CLEARLY NOT WHAT WE ARE DOING IN "REAL LIFE." INSTEAD, WE ARE CONSTANTLY INTERACTING WITHIN A DYNAMICALLY CHANGING ENVIRONMENT. WE ARE FLEXIBLY SHIFTING FROM AUTOMATIC BEHAVIORS THAT REQUIRE ADJUSTMENT THROUGH COGNITIVE GUIDANCE AS SITUATIONS CHANGE; WE MAKE IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT DECISIONS AND CHOICES. UNDER CONDITIONS OF NOVELTY, THE SERIAL-ORDER PROCESSING PARADIGM WORKS WELL; IN DAILY ACTIVITY, IT SIMPLY DOESN'T. PEOPLE LIKE BARGH (1999;1997), AS WELL AS OTHERS, ESTIMATE THAT AS MUCH AS 95% OF DAILY ACTIVITY IS AUTOMATIC - THIS SEEMS HIGH TO ME, BUT THE POINT REMAINS OBVIOUS. SO THIS PERCEIVE-THINK-RESPOND PARADIGM IS ONLY PARTLY RIGHT.

THE HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT CAN BE VISITED ON-LINE, WITH MANY DOWNLOADABLE PAPERS. YEO, BUCKNER,  ET AL, (2011) RELIABLY IDENTIFIED NUMEROUS BRAIN NETWORKS, SUMMARIZED IN A 7-NETWORK PARCELATION; DR. BUCKNER IS A MEMBER OF RESEARCH GATE AND HE CAN PERHAPS COMMENT ON THIS. THE FRONTAL-PARIETAL NETWORK APPARENTLY HAS TWO DIVISIONS; THE LEFT HEMISPHERE FPN GUIDES GOAL-DIRECTED BEHAVIOR THROUGH INTERNAL MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS; THE RIGHT HEMISPHERE FPN IS SORT OF A NOVELTY DETECTOR FOR DEVELOPING NEW BEHAVIORS. THESE NETWORKS GOVERN COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY.

COLE, ET AL (2012) PUBLISHED A SEMINAL PAPER DESCRIBING THE FPN'S CHIEF CHARACTERISTIC AS THE ABILITY TO RAPIDLY RECRUIT AND UPDATE OTHER BRAIN NETWORK "HUB" REGIONS DEPENDENT UPON TASK DEMANDS. AFTER IMAGING BRAIN ACTIVITY ACROSS A VARIETY OF TASKS, THEY LATER PREDICTED THE TASK BEING PERFORMED BY EXAMINING THE PATTERN OF BRAIN NETWORK RECRUITMENT. THE FPN WAS MOST ACTIVE OF ALL NETWORKS WHILE RECRUITING OTHER BRAIN "HUBS" DEPENDENT UPON THE TASK, WHICH IS MY ORIGINAL POINT THAT COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY IS NOT A MONOLITHIC ENTITY OR CONSTRUCT, SO THAT TESTS OF COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY DO NOT CORRELATE WELL WHICH EACH OTHER.

SO, TO UNDERSTAND THIS ALREADY LONG-WINDED REPLY, YOU HAVE TO BE FAMILIAR WITH CONCEPTS SUCH AS "HUB" THEORY, BRAIN NETWORK THEORY, BRAIN "HUB" FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION, AND FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIVITY WHICH IS A DYNAMICALLY CHANGING PROCESS, ALLOWING US TO INTERACT WITH THE WORLD, FLEXIBLY, IN "REAL TIME." FOR YOUR CHILD POPULATION, YOU NEED TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF BRAIN NETWORK AND HUB DEVELOPMENT, AND MENON (2013) HAS PROVIDED AN EXCELLENT REVIEW. HWANG, ET AL(2012) AND CAO, ET AL(2014) ARE ALSO CRITICAL HERE.  DR. BUCKNER HAS EXAMINED THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PHYLOGENY, SO THIS NEUROBIOLOGICALLY SITUATED VIEWPOINT IS CONSISTENT BIOLOGICALLY, FROM AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE. I AM UNABLE TO ATTACH ALL THE PAPERS NECESSARY TO FIRMLY ESTABLISH AN UNDERSTANDING OF THIS MODEL, BUT THERE IS A VAST AMOUNT OF LITERATURE AVAILABLE THAT IS EASY TO FIND. IF YOU ABSOLUTELY CANNOT LOCATE THESE EXCELLENT REVIEWS, CONTACT ME. I WILL ATTACH A PAPER THAT SPEAKS TOWARDS AN INTERACTIVE PARADIGM REQUIRING COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY, I'LL ATTACH A CRITICAL PAPER ON "FLEXIBLE HUBS," AND A PAPER ON AUTOMATICITY AND "SHIFTING." THE REST IS UP TO YOU. SORRY FOR THE LONG-WINDED REPLY, BUT IMHO, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTS IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT A SOLID KNOWLEDGE BASE OF THE FUNCTIONAL NEUROANATOMY OF WHAT YOU WANT TO MEASURE - I BELIEVE THIS IS THE ANCHOR POINT, SO WE NEVER GET LOST BECAUSE WE ALWAYS FALL BACK ON THE NEUROBIOLOGY OF WHERE WE STARTED. THIS IS MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN YOU WANTED TO KNOW, BUT THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT QUESTION THAT REQUIRES THE SUPPORT OF A DEEP, SOLID FOUNDATION. SOME OF MY TREATMENT OF THE TOPIC CAN BE FOUND AT THE WEBSITE LISTED BELOW. - LK

www.leonardkoziol.com

WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE THE RESEARCH GATE SYSTEM WAS TIRED OF MY LONG WINDED ANSWER AND CUT OFF PART OF MY REPLY! IT IS WHAT IT IS! - LK

To add to Gal Podjarny's list of articles regarding cognitive flexibility and children, some other articles that may be helpful:

Zelazo, P. D., Muller, U., Frye, D., & Marcovitch, S. (2003). The development of executive function in early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 68(3), Serial No. 274

Jacques, S. & Zelazo, P.D. (2001). The flexible item selection task (FIST): A measure of executive function in preschoolers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 23 (3). 573-591.