This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Neuroscience Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disability Executive dysfunction is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability Autism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article's Top Section and "Overview" contain no concrete examples of the condition and give very few generalized ones. This article also is mostly jargon, none of which is adequately explained in plain language.

Concrete examples need to be added, and the jargon needs to be replaced with lay terms, or explanatory clauses need to be added. --Atkinson (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to have the Lead simplified and made easier to understand. BrentGillm (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree! Wikipedia isn't written for specialists. I've seldom come across such a poorly written Wiki article in terms of accessibility for non-specialists, let alone for non-native speakers. Please have mercy - on the user, but also on your own, almost useless work! Arminden (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings everyone, I am as psychologist currently pursuing a masters degree in ‘Neuroscience’ at Uskudar University in Istanbul, Türkiye. I have taken on the responsibility of editing this Wikipedia article. I have already completed all Wikipedia training modules to be more proficient in editing. As a part of my assignment for my master course ‘Biotechnology in Neuroscience’, I chose to edit this article ‘Executive Dysfunction’. My goal is to improve the overall article by enhancing references, citations and making edits in the areas that require improvement. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Also I would appreciate any feedback or support on my edits.

Sincerely, Scientific Pen (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive academic tone. Author lacks experience in communicating ideas with the general public. Ineffective at imparting information to the layman. ~2026-19297-09 (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the sections before, this section is less encyclopedic(?) It's much less dense with actual information, somehow. I know this is vague but this is the vague feeling I get when reading. I think it is correlated with the previous sections having a lot of jargon, but in my opinion this section is worse than the jargon filled paragraphs, (although only relatively worse, I think this is a great article)  AltoStev (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2025 and 6 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lovelylatte (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lovelylatte (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can barely understand this article, as someone who is educated and above average in generic psychological knowledge.

As an example:

[...] symptoms of executive dysfunction include utilization behaviour, which is compulsive manipulation/use of nearby objects due simply to their presence and accessibility (rather than a functional reason). [...]

could be simplified to just:

symptoms of executive dysfunction include constant need to use and play with surrounding objects, commonly called stimming or fidgeting.

It's literary putting a definition of a behaviour into the article.

The pure fact someone had to explain that they use objects not for their intended function, which is simply playing with them, and then reason why such object are selected seems incredibly verbose to me.

And the entire article is written that way, in a single, long and verbose, but compressed, hard to read and difficult to understand language. It's like trying to explain bread in excruciating detail using only quantum physics terms. No person with generic common knowledge can understand it, let alone a person with mental deficiencies, such as executive dysfunction, or lack of English proficiency.

While the article is well formatted on the surface, reading it feels like the topic might never reach the end and sentences stretch beyond their boundaries. The graphic presentation screams walls of text and scares off anyone looking for a simple explanation. There are no hook points, which my eyes can follow during reading, making all the text blend together into a word soup, rather than structured content.

If not for me being medicated today, this article would be not accessible to me, as a person with ADD and executive dysfunction. So much for ironic inaccessibility.

Please do not consider this as hate towards the contributors. I have not verified it personally, but I trust that the knowledge contained here is factual and plentiful. That fact alone is enough for me to respect your work and commitment.

This is a cry and wish for understanding of cognitive disabilities and accessibility, especially in places dedicated to them. 193.106.76.45 (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly one third of the Executive dysfunction#Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder section is devoted to discussion of co-occurrence with obesity, ending with a suggestion that more research is necessary.

Given that this article is already long and fairly dense, I am curious if this is giving disproportionate page space to discussion of obesity relative to the purpose of the subsection.

I’m not disputing the correlation, but whether the current placement and emphasis best serve the clarity and balance of this article?

Would it make sense to either shorten the reference to a sentence or two, or to relocate it to a more appropriate subsection? For context — it’s covered briefly as a Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder#Non-psychiatric comorbidity in the Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder# page.

What do others think? Intuitivegaze (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authors lack experience in communicating topic to the general public. Ineffective at imparting information to the layman. Know your audience and remember, "Keep it simple, stupid." ~2026-19297-09 (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of chats 1, 5 and 7, by repeating quote from No. 7 (the one above this). Arminden (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]