Executive Function Scale (UEF-1) in Cuban University students: dataset

In the university setting, students face a variety of challenges, such as organizing resources to complete tasks, planning their learning, monitoring their progress across subjects, and ensuring their work meets required standards (1). Additionally, they must assess whether their learning strategies are effective and maintain metacognitive awareness of their actions to grow into competent professionals (2)(3)(4).This study introduces the dataset from the University Executive Function Scale (UEF-1), a measure originally developed and validated for Spanish-speaking populations in Ecuador and Chile (5) and later validated in the Cuban context (1). This scale has been used to develop an interactive model for understanding university students' ability to self-verify their learning in Cuban, Chilean, and Ecuadorian populations (6), as well as to propose explanatory models of conscious monitoring of responsibilities and self-regulated learning behaviors among Cuban university students (7).In this context, studying executive functions is particularly important. Executive functions are a system of higher-order cognitive processes that enable behavioral self-regulation, conscious control of thoughts and actions, and flexible adaptation to complex situations to achieve specific goals. These high-level cognitive skills enable students to consciously monitor and regulate their educational development in academic settings (5,8). This research focuses on seven specific executive functions ( 1 (g) Management of resources for task completion: Efficient organization of time, effort, and tools to achieve goals.The dataset presented in this study explores the executive functions of university students in Cuba, providing insights into how these functions operate within a Latin American context.To ensure an effective data collection process, the Executive Function Scale (UEF-1) was administered online using Google Forms. This platform enabled efficient, standardized data collection while offering participants the flexibility to complete the survey at their convenience. Participation was entirely voluntary, with students free to withdraw from the study at any time.Informed consent was obtained with a focus on transparency, ensuring that participants were fully aware of the study's aims and procedures. Participants were made aware of the scope of their involvement and the implications of sharing their information, ensuring that their participation was based on an informed and voluntary decision.The study employed the following instruments: Demographic Information: Demographic data collected included age, gender, and the province in which the students were enrolled in university.Developed and validated for Spanish-speaking populations, this scale consists of 31 items that assess seven executive functions relevant to the university setting. These functions are: conscious monitoring of responsibilities, supervisory attention system, conscious regulation of behavior, verification of behavior for learning, decision-making, conscious regulation of emotions, and management of resources for task completion. Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).The UEF-1 was meticulously selected for its relevance in evaluating executive functions within the university environment. Its structure and content were carefully aligned with the research objectives, facilitating a comprehensive and detailed assessment of participants' executive capabilities. Robust data security measures were implemented to maintain participant confidentiality and anonymity. The dataset does not include personally identifiable information, such as names or addresses, which could reveal participant identities. Additionally, explicit consent was obtained from participants for the anonymous sharing of their sociodemographic data and survey responses. Statistical software JASP was utilized for in-depth analysis and to derive meaningful insights from the dataset. JASP is an open-source, free software that provides a broad array of statistical and graphical tools, enabling a thorough exploration of the data and the identification of significant patterns and relationships. The presented data include participants' sociodemographic characteristics and confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the scale's psychometric properties. This report provides descriptive statistics, item-test correlations (r), and factor loadings for the UEF-1 items.The study included a sample of 1,092 participants from Cuban universities who completed the Executive Function Scale (UEF-1) (1). Data were collected from January 23 to May 3, 2024, using snowball sampling across 14 higher education institutions nationwide, with voluntary participation and no missing data. Sample characteristics are presented through descriptive statistics (Table 1), including age (M = 20.05, SD = ±1.72 years), gender (60.4% male), and geographic distribution (93.0% Central Region). Reliability estimates were high for the total score (α = 0.91, ω = 0.91), while factor analysis revealed predominantly medium values for 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), with medium-low values for conscious regulation of behavior (α = 0.65, ω = 0.65). The scale demonstrated adequate psychometric properties across its seven dimensions (Table 2).Mean scores (M) ranged from 3.30 (behavioral regulation) to 4.53 (social behavior), with standard deviations (SD) indicating moderate variability (0.84-1.90). Acceptable item-test correlations (r) were observed (0.35-0.63), particularly for attention (UEF22: r=.63) and emotional regulation items (UEF29: r=.53), along with optimal factor loadings (>0.70) for responsibility monitoring (UEF9: 0.79), attentional system (UEF22: 0.81), and learning verification (UEF20: 0.81). However, the behavioral regulation dimension showed the lowest loadings (UEF19: 0.46; UEF18: 0.49), suggesting weaker internal consistency. Note: M = mean, SD = standard deviation, r = correlation index.Among the study's limitations is the geographic bias in the sample, which was predominantly composed of universities from the Central Region of Cuba (93.0%), with limited representation from the Western (6.4%) and Eastern (0.7%) regions. This imbalance may affect the generalizability of the results, as the socio-educational particularities of other regions-such as access to resources, institutional dynamics, or student profiles-are not adequately reflected.Additionally, the sample's representativeness may be constrained, as it focuses exclusively on universities in Cuba, potentially missing the diversity of university students across Latin America and other regions. The reliance on self-reported data from the Executive Function Scale (UEF-1) may introduce biases, such as social desirability or inaccuracies in self-assessment, which could impact the validity of the results.Moreover, the study's specific context-conducted within the socio-cultural and educational environment of Cuba-may limit the generalizability of the findings. Differences in educational systems, socio-economic conditions, and cultural norms may affect executive function performance and perceptions differently in other contexts. Finally, external factors, such as peer influence and the presence of instructors, could influence participants' responses and affect the overall data quality.