## 4 Discussion  
The tele-assessment of cognitive functioning in children is a debated question, mainly because most of the existing tests are normed and standardized for in-person administration. Considering verbal ability or memory, the validity of remote administration is quite widespread and recognized, as the tests used are based on oral presentation [11; 37]. On the contrary, there is less agreement concerning other cognitive processes that are typically assessed with paper and pencil tests or object manipulations, as in the case of EF [3]. Despite some evidence existing about the possibility of comparing the two forms of assessment also with EF tasks [11], there is a need to establish standardized procedures and psychometric properties of instruments for this assessment [5]. Developing and standardizing tests for remote administration can help in reducing the critical issues that have so far characterized tele-assessment. In this vein, TeleFE is a web platform for both remote and in-person administration. The aim of the present study is to explore the effects of assessment modality (remote vs. in-person) on EF measures in school-age children and adolescents. In addition, class and sex differences in task performances were investigated. The results show that TeleFE is a valid instrument to assess EFs in children. First, negligible differences between in \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** & **9** \\ \hline
**1** & **NoGo CR** & — & & & & & & & & \\  & \(p\) & — & & & & & & & & \\
**2** & **Incongruent CR** & 0.23 & — & & & & & & & \\  & \(p\) & \(<\)0.001 & — & & & & & & & \\
**3** & **Incongruent RT** & 0.14 & \(-\)0.28 & — & & & & & & \\  & \(p\) & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & — & & & & & & \\
**4** & **Mixed Incongruent** & 0.22 & 0.42 & \(-\)0.30 & — & & & & & \\  & \(p\) & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & \(-\) & & & & & & \\
**5** & **Mixed Incongruent** & 0.23 & 0.16 & 0.45 & \(-\)0.03 & — & & & & \\  & \(p\) & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.385 & — & & & & \\
**6** & **1-back CR** & 0.27 & 0.30 & \(-\)0.11 & 0.27 & 0.06 & — & & & \\  & \(p\) & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.060 & — & & & & \\
**7** & **2-back CR** & 0.28 & 0.33 & \(-\)0.16 & 0.32 & 0.04 & 0.55 & — & & \\  & \(p\) & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.154 & \(<\)0.001 & — & & & \\
**8** & **DPT** & 0.16 & 0.28 & \(-\)0.20 & 0.17 & 0.07 & 0.17 & 0.17 & — & \\  & \(p\) & 0.039 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.008 & 0.032 & 0.343 & 0.031 & 0.031 & — & \\
**9** & **QUFE Parents** & 0.12 & 0.13 & \(-\)0.04 & 0.13 & \(-\)0.03 & 0.12 & 0.13 & 0.08 & — \\  & \(p\) & 0.003 & 0.003 & 0.319 & 0.003 & 0.534 & 0.006 & 0.002 & 0.332 & — \\
**10** & **QUFE Teachers** & 0.20 & 0.24 & 0.00 & 0.18 & 0.23 & 0.19 & 0.27 & 0.33 & 0.34 \\  & \(p\) & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.919 & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 \\ \hline  & **Test retest reliability** & 0.43 & 0.38 & 0.64 & 0.52 & 0.67 & 0.42 & 0.61 & - & - \\  & \(p\) & 0.002 & 0.006 & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.003 & \(<\)0.001 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Partial correlation between EF measures (control by age) and test–retest reliability. person and remote evaluation have been found in the TeleFE tasks. The difference between assessment modalities emerges in the interaction with congruent/incongruent conditions in the flanker task considering the flexibility accuracy, which confirms the flanker effect for both the assessment conditions and reveals a lower accuracy in the incongruent trials that are remotely assessed. The results also suggest that the differences between classes in the congruent and incongruent trials may be modality dependent, while no difference between the correspondent remote/in-person comparisons within each class and condition emerges. This result is very relevant, given the distrust with which the remote assessment of skills other than language and memory is viewed with [4].