Problems with executive functioning may have catastrophic consequences following brain injury. Valid neuropsychological assessment procedures are required if the nature and extent of these are to be understood. However, some existing measures do not adequately reflect how executive impairments are manifested in the context of everyday functioning. Shallice and Burgess (1991) described one procedure, the Multiple Errands Test (MET), which did attain this goal. While successful, it was designed for people who performed within or above the normal range when tested using existing psychometric measures: however, it is acknowledged that many patients seen in routine clinical practice perform below normal limits. Furthermore, while the procedure was carried out in a public place a range of constraints may prevent this with some patients. In this paper the utility of a simplified MET designed for use within a hospital environment is explored. Twenty neurologically healthy participants and 20 people with acquired brain injury took part. People with acquired brain injury were clearly discriminated from healthy controls through the number of errors made. Furthermore, one category of error proved highly predictive of difficulties attributable to executive dysfunction observed in the context of everyday living. While one other test correlated almost as well with these difficulties, it was argued that MET methodology is more advantageous to clinicians regarding assessment and rehabilitation.