Cited by 60Developmental and Educational NeuropsychologyCognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Executive function skills of 6–8 year olds: Brain and behavioral evidence and implications for school achievement

Open access
Molfese, Victoria J., Molfese, Peter J., Molfese, Dennis L., Rudasill, Kathleen Moritz, Armstrong, Natalie, Starkey, Gillian·2010·Contemporary Educational Psychology

Abstract

Academic and social success in school has been linked to children's self-regulation. This study investigated the assessment of the executive function (EF) component of self-regulation using a low-cost, easily administered measure to determine whether scores obtained from the behavioral task would agree with those obtained using a laboratory-based neuropsychological measure of EF skills. The sample included 74 children (37 females; M = 86.2 months) who participated in two assessments of working memory and inhibitory control: Knock-Tap (NEPSY: Korkman, Kirk, and Kemp, 1998), and participation in event-related potential (ERP) testing that included the Directional Stroop Test (Davidson, Cruess, Diamond, O'Craven, & Savoy, 1999). Three main findings emerged. First, children grouped as high versus low performing on the NEPSY Knock-Tap Task were found to performed differently on the more difficult conditions of the DST (the Incongruent and Mixed Conditions), suggesting that the Knock-Tap Task as a low-cost and easy to administer assessment of EF skills may be one way for teachers to identify students with poor inhibitory control skills. Second, children's performance on the DST was strongly related to their ERP responses, adding to evidence that differences in behavioral performance on the DST as a measure of EF skills reflect corresponding differences in brain processing. Finally, differences in brain processing on the DST task also were found when the children were grouped based on Knock-Tap performance. Simple screening procedures can enable teachers to identify children whose distractibility, inattentiveness, or poor attention spans may interfere with classroom learning.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.004

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • According to Molfese et al., working memory and inhibitory control deficits seem to contribute to the classroom behavior problems frequently seen in children with ADHD.

    “According to Molfese et al. (2010), WM and inhibitory control deficits seem to contribute to the classroom behavior problems frequently seen in children with ADHD.”

    From Assessment of executive functions in school-aged children: A narrative review (2022) · cites this paper as Molfese et al. (2010)

    The paper’s background discussion (page unavailable) reports a link between inhibitory control and teachers’ ratings of classroom behavior problems. It does not establish that working-memory and inhibitory-control deficits contribute to behavior problems in children with ADHD; it says children with those deficits can be distinguished from children with ADHD diagnoses, and its own study examined typically developing children without clinical-level ADHD symptoms. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 78 · Cited by 60

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Whitehurst G Lonigan C 2001 Get Ready To Read! Columbus, OH Pearson Early Learning www.teachervision.com/lesson-plans/loesson-7836.html

Authors
Molfese, V. J., Molfese, P. J., Molfese, D. L., Rudasill, K. M., Armstrong, N., & Starkey, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Louisville (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Molfese, Victoria J.
Venue
Contemporary Educational Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-04
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
116-125
ISSN
0361-476X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2122057644
Cited by
60
References
78
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Contemporary Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL070911)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
executive function, self-regulation, inhibitory control, working memory, event-related potentials, academic performance, early childhood, attention deficits, NEPSY

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review