Cited by 211Child Abuse and TraumaChild Welfare and AdoptionChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Adverse Childhood Experiences and Executive Function Difficulties in Children: A Systematic Review

Lund, Jessie I., Toombs, Elaine, Radford, Abbey, Boles, Kara, Mushquash, Christopher·2020·Child Abuse & Neglect

Abstract

BACKGROUND The relationship between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and detrimental poor mental health outcomes has been increasingly explored within scientific literature since the original ACE study was published by Felitti et al. (1998). Given that deficits in executive functions (EF) are prominent in most forms of psychopathology across the lifespan, there is utility in considering how ACEs relate to EF outcomes. OBJECTIVE To consolidate the research to date on the relationship between ACEs and EF outcomes among child samples. METHODS A systematic review was conducted that included 16 scientific databases and 17 grey literatures. RESULTS Across 36 studies, many examined EF related to forms of maltreatment (e.g. abuse, neglect, and exposure to intimate partner violence) and found a strong relationship between maltreatment and EF deficits among children. Similarly, family member mental illness (maternal depression in particular) was associated with poor EF outcomes. The relationship between other ACEs and EF outcomes have not been uniquely examined, including intimate partner violence and family member incarceration. CONCLUSIONS This review acts as a preliminary step towards broader understanding of outcomes related to early childhood experiences through the consideration of EFs. Through documentation of such relationships, it is possible to consider how prevention and treatment approaches may be improved.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104485

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • General early adversity is linked to challenges with executive functioning, atypical behavioral development, and mental health concerns.

    “Furthermore, general early adversity has been linked to challenges with executive functioning (Lund et al., 2020), atypical behavioral development (Domoff et al., 2021; Howard et al., 2020; Ross et al., 2020; Wilke et al., 2020), and mental health concerns (Atluri et al., 2018; Pham et al., 2021).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lund, J. I., Toombs, E., Radford, A., Boles, K., & Mushquash, C.
Affiliations
  • Lakehead University (CA)
  • Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Lund, Jessie I.
Venue
Child Abuse & Neglect
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-08
Volume
106
Pages
104485
ISSN
0145-2134 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3023074219
Cited by
211
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Child Abuse & Neglect (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
adverse childhood experiences, executive function, child abuse, child neglect, intimate partner violence exposure, maternal depression, child mental health, early childhood experiences
MeSH terms
Intimate Partner Violence, Adverse Childhood Experiences, Adult, Mental Disorders, Child, Child Abuse, Child, Preschool, Family, Humans, Male, Executive Function

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