Cited by 1,294Developmental and Educational NeuropsychologyCognitive Abilities and TestingEarly Childhood Education and Development

Relations between executive function and academic achievement from ages 5 to 17 in a large, representative national sample.

Open access
Best, John R., Miller, Patricia H., Naglieri, Jack A.·2011·Learning and Individual Differences

Abstract

This study examined age-related changes in complex executive function (EF) in a large, representative sample (N = 2,036) aged 5 to 17 using the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS; Naglieri & Das, 1997a). Relations between complex EF and academic achievement were examined on a sub-sample (N = 1,395) given the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989). Performance on the three complex EF tasks improved until at least age 15, although improvement slowed with increasing age and varied some across tasks. Moreover, the different developmental patterns in the correlations between completion time and accuracy provide clues to developmental processes. Examination of individual achievement subtests clarified the specific aspects of academic performance most related to complex EF. Finally, the correlation between complex EF and academic achievement varied across ages, but the developmental pattern of the strength of these correlations was remarkably similar for overall math and reading achievement, suggesting a domain-general relation between complex EF and academic achievement.

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.lindif.2011.01.007

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • The difficulty of executive functions can be detrimental to academic performance in novel situations or when complex problem solving is necessary.

    “The difficulty of EF can be detrimental to academic performance in novel situations or when complex problem solving is necessary (Best et al., 2011).”

    From Assessment of executive functions in school-aged children: A narrative review (2022) · cites this paper as Best et al., 2011

    The Discussion (§4.2; page unavailable) reports that complex executive function was more strongly correlated with applied math problem-solving than with calculation, supporting the complex-problem-solving part of the claim. The paper does not establish that EF difficulties cause poorer academic performance in novel situations; that condition was not directly tested. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Cognitive control has been established as a determining factor of academic performance.

    “cognitive control has been established as a determining factor of academic performance [35,36].”

    From Lifestyle Habits Predict Academic Performance in High School Students: The Adolescent Student Academic Performance Longitudinal Study (ASAP) (2019) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Discussion (§4.2; page unavailable) reports significant correlations between executive-function tasks and reading and math achievement. The Introduction (§1.2; page unavailable) says longitudinal research suggests executive function contributes to achievement, but this paper examines associations; it does not establish cognitive control as a determining factor. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Naglieri, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • San Francisco State University (US)
  • George Mason University (US)
Corresponding author
Best, John R.
Venue
Learning and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-08
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
327-336
ISSN
1041-6080 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062718236
Cited by
1,294
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 79 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 147 · 2021: 132 · 2020: 127 · 2019: 110 · 2018: 110 · 2017: 77 · 2016: 77 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 13
FWCI
32.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Learning and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK070922, R01DK060692)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
Keywords
executive function, academic performance, cognitive development, age-related changes, cognitive assessment, mathematics achievement, reading achievement, domain-general cognition, children and adolescents

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