Cited by 53Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Do executive functions explain the covariance between internalizing and externalizing behaviors?

Open access
Hatoum, Alexander S., Rhee, Soo Hyun, Corley, Robin P., Hewitt, John K., Friedman, Naomi P.·2018·Development and Psychopathology

Abstract

This study examined whether executive functions (EFs) might be common features of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems across development. We examined relations between three EF latent variables (a common EF factor and factors specific to updating working memory and shifting sets), constructed from nine laboratory tasks administered at age 17, to latent growth intercept (capturing stability) and slope (capturing change) factors of teacher- and parent-reported internalizing and externalizing behaviors in 885 individual twins aged 7 to 16 years. We then estimated the proportion of intercept–intercept and slope–slope correlations predicted by EF as well as the association between EFs and a common psychopathology factor (P factor) estimated from all 9 years of internalizing and externalizing measures. Common EF was negatively associated with the intercepts of teacher-rated internalizing and externalizing behavior in males, and explained 32% of their covariance; in the P factor model, common EF was associated with the P factor in males. Shifting-specific was positively associated with the externalizing slope across sex. EFs did not explain covariation between parent-rated behaviors. These results suggest that EFs are associated with stable problem behavior variation, explain small proportions of covariance, and are a risk factor that that may depend on gender.

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 · 10.1017/s0954579417001602

Cites

77 of 77 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?

  • A common cognitive control factor is associated with a p factor (r = -0.16 to -0.56).

    “Indeed, several studies have examined this hypothesis directly, finding that a common CC factor is associated with a p factor (r = –0.16 to –0.56) [174, 200–203].”

    From The role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function (2022) · cites this paper as [202]

    The Results section (Association Between EFs and a P Factor with Residual Growth Factors; page unavailable) reports a significant correlation between Common EF and the P factor in males (r = −0.56), supporting the cited range’s upper-magnitude endpoint. It reports a nonsignificant correlation in females (r = −0.14), so the unqualified statement that the factors are associated omits an important sex-specific qualification. The −0.16 endpoint is not established by this paper’s reported results. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hatoum, A. S., Rhee, S. H., Corley, R. P., Hewitt, J. K., & Friedman, N. P.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Corresponding author
Hatoum, Alexander S.
Venue
Development and Psychopathology
Published
2017-11-16
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
1371-1387
ISSN
  • 0954-5794 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-2198
OpenAlex
W2769715769
Cited by
53
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3
FWCI
5.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Development and Psychopathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG046938)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH063207, R56MH063207, T32MH016880)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD010333)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
executive function, internalizing problems, externalizing problems, working memory updating, cognitive flexibility, behavioral stability, developmental changes, sex differences, risk factors, child and adolescent psychopathology, twins
MeSH terms
Problem Behavior, Adolescent, Child, Defense Mechanisms, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Models, Psychological, Neuropsychological Tests, Risk Factors, Set, Psychology, Sex Factors, 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