Cited by 45Cognitive Abilities and TestingHistorical and Modern Theater StudiesHealth disparities and outcomes

Self-Efficacy Buffers the Relationship between Educational Disadvantage and Executive Functioning

Open access
Zahodne, Laura B., Nowinski, Cindy J., Gershon, Richard C., Manly, Jennifer J.·2015·Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society

Abstract

Previous studies showed that control beliefs are more strongly related to global cognition and mortality among adults with low education, providing preliminary evidence that self-efficacy buffers against the negative impact of educational disadvantage on physical and cognitive health. The current study extends these findings to a nationally representative sample of men and women aged 30 to 85 and explores which cognitive domains are most strongly associated with self-efficacy, educational attainment, and their interaction. Data were obtained from 1032 adult (30–85) participants in the United States norming study for the NIH Toolbox. Self-efficacy, executive functioning, working memory, processing speed, episodic memory, and vocabulary were assessed with the NIH Toolbox. Multivariate analysis of covariance and follow-up regressions tested the hypothesis that self-efficacy would be more strongly related to cognitive performance among individuals with lower education, controlling for age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, reading level, testing language, and depressive symptoms. Higher education was associated with higher self-efficacy and better performance on all cognitive tests. Higher self-efficacy was associated with better set-switching and attention/inhibition. Significant self-efficacy by education interactions indicated that associations between self-efficacy and executive abilities were stronger for individuals with lower education. Specifically, individuals with low education but high self-efficacy performed similarly to individuals with high education. This study provides evidence that self-efficacy beliefs buffer against the negative effects of low educational attainment on executive functioning. These results have implications for future policy and/or intervention work aimed at reducing the deleterious effects of educational disadvantage on later cognitive health. (JINS, 2015, 21, 297–304)

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/s1355617715000193

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • In moments when action is planned and executed, higher performance expectancies may serve as a buffer or protection against responses that would detract from optimal performance, such as nonbeneficial alternate responses, off-task activity, or self-referential thinking.

    “In the moments when action is planned and executed, higher performance expectancies may also serve as a buffer or protection against responses that would detract from optimal performance, such as nonbeneficial alternate responses, including off-task activity (Jiao et al., 2015;Zahodne, Nowinski, Gershon, & Manly, 2015) or self-referential thinking.”

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
Zahodne, L. B., Nowinski, C. J., Gershon, R. C., & Manly, J. J.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Zahodne, Laura B.
Venue
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
Published
2015-04
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
297-304
ISSN
  • 1355-6177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7661
OpenAlex
W2314215661
Cited by
45
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. Public Health Service (HHS-N-260-2006-00007-C)
  • National Institute on Aging (K99AG047963)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
self-efficacy, educational disadvantage, educational attainment, executive function, cognitive aging, NIH Toolbox, working memory, processing speed, episodic memory, vocabulary, set switching, cognitive health
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Neuropsychological Tests, Sex Factors, United States, Vocabulary, Databases, Factual, Self Efficacy, 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