The unity and diversity of executive functions: A systematic review and re-analysis of latent variable studies
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
= 9,756). The most frequently accepted models varied by age (i.e., preschool = one/two-factor; school-age = three-factor; adolescent/adult = three/nested-factor; older adult = two/three-factor), and most often included updating/working memory, inhibition, and shifting factors. A bootstrap reanalysis simulated 5,000 samples from 21 correlation matrices (11 child/adolescent; 10 adult) from studies including the three most common factors, fitting seven competing models. Model results were summarized as the mean percent accepted (i.e., average rate at which models converged and met fit thresholds: CFI ≥ .90/RMSEA ≤ .08) and mean percent selected (i.e., average rate at which a model showed superior fit to other models: ΔCFI ≥ .005/.010/ΔRMSEA ≤ -.010/-.015). No model consistently converged and met fit criteria in all samples. Among adult samples, the nested-factor was accepted (41-42%) and selected (8-30%) most often. Among child/adolescent samples, the unidimensional model was accepted (32-36%) and selected (21-53%) most often, with some support for two-factor models without a differentiated shifting factor. Results show some evidence for greater unidimensionality of executive function among child/adolescent samples and both unity and diversity among adult samples. However, low rates of model acceptance/selection suggest possible bias toward the publication of well-fitting but potentially nonreplicable models with underpowered samples. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Working memory and inhibitory control are the two primary executive functions in school-aged youths.
“As the two primary executive functions in school-aged youths (5), working memory and/or inhibitory control have garnered particular attention.”
From Working memory and inhibitory control deficits in children with ADHD: an experimental evaluation of competing model predictions (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
The Results (Qualitative Synthesis; page unavailable) identify updating/working memory and inhibition as the two most frequent factors across the models reviewed. But the Discussion (Findings from the Qualitative Synthesis; page unavailable) says school-aged samples showed more support for a three-factor model, including shifting. The paper therefore does not establish that these are the two primary executive functions specifically in school-aged youths. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredExperimental evidence indicates that both stroop and stop-signal task types share a common inhibitory control mechanism, and factor analytic evidence indicates that both tasks load together.
“This conclusion appears unlikely, however, based on experimental evidence indicating that both task types share a common inhibitory control mechanism (98, 114) and factor analytic evidence indicating that both tasks load together (e.g., 5, 17).”
From Working memory and inhibitory control deficits in children with ADHD: an experimental evaluation of competing model predictions (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
A large ADHD literature proposes that executive function deficits are either causal mechanisms, non-causal factors that aid developmental recovery, or epiphenomenal.
“An expansive literature in ADHD spanning nearly three decades29,31–34 posits that executive function deficits are either causal mechanisms that give rise to ADHD behavioral symptoms; non-causal factors that nonetheless aid in developmental recovery from ADHD; or epiphenomenal”
From Executive function deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
The References list studies of executive-function deficits and ADHD, but those entries do not state the three proposed roles of the deficits. Searches for ADHD, developmental recovery, and epiphenomenal found no passage in our copy discussing those roles. (LLM, conf=0.75)
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 226 · Cited by 637
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Baddeley A Hitch G 1974 Working memory Bower GH Recent advances in learning and motivation 47 89 New York Academic Press
- Box GP Draper NR 1987 Empirical model-building and response surfaces Oxford John Wiley & Sons
- Garza JP Nelson JM Sheffield TD Choi H Clark CA Wiebe SA Espy KA 2014 2 Parsing executive control from foundational cognitive abilities in preschool: Application of the bifactor model to examine developmental change Espy KA Chair The changing nature of executive control in preschool: Using statistical modeling to situate neuroscience in development Symposium conducted at the Forty-Second Annual Meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society Seattle, Washington
- Lezak MD 1976 Neuropsychological assessment New York Oxford University Press
- Lezak MD 1983 Neuropsychological assessment 2 New York Oxford University Press
- OCEBM (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine) Levels of Evidence Working Group 2011 The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2 Retrieved from http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653
- Wechsler D 2014 Wechsler intelligence scale for children 5 San Antonio, TX Pearson
- Werner H 1957 The concept of development from a comparative and organismic point of view Harris DB The concept of development: An issue in the study of human behavior 125 148 Minneapolis, MN Jones Press
- Authors
- Karr, J. E., Areshenkoff, C. N., Rast, P., Hofer, S. M., Iverson, G. L., & Garcia-Barrera, M. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Victoria (CA)
- University of California, Davis (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2018-11
- Volume
- 144
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1147-1185
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- PMC
- PMC6197939
- OpenAlex
- W2886795134
- Cited by
- 637
- References
- 226
- Citations by year
- 2026: 82 · 2025: 94 · 2024: 103 · 2023: 99 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 6 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 6.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (418676-2012)
- National Institutes of Health (R01AG050720, P01AG043362)
- US Department of Defense (W81XWH-14-2-0176)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- executive function, latent variable models, factor structure, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, model fit, child and adolescent development, older adults, unidimensionality, publication bias, underpowered studies
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Child, Child, Preschool, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Models, Psychological, Neuropsychological Tests, 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
