Cited by 332Developmental and Educational NeuropsychologyEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentCognitive Abilities and Testing

The efficacy of different interventions to foster children’s executive function skills: A series of meta-analyses.

Open access
Takacs, Zsofia K., Kassai, Reka·2019·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

In the present meta-analysis all available evidence regarding the efficacy of different behavioral interventions for children's executive function skills were synthesized. After a systematic search we included experimental studies aiming to enhance children's (up to 12 years of age) executive functioning with neurodevelopmental tests as outcome measures. The results of 100 independent effect sizes in 90 studies including data of 8,925 children confirmed that it is possible to foster these skills in childhood (Diamond & Lee, 2011). We did not find convincing evidence, however, for the benefits to remain on follow-up assessment. Different approaches were effective for typically and nontypically developing samples. For nontypically developing children (including children with neurodevelopmental disorders or behavior problems) acquiring new strategies of self-regulation including biofeedback-enhanced relaxation and strategy teaching programs were the most effective. For typically developing children we found evidence for the moderate beneficial effects of mindfulness practices. Although small to moderate effects of explicit training with tasks loading on executive function skills in the form of computerized and noncomputer training were found, these effects were consistently weaker for nontypically developing children who might actually be more in need of such training. Thus, atypically developing children seem to profit more from acquiring new strategies of self-regulation as co…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/bul0000195

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Takacs, Z. K., & Kassai, R.
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2019-07
Volume
145
Issue
7
Pages
653-697
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2943238676
Cited by
332
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 4
FWCI
49.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (PD121297)
  • Ministry of Human Capacities (ÚNKP-17-4-I-ELTE-125)
  • Hungarian Academy of Sciences (LP-2018-21/2018)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
executive function, behavioral interventions, children, self-regulation, strategy teaching, mindfulness, neurodevelopmental disorders, typically developing children, explicit training, computer-based training, follow-up outcomes, behavioral problems
MeSH terms
Self-Control, Child, Child Development, Humans, Practice, Psychological, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Executive Function, Mindfulness, Neurodevelopmental Disorders

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