A framework for executive function in the late elementary years.

May combine two claims.

Model 1b fit the data much better than Model 1a, but Working Memory correlated strongly with several other factors, and factor loadings suggested a distinction between span/manipulation and updating measures.

“The revised model (Model 1b) fit the data much better, but the Working Memory (WM) correlated strongly with several others, and factor loadings suggested a distinction among measures of span and manipulation, versus updating.”

May combine two claims.

The average intercorrelation among all 27 indicator variables was 0.17, with a median of 0.15.

“The average intercorrelation among all 27 indicator variables (see Table S2) was r = .17 (median r = .15)”

May combine two claims.

In the final bifactor model, reliability was highest for the EF factor (0.97), high for WM-U (0.82), Self-Regulated Learning (0.84), and Metacognition (0.97), and moderate for WM-S/M/Planning (0.66) and Fluency (0.79).

“From Model 2b to Model 4, reliability was highest for the EF factor (ρEF=0.97), and was also high for three of the specific factors from Model 4 (ρWMU= 0.82, ρself-regulation=0.84, and ρmeta-cognition= 0.97). Reliability was moderate for two specific factors (ρWMSMρWM/planning = 0.66, and ρfluency= 0.79).”

May combine two claims.

In the final bifactor model, Shifting and Inhibition indicators loaded only on the common EF factor, with Shifting loadings larger and more consistent than Inhibition.

“Indicators of Shifting and Inhibition loaded only on the common EF factor, though these were larger and more consistent for Shifting relative to Inhibition.”

May combine two claims.

For students designated as having limited English proficiency, performances were lower on general EF (r = −.26, p < 0.001) and Fluency (r = −.25, p = 0.009), but higher on WMU (r = .22, p < 0.001), with no significant differences on other specific factors.

“Finally, for students designated as having limited English proficiency, their performances were lower on EF, r = −.26, p < 0.001, and Fluency, r = −.25, p = 0.009, but higher on WMU, r = .22, p < 0.001, with no significant differences on other specific factors.”

The quote only partly states this claim.

In the final bifactor model, loadings were higher for the specific WM-S/M and Planning factor than for common EF.

“Conversely, loadings were higher for the specific WM-S/M and Planning factor.”

May combine two claims.

Sex was positively correlated with WM-U (r = .15, p = 0.017), Self-Regulated Learning (r = .14, p = 0.001), and Metacognition (r = .27, p < 0.001), conferring a slight advantage for girls.

“Sex was positively correlated with WM-U, r = .15, p = 0.017; with SRL, r = .14, p = 0.001; and with Metacognition, r = .27, p < 0.001. These correlations were modest and conferred a slight advantage for girls”

May combine two claims.

The final bifactor model had five specific factors and was clearly a better fit than Model 2b by most criteria.

“The final bifactor model (see Figure 1) had five specific factors (WM-S/M and Planning, WM-U, Generative Fluency, Self-Regulated Learning, and MCOG), and was clearly a better fit to the data than Model 2b by most criteria (e.g., χ2 difference, change in CFI, AIC, and BIC).”

May combine two claims.

Age was positively correlated with general EF (r = .38, p < 0.001) and negatively correlated with specific Metacognition (r = −.19, p < 0.001); all other age correlations were smaller and non-significant.

“Age was positively correlated with general EF, r = .38, p < 0.001, and negatively correlated with specific Metacognition, r = −.19, p < 0.001 factors. All other age correlations were smaller in magnitude (range r = |.03 to .09|) and non-significant.”

May combine two claims.

For WM-S/M and Planning, and for Fluency, advantages for boys were of similar magnitude (r = −.13 and r = −.14, respectively), though neither were significant.

“for WM-S/M and Plan, and for Fluency, advantages for boys were of similar magnitude (r = −.13 and r = −.14, respectively), though neither were significant.”

May combine two claims.

Factors with more reliable indicators had higher maximal reliability; Inhibition had a noticeably low maximal reliability of 0.54.

“It was also the case that factors with more reliable indicators had higher maximal reliability; the only noticeably low value was for Inhibition (ρinhibition= 0.54).”

May combine two claims.

The correlational pattern was strongly similar when computed within the structural framework versus when factor scores were exported and correlations were computed externally, except that the relations of fluency with age and sex became significant.

“The correlational pattern was strongly similar when computed within the structural framework versus when factor scores were exported and correlations were computed externally, except that the relations of fluency with age and sex, while directionally the same as those above and similar in value, were now significant.”

May combine two claims.

Economic disadvantage correlated negatively with general EF (r = −.20, p = 0.003), with no significant relations with other factors.

“Economic disadvantage correlated negatively with EF, r = −.20, p = 0.003, such that receipt of free lunch was associated with lower EF performances; there were no significant relations with other factors.”

May combine two claims.

The present study could not conclude that EF indicators are interchangeable and contribute similarly to a unitary factor, nor that the hypothesized factors are separable and non-overlapping.

“The present study is unable to conclude that indicators of EF are interchangeable and each contributes similarly to a unitary factor; it is also unable to conclude that hypothesized factors are separable and non-overlapping.”

May combine two claims.

The common EF factor showed negative relationships with economic disadvantage and with limited English proficiency.

“The common EF factor also showed predictable (negative) relationships with economic disadvantage (Raver, 2004; Raver et al., 2013), and with limited English proficiency (Abedi, 2002).”

• cites Raver, 2004Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Raver et al., 2013Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Abedi, 2002Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

All students with limited English proficiency were in the fourth grade and all were struggling readers.

“all the students with limited English proficiency were in the fourth grade and all were struggling readers”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Barkley's model considered metacognition as a component of EF, called reconstitution.

“Barkley’s model (1997; 2014) considered metacognition as a component of EF (reconstitution).”

• cites Barkley, 1997; 2014Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Metacognition and EF are both often described as superordinate processes that monitor, manipulate, or control/regulate other cognitive processes.

“Metacognition and EF are both often described as superordinate processes – those that monitor, manipulate, or control/regulate other cognitive processes”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Behavioral Regulation models are often concerned with the ability of individuals to control their behavioral actions and/or emotions.

“In contrast to SRL, Behavioral Regulation models are often concerned with the ability of individuals to control their behavioral actions and/or emotions (Blair, 2002; Barkley, 1997; 2014; Posner & Rothbart, 2000; Raver, 2004).”

• cites Blair, 2002Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Barkley, 1997; 2014Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Posner & Rothbart, 2000Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Several recent studies have focused on preschool children using careful measurement approaches, identifying a unitary EF factor.

“Several recent studies have focused on preschool children using careful measurement approaches, identifying a unitary EF factor (Wiebe et al., 2008; Willoughby, Blair, Wirth, & Greenberg, 2010).”

• cites Wiebe et al., 2008Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Willoughby, Blair, Wirth, & Greenberg, 2010Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Metacognitive processes are featured in some models alongside EF.

“metacognitive processes are featured in some models alongside EF (e.g., Stuss, 2011).”

• cites Stuss, 2011Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

The structural pattern of this study is partially consistent with a number of other factor analytic studies, though the number and range of EF-related constructs considered here is larger than prior work.

“The structural pattern of this study is partially consistent with a number of other factor analytic studies, though the number and range of EF-related constructs considered here is larger than prior work.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Models of Self-Regulated Learning focus on how individuals control their own learning processes.

“Models of Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) (e.g., Pintrich, 2000; 2004; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011) focus on how individuals control their own learning processes.”

• cites Pintrich, 2000; 2004Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Most often behavioral regulation is assessed through self- or other-ratings, especially beyond preschool age.

“Although decision-based cognitive tasks are available, most often behavioral regulation is assessed through self- or other-ratings, especially beyond the preschool age.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The BRIEF considers Metacognition as one of its primary scales.

“The Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, Kenworthy, 2000) considers Metacognition as one of its primary scales.”

• cites Gioia, Isquith, Guy, Kenworthy, 2000Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Zimmerman's (2000) model includes phases of forethought, performance, and self-reflection; Pintrich (2004) emphasized planning, monitoring, control, and reflection.

“Zimmerman’s (2000) model includes phases of forethought, performance, and self-reflection; Pintrich (2004) emphasized planning, monitoring, control, and reflection.”

• cites Zimmerman, 2000Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Pintrich, 2004Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

SRL is often assessed via self-report, whereas EF is usually assessed via cognitive performance measures.

“An important methodological difference in comparing the literatures of SRL with EF is that SRL is often assessed via self-report, whereas EF is usually assessed via cognitive performance measures (particularly the “cool” variety; e.g., Welsh & Peterson, 2014).”

• cites Welsh & Peterson, 2014Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

These SRL phases are similar to the frameworks of EF described by Zelazo et al. (1997) and Ylvisaker & Feeney (2002).

“These phases are similar to the frameworks of EF described by Zelazo et al. (1997) and Ylvisaker & Feeney (2002).”

• cites Zelazo et al. (1997)Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Ylvisaker & Feeney (2002)Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Inhibition can be difficult to separate from a common EF factor.

“Inhibition is also featured in many studies of EF, though inhibition can be difficult to separate from a common EF factor (e.g., Miyake & Friedman, 2012).”

• cites Miyake & Friedman, 2012Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Meta-analyses show quite weak correspondence between updating and storage/maintenance measures, whereas latent variable models show more overlap; these studies were with adults.

“meta-analyses that show quite weak correspondence between these two types of measures (Redick & Lindsey, 2013) whereas latent variable models show more overlap (Schmiedek et al., 2009; 2014); although unlike Engelhardt et al. (2015), these studies were with adults.”

• cites Redick & Lindsey, 2013Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Schmiedek et al., 2009; 2014Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

Few studies evaluate the relationship of neuropsychological measures of EF to behavioral self-regulation measures beyond the earliest elementary ages, though where examined, relationships are generally small.

“Few studies evaluate the relationship of neuropsychological measures of EF to behavioral self-regulation measures beyond the earliest elementary ages, though where examined, relationships are generally small (e.g., Duckworth & Kern, 2011).”

• cites Duckworth & Kern, 2011Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Latent variable studies in adults show that EF components are notably fractionated though not independent.

“On the other hand, latent variable studies in adults show that EF components are notably fractionated though not independent (e.g., Miyake, 2000; Hull, Martin, Beier, Lane & Hamilton, 2008; Kane, et al., 2004).”

• cites Miyake, 2000Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Hull, Martin, Beier, Lane & Hamilton, 2008Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Kane, et al., 2004Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

In twin studies, Friedman et al. (2008) found that inhibition correlated robustly (r = .73) with both shifting and updating; in their hierarchical genetic analysis, inhibition had a perfect correlation with Common EF, and in nested bifactor analyses, their indicators of inhibition were subsumed in Common EF.

“In twin studies, Friedman et al. (2008) found that inhibition correlated robustly (r = .73) with both shifting and updating; in their hierarchical genetic analysis, inhibition had a perfect correlation with Common EF, and in nested (bifactor) analyses, their indicators of inhibition were subsumed in Common EF.”

• cites Friedman et al. (2008)Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

The first three EF components, working memory, inhibition, and shifting, were encapsulated in Miyake et al. (2000), but the other five are distributed across the literatures noted above.

“The first three of these were encapsulated in the work of Miyake et al. (2000), but the other five are distributed across the literatures noted above.”

• cites Miyake et al. (2000)Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Metacognition has been perceived as a bridge function between EF and motivation.

“Metacognition has also been perceived as a “bridge” function, for example, between EF and motivation (Borkowski, Chan, & Muthukrishna, 2000)”

• cites Borkowski, Chan, & Muthukrishna, 2000Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

The study was unable to replicate either the preschool structure of EF as a unitary factor or the well-known triumvirate of Shifting, Updating, and Inhibition.

“We were unable to replicate either the preschool structure of EF as a unitary factor, nor the well-known triumvirate of Shifting, Updating, and Inhibition (Miyake et al., 2000).”

• cites Miyake et al., 2000Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

This is similar to the idea of hot executive functions, where the situation is emotionally valanced.

“In some ways, this is similar to the idea of “hot” executive functions, where the situation is in some way emotionally valanced (Allan & Lonigan, 2011; Zelazo & Carlson, 2012; Welsh & Peterson, 2014).”

• cites Allan & Lonigan, 2011Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Zelazo & Carlson, 2012Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Welsh & Peterson, 2014Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Planning has often been assessed as a clinical task and may be considered a higher-level EF.

“Planning has often been assessed as a clinical task (Delis, Kaplan, & Kramer, 2001), and may be considered a “higher-level” EF (Miyake et al., 2000).”

• cites Delis, Kaplan, & Kramer, 2001Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Miyake et al., 2000Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Variable distributions and outliers were specifically evaluated.

“Variable distributions and outliers were specifically evaluated.”

May combine two claims.

There were six patterns that produced covariance coverage of 15% to 98% for any pair of variables, and the proportion of students who received each pattern was similar overall and within grade.

“There were six patterns (see Table 1) that produced covariance coverage of 15% to 98% for any pair of variables, and the proportion of students who received each pattern was similar, (e.g., overall and within grade p = .981 and p = .990, respectively).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

These 130 data points comprised only 0.83% of the total number of points available for analyses.

“It should be noted that these 130 data points comprised only 0.83% of the total number of points available for analyses.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

The combination of Working Memory (as span/manipulation) with Planning makes conceptual sense because planning requires simultaneous representation and manipulation of potential action sequences and a judgement of their relative success.

“the combination of WM(S/M) with Planning also makes sense conceptually since the act of planning requires simultaneous representation and manipulation of potential action sequences, along with a judgement as to their relative success”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

This resulted in 84 data points being trimmed and set to missing.

“This resulted in 84 data points being trimmed (set to missing).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Sometimes a combination of shifting and inhibition is included as a latent factor.

“For example, sometimes a combination of shifting and inhibition is included, as a latent factor (Brydges, Fox, Reid, & Anderson, 2014; Lee, Bull, and Ho, 2013).”

• cites Brydges, Fox, Reid, & Anderson, 2014Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Lee, Bull, and Ho, 2013Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

MCAR is a stringent assumption which may not be tenable in practice.

“However, MCAR is a stringent assumption which may not be tenable in practice (Muthén, Kaplan & Hollis, 1987; Rhemtulla & Hancock, 2016).”

• cites Muthén, Kaplan & Hollis, 1987Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Rhemtulla & Hancock, 2016Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

Most prior studies captured only performance-based measures of EF; none included self-report measures, with the exception of Gioia et al. (2002) where the structure of EF was examined using the BRIEF.

“Most prior studies captured only performance-based (e.g., paper-and-pencil, computerized, and/or experimental) measures of EF – none included self-report measures, with the exception of Gioia et al. (2002) where the structure of EF was examined using the BRIEF.”

• cites Gioia et al. (2002)Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

A proportion of students in grade 4 were designated as limited English proficiency, though each pattern also included similar proportions with and without this status.

“A proportion of students in grade 4 were designated as limited English proficiency, though each pattern also included similar proportions with and without this status, p = .938.”

May combine two claims.

Only a few studies have considered factors other than working memory, inhibition or shifting, making it unclear how additional domains such as fluency, planning, or self-regulated learning may or may not fit.

“Only a few studies have considered factors other than working memory, inhibition or shifting (Floyd, Bergeron, Hamilton, & Parra; 2010; Gioia, Isquith, Retzlaff, & Espy, 2002), making it unclear how additional domains such as fluency, planning, or self-regulated learning may or may not fit.”

• cites Floyd, Bergeron, Hamilton, & Parra; 2010Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Gioia, Isquith, Retzlaff, & Espy, 2002Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The final models were also run with and without weighting, and results were highly similar.

“However, it should be noted that we also ran our final models with and without weighting and results were highly similar.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

If performance was well outside typical bounds, data were Winsorized; this was true for 46 additional data points.

“Also, if performance was well outside typical bounds (+/− 3 SD and ~ 0.5 SD from the next nearest score) then data were Winsorized (placed just beyond the next nearest value and so maintaining rank ordering) similar to criteria used elsewhere (Willcutt, Pennington, Olson, Chhabildas, & Hulslander, 2005); this was true for 46 additional data points.”

• cites Willcutt, Pennington, Olson, Chhabildas, & Hulslander, 2005Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Controlling for processing speed, factors of working memory and shifting were obtained, though not inhibition.

“Controlling for processing speed, factors of working memory and shifting were obtained, though not inhibition.”

• cites Huizinga et al. (2006)Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Performance data were collected in schools by well-trained examiners with on-site supervision, primarily in Fall; teacher-rated measures were collected in late Spring.

“Performance data were collected in schools by well-trained examiners with on-site supervision, primarily in Fall; teacher-rated measures were collected in late Spring.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Structural results in school-aged samples vary, often finding factors associated with WM or updating, inhibition, and shifting/flexibility, though not always together.

“Structural results in school-aged samples vary, often finding factors associated with WM or updating, inhibition, and shifting/flexibility, though not always together.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Common factor models comprise the vast majority of prior work, specifying which latent factors cause which indicators.

“Common factor models comprise the vast majority of prior work, specifying which latent factors cause which indicators.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Students were randomly assigned within grade to receive a pattern of tests.

“Students were randomly assigned within grade to receive a “pattern” of tests.”

May combine two claims.

The primary issue is power, which is ameliorated with full information maximum likelihood, so that all observations, measures, and available data points are utilized.

“The primary issue is power, which is ameliorated with FIML (Little, Jorgensen, Lang, & Moore, 2013), so that all observations, measures, and available data points are utilized.”

• cites Little, Jorgensen, Lang, & Moore, 2013Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

There were no differences between students whose Stop Signal score was versus was not included, in terms of pattern received, grade, age, sex, race, economic disadvantage, or limited English proficiency status, although those who were excluded had lower vocabulary scores than those whose scores remained.

“There were no differences between students whose Stop Signal score was versus was not included, in terms of pattern received, grade, age, sex, race, economic disadvantage, or limited English proficiency status (all p > .05), although those who were excluded had lower vocabulary scores than those whose scores remained, p = .008, d = .24).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Huizinga et al. (2006) utilized a sophisticated modeling approach and covered ages 7 to 21 with a relatively large sample of about 400.

“The study by Huizinga et al. (2006) utilized a sophisticated modeling approach and covered the age range from 7 to 21, with a relatively large sample size (~400).”

• cites Huizinga et al. (2006)Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Because the relationships among these different kinds of variables are confounded by measurement, it is unclear whether their differentiation is driven by method of ascertainment or by a fundamental difference in constructs.

“Because evaluation of the relationships among these different kinds of variables is somewhat confounded by measurement, it is unclear what drives their differentiation – their method of ascertainment or a fundamental difference in constructs.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The positive relation of EF with age found here is consistent with prior studies.

“This is consistent with prior studies that show relation of EF with age (Engelhardt et al., 2015; Wiebe et al., 2008).”

• cites Engelhardt et al., 2015Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Wiebe et al., 2008Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The Stop Signal Test had 161 data points excluded due to aberrant performance; cutoffs were less than 67% correct on go trials and/or less than 12.5% correctly inhibited stop trials; 24 students met both cutoffs.

“The Stop Signal Test was an exception; here, 161 data points were excluded due to aberrant performance; cutoffs (Schachar, Mota, Logan, Tannock, & Klim, 2000) were less than 67% correct on go trials (n=116), and/or less than 12.5% correctly inhibited stop trials (n = 21); 24 students met both cutoffs.”

• cites Schachar, Mota, Logan, Tannock, & Klim, 2000Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

In Huizinga et al. (2006), all tasks were computerized and involved speeded choice reaction times.

“All tasks were computerized and involved speeded choice reaction times.”

• cites Huizinga et al. (2006)Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

In Lee et al. (2013), one factor (working memory) consisted of accuracy scores while the other factor (combining switch/inhibit) was predominantly assessed with response-time measures.

“For example, in Lee et al. (2013), one of their factors (working memory) consisted of accuracy scores, whereas the other factor (combining switch/inhibit) was predominantly assessed with response-time measures.”

• cites Lee et al. (2013)Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Willoughby, Pek, and Blair (2013) noted the typically weak interrelationships of factor indicators of EF.

“For example, Willoughby, Pek, and Blair (2013) noted the typically weak interrelationships of factor indicators of EF.”

• cites Willoughby, Pek, and Blair (2013)Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

All research procedures were approved by participating Institutional Review Boards.

“All research procedures were approved by participating Institutional Review Boards.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Where issues with test administration or scoring were flagged, source documents and observations were examined for serious concerns regarding data appropriateness.

“Where issues with test administration or scoring were flagged, source documents and observations were examined for serious concerns regarding data appropriateness.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Performance-based and rating measures of metacognition show weak correlations with regard to EF generally.

“particularly in light of the weak correlations between these kinds of measures with regard to EF generally (e.g., Gerst et al., 2017; Toplak, West, and Stanovich, 2013)”

• cites Gerst et al., 2017Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Toplak, West, and Stanovich, 2013Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Descriptive studies cannot provide information relevant to mechanism and causal direction.

“Descriptive studies, even those with large sample sizes and theoretically driven and comprehensive measures, cannot provide information relevant to mechanism and causal direction.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

EF structure was not evaluated in a multilevel context.

“EF structure was not evaluated in a multilevel context”

May combine two claims.

The study had a large, diverse sample and used an inclusive and confirmatory statistical approach examining both correlated factors and bifactor models.

“the present study benefitted from a large, diverse sample, and the statistical approach was inclusive and confirmatory, examining both correlated factors and bifactor models”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Weights were applied so that the contributions from oversampled students were in proportion to their distribution in the schools as a whole.

“Weights were applied to individuals’ data so that the overall contributions from the oversampled students were in proportion to their distribution in the schools as a whole.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Weighting is common in large scale national samples to increase verisimilitude to the population.

May combine two claims.

The missingness was planned by design via randomization and did not bias structural loadings.

“the missingness was planned (by design) via randomization and so did not bias structural loadings (Rhemtulla & Little, 2012).”

• cites Rhemtulla & Little, 2012Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

The best-fitting model supports both the robustness of a general EF factor and the potential separable impact of specific EF factors.

“This model speaks to both the robustness of a general factor of EF, but also to the potential separable impact of specific EF factors.”

May combine two claims.

The metacognition factor is derived to be uncorrelated with all other latent variables, so its relationship is closer to a beta weight than a zero-order correlation.

“the MCOG factor is derived to be uncorrelated with all other latent variables, both specific and common, and therefore, its relationship is closer to a beta weight then a zero-order correlation”

May combine two claims.

Jacob and Parkinson (2015) found clear and consistent relationships between EF and academic achievement, but interventions designed to improve EF had little generalizability for improving achievement.

“In their review, Jacob and Parkinson (2015) found clear and consistent relationships between EF and academic achievement, but interventions designed to improve EF had little generalizability for improving achievement.”

• cites Jacob and Parkinson (2015)Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Students with reading difficulty were purposefully oversampled.

“Students with reading difficulty were oversampled (purposefully).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: There is no reason to expect a different pattern of relationships based on level of performance.