CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 120Developmental and Educational NeuropsychologyPsychometric Methodologies and TestingCognitive Abilities and Testing

Measuring executive function in early childhood: A case for formative measurement.

Open access
Willoughby, Michael T., The Family Life Project Investigators, Blair, Clancy B.·2016·Psychological Assessment
DOI 10.1037/pas0000152PMC PMC4695318
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study tested whether individual executive function (EF) tasks were better characterized as formative or reflective indicators of the latent construct of EF. EF data that were collected as part of the Family Life Project (FLP), a prospective longitudinal study of families who were recruited at the birth of a new child (N = 1,292), when children were 3, 4, and 5 years old. Vanishing tetrad tests were used to test the relative fit of models in which EF tasks were used as either formative or reflective indicators of the latent construct of EF in the prediction of intellectual ability (at Age 3), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms (at Ages 3 to 5 years), and academic achievement (at kindergarten). Results consistently indicated that EF tasks were better represented as formative indicators of the latent construct of EF. Next, individual tasks were combined to form an overall measure of EF ability in ways generally consistent with formative (i.e., creating a composite mean score) and reflective (i.e., creating an EF factor score) measurement. The test-retest reliability and developmental trajectories of EF differed substantially, depending on which overall measure of EF ability was used. In general, the across-time stability of EF was markedly higher when represented as a factor score versus composite score. Results are discussed with respect to the ways in which the statistical representation of EF tasks can exert a large impact on inferences regarding the developmental causes, course, and consequences of EF.

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 · 10.1037/pas0000152

Cites

45 of 46 references verified1 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 most cases, most variance in a single test comes from processes other than the executive function of interest, and multiple tests per construct are critical for isolating EF-specific performance.

    “In most cases, the majority of variance in any single test is attributable to processes other than the executive function of interest; multiple tests per construct are critical to isolating EF-specific performance (Willoughby et al., 2016).”

    From Executive Functioning Heterogeneity in Pediatric ADHD (2019) · cites this paper as Willoughby et al., 2016

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says that, under the paper’s formative-measurement perspective, adding tasks does not necessarily improve measurement—contrary to the claim that multiple tests are critical for isolating EF-specific performance. Current Conceptualizations (page unavailable) also says weak correlations between EF tasks may be characteristic of EF itself, rather than evidence that individual tests chiefly measure other processes. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Psychometric support for cognitive science executive function tests includes replicated evidence that they contribute significantly and uniquely to latent estimates of global and specific executive functions.

    “psychometric support for tests from the cognitive sciences designed specifically to measure executive functioning abilities (Snyder et al., 2015) includes replicated evidence that these tests contribute significantly and uniquely to latent estimates of global and specific executive functions (Miyake et al., 2000; St. Clair-Thompson & Gathercole, 2006; Willoughby & Blair, 2016).”

    From Executive functioning rating scales: Ecologically valid or construct invalid? (2020) · cites this paper as Willoughby & Blair, 2016

    The Results (Vanishing Tetrad Tests; page unavailable) report that individual tasks contributed to a latent measure of overall executive function across several models. But only subsets contributed uniquely in the formative models, and the paper does not establish the claimed contributions to latent estimates of specific executive functions. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Between the ages of 3 and 5, a unitary factor model is commonly observed in early childhood.

    “Indeed, between the ages of 3 and 5, a unitary factor model is commonly observed in early childhood (Brydges et al., 2012; Willoughby et al., 2016).”

    From Assessment of executive functions in school-aged children: A narrative review (2022) · cites this paper as Willoughby et al., 2016

    The Current Conceptualizations section says factor-analytic techniques are routinely used to represent individual differences in executive function, and the Results report factor scores at ages 3, 4, and 5. The paper does not establish that a unitary factor model is commonly observed to fit children across those ages; its Discussion instead questions what factor scores imply about development. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Psychometric research has demonstrated that tests from the cognitive sciences can provide significant and unique insights into latent estimates of global and specific executive functioning abilities.

    “Psychometric research has demonstrated that tests from the cognitive sciences can provide significant and unique insights into latent estimates of global and specific executive functioning abilities (Miyake et al., 2000; Willoughby et al., 2016).”

    From Assessment of executive functions in school-aged children: A narrative review (2022) · cites this paper as Willoughby et al., 2016

    The Results (Vanishing Tetrad Tests; page not available in our copy) report that two of five individual EF tasks uniquely contributed to a latent EF construct, supporting the point about distinct contributions to an overall estimate. The paper does not demonstrate unique contributions to separate latent estimates of specific EF abilities; its analyses concern an overall EF construct in young children. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Across meta-analyses using traditional neuropsychological executive function tests for children with ADHD, 33%-50% of cases exhibited executive function deficits, including 30%-37% with impaired working memory and 21%-46% with impaired inhibitory control.

    “across meta-analyses using traditional neuropsychological executive function tests for children with ADHD, 33%-50% of cases exhibited executive function deficits (30%-37% impaired working memory, 21%-46% impaired inhibitory control).90,144–149”

    From Executive function deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [147]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Espy K Clark C Chevalier N Nelson J Sheffield T Garza J Wiebe S (In Press) The changing nature of executive control in preschool Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Willoughby, M. T., The Family Life Project Investigators, & Blair, C. B.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • New York University (US)
ORCID
Willoughby, Michael T.
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2016-03
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
319-330
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
DOI
10.1037/pas0000152
PMC
PMC4695318
OpenAlex
W1621723705
Cited by
120
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5
FWCI
13.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD51502 and P01 HD39667)
  • Institute of Educational Sciences (R324A120033)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
executive function, formative measurement, reflective indicators, early childhood, Family Life Project, ADHD symptoms, intellectual ability, academic performance, test-retest reliability, developmental trajectories, composite score, factor scores
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Child Development, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Prospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, 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