Integrating verbal fluency with executive functions: Evidence from twin studies in adolescence and middle age.
Open accessAbstract
The relationship of verbal fluency to executive functions (EFs) remains somewhat unclear. Verbal fluency is sometimes considered an EF ability, but is not often included in the same models as other well-studied EFs (inhibition, shifting, and working memory updating). We examined the associations between verbal fluency and EFs at 2 ages with the unity/diversity model, which includes common and domain-specific EF factors. Participants were 813 adolescent twins from the Colorado Longitudinal Twin Sample (mean age 17 years) and 1,290 middle-aged twins from the Vietnam Era Twin Study of Aging (mean age 56 years) who completed multiple measures of EFs, verbal fluency, vocabulary, and nonverbal cognitive ability. Results revealed that, in both samples, a General Fluency factor (i.e., comprising both phonemic and semantic fluency measures) was associated with the Common EF factor, but also with variance unique to working memory updating, working memory span, and set-shifting. In adolescents, semantic fluency also had unique associations with shifting beyond its shared variance with phonemic fluency and Common EF. After accounting for EFs and other cognitive abilities, there were unique genetic and environmental influences on the General Fluency and Semantic-Specific latent factors. These results suggest that verbal fluency ability may best be viewed as an amalgamation of general EF variance (i.e., Common EF ability), variance shared with other EFs (e.g., Updating-Specific ability), and multiple sources of unique genetic/environmental variance (i.e., General Fluency and Semantic-Specific abilities). These associations between verbal fluency and EFs generalize to populations that differ in age by approximately 40 years. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 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?
Studies testing candidate cognitive control components have found that they are correlated with the more commonly examined cognitive control processes but also show some separability.
“Studies that have tested the relations of some of these candidate CC components have found that they are correlated with the more commonly examined CC processes but also show some separability [233, 247, 248].”
From The role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function (2022) · cites this paper as [233]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTwin studies have yielded evidence that at the latent variable level, cognitive control constructs are moderately to highly heritable.
“Several independent twin studies [36, 39, 41, 157, 233] have yielded evidence that at the latent variable level, CC constructs are moderately to highly heritable and, importantly, that the separability of working memory updating and mental set shifting from the common CC factor is largely attributable to different genetic influences.”
From The role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function (2022) · cites this paper as [233]
The separability of working memory updating and mental set shifting from the common cognitive control factor is largely attributable to different genetic influences.
“Several independent twin studies [36, 39, 41, 157, 233] have yielded evidence that at the latent variable level, CC constructs are moderately to highly heritable and, importantly, that the separability of working memory updating and mental set shifting from the common CC factor is largely attributable to different genetic influences.”
From The role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function (2022) · cites this paper as [233]
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 54 · Cited by 75
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Goschke T (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching In Monsell S & Driver J (Eds.), Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII (pp. 331– 355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Hu LT, & Bentler PM (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424– 453. doi: 10.1037//1082-989x.3.4.424 · DOI · Paper page
- Kremen WS, Moore CS, Franz CE, Panizzon MS, & Lyons MJ (2014). Cognition in middle adulthood In Finkel D & Reynolds CA (Eds.), Behavior genetics of cognition across the lifespan (pp. 105– 134): Springer New York.
- Logan GD (1994). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A users’ guide to the stop signal paradigm In D D & Carr TH (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 189– 239). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
- Satorra A, & Bentler PM (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507– 514. doi: 10.1007/Bf02296192 PMC2905175 20640194 · DOI · Paper page
- Stroop JR (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643– 662. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.121.1.15 · DOI · Paper page
- Troyer AK, & Moscovitch M (2006). Cognitive processes of verbal fluency tasks In Poreh AM (Ed.), The quantified process approach to neuropsychological assessment (pp. 143– 160). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
- Wechsler D (1997). Wechsler adult intelligence scale (3rd ed.). San Antinio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
- Authors
- Gustavson, D. E., Panizzon, M. S., Franz, C. E., Reynolds, C. A., Corley, R. P., Hewitt, J. K., Lyons, M. J., Kremen, W. S., & Friedman, N. P.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
- Published
- 2019-12
- Volume
- 148
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2104-2119
- ISSN
- 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2222
- PMC
- PMC6754807
- OpenAlex
- W2924036366
- Semantic Scholar
- 6f83c3178320c3e9daf6d8ea8a41e4ef0e4b6d6b
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 7.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (AG050595; AG018386; AG018384; AG022381; AG047903; AG046938; MH063207; AG046938)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Keywords
- verbal fluency, executive function, phonemic fluency, semantic fluency, working memory updating, set-shifting, genetic and environmental factors, adolescence, middle age (human life stage), vocabulary, nonverbal cognitive ability
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Aptitude, Female, Humans, Language, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, 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