Cited by 350Reading and Literacy DevelopmentDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyWriting and Handwriting Education

Executive functions for reading and writing in typical literacy development and dyslexia

Altemeier, Leah E., Abbott, Robert D., Berninger, Virginia W.·2008·Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

Abstract

Experiment 1: Hierarchical linear modeling of growth trajectories of three executive functions (inhibition; rapid automatic switching, RAS; and combined inhibition/switching) in typical readers and writers showed steady improvement of inhibition but leveling of RAS and inhibition/switching about fourth grade. In multiple regressions, RAS, entered after inhibition, contributed uniquely to literacy outcomes at every grade. Improvement of executive functions over the first four grades predicted literacy outcomes at fourth grade. Experiment 2: For children with dyslexia, executive functions explained less variance in literacy outcomes, and boys were worse in inhibition and inhibition/switching. Developmental, educational, and clinical significance of findings are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13803390701562818

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • EF have been shown to explain at least as much variance in academic achievement as intelligence.

    “In fact, EF have been shown to explain at least as much variance in academic achievement as intelligence (e.g., Swanson, 2004; Altemeier et al., 2008; Andersson, 2008; Alloway and Alloway, 2010; Lu et al., 2011)”

    From Executive control training from middle childhood to adolescence (2014) · cites this paper as Altemeier et al., 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Altemeier, L. E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Altemeier, Leah E.
Venue
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology
Published
2008-06-04
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
588-606
ISSN
  • 0165-0475 (ISSN-L)
  • 1380-3395
  • 1744-411X
OpenAlex
W2057217095
Cited by
350
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 14
FWCI
15.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
Keywords
executive function, dyslexia, literacy development, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, reading, writing, children, sex differences, developmental trajectories
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Attention, Child, Color Perception, Conflict, Psychological, Discrimination Learning, Dyslexia, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Problem Solving, Psychometrics, Reading, Reference Values, Semantics, Sex Factors, Writing, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies

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