Cited by 84Developmental and Educational NeuropsychologyCognitive Abilities and TestingChild and Animal Learning Development

Test–Retest Reliability and Practice Effects of Executive Function Tasks in Preschool Children

Müller, Ulrich, Kerns, Kimberly A., Konkin, Katelyn·2012·The Clinical Neuropsychologist

Abstract

This study examined the test-retest reliability of executive function tasks in preschool children. Measures of working memory, response inhibition, attentional flexibility, and planning were administered to thirty three preschool children between the ages of 36 and 72 months (M = 54.75 months) on two testing occasions approximately three weeks apart (M interval = 21.64 days). Working memory tasks showed higher test-retest reliability than measures of response inhibition. There were significant practice effects on three measures of complex working memory. Implications of these findings for the assessment of executive function in preschool children are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13854046.2011.645558

Cites

10 of 10 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?

  • Test-retest reliability was good for working memory and planning tasks but moderate to poor for response inhibition tasks.

    “a recent report showed that test-retest reliability was good for working memory and planning tasks but moderate to poor for response inhibition tasks”

    From Assessing Executive Function in Preschoolers (2012) · cites this paper as Muller, Kerns, & Konkin, 2012

  • Computer-based tasks suitable for preschoolers have been designed based on previously validated measures of attention and executive function, including Go/No-Go, response inhibition, delayed alternation, self-ordered pointing, and working memory tasks.

    “and colleagues have successfully designed computer based tasks suitable for preschoolers based on previously validated measures of attention and executive function including appealing and interactive Go/No-Go, response inhibition, delayed alternation, self-ordered pointing and working memory tasks (Hrabok, Kerns, & Muller, 2007;Muller, Kerns, & Konkin, 2012).”

    From Assessing Executive Function in Preschoolers (2012) · cites this paper as Muller, Kerns, & Konkin, 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Müller, U., Kerns, K. A., & Konkin, K.
Affiliations
University of Victoria (CA)
Corresponding author
Müller, Ulrich
Venue
The Clinical Neuropsychologist
Published
2012-01-18
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
271-287
ISSN
  • 0920-1637 (ISSN-L)
  • 1385-4046
  • 1744-4144
OpenAlex
W1987730066
Cited by
84
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
9.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Clinical Neuropsychologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
executive function, test-retest reliability, practice effects, preschool children, working memory, response inhibition, attentional flexibility, planning, executive function assessment
MeSH terms
Attention, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Practice, Psychological, Problem Solving, Psychometrics, 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