Cited by 262Early Childhood Education and DevelopmentDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyChild and Animal Learning Development

Executive Function in Preschool Children: Test–Retest Reliability

Open access
Beck, Danielle M., Schaefer, Catherine, Pang, Karen, Carlson, Stephanie M.·2011·Journal of Cognition and Development

Abstract

Research suggests that executive function (EF) may distinguish between children who are well- or ill-prepared for kindergarten, however, little is known about the test-retest reliability of measures of EF for children. We aimed to establish a battery of EF measures that are sensitive to both development and individual differences across the preschool period using Conflict and Delay subtests that had a cool (abstract) or hot (extrinsic reward) focus. Results from 151 children in three age groups (2.5, 3.5, and 4.5) suggested acceptable same-day test-retest reliability on all but Delay-Cool subtasks. These findings will inform appropriate measurement selection and development for future studies.

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 · 10.1080/15248372.2011.563485

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 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?

  • Both the standard version of the Dimensional Change Card Sort and a more challenging version have shown excellent test-retest reliability in childhood (ICCs = .90-.94).

    “Both the standard version of this task and a more challenging version have shown excellent test–retest reliability in childhood (ICCs = .90–.94; Beck, Schaefer, Pang, & Carlson, 2011).”

    From NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): Validation of Executive Function Measures in Adults (2014) · cites this paper as Beck, Schaefer, Pang, & Carlson, 2011

    The Discussion reports an ICC of .94 for the standard (cool) Integrated DCCS in preschool children. The Results discuss reliability for the more challenging Advanced DCCS, but the passages available from our copy do not establish an ICC of .90 for that version; they describe cool subtasks collectively as having moderate to excellent reliability. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Same-day test-retest reliability for certain preschool executive function measures was good (ICCs ≥ 0.75).

    “a recent study reported that same-day test-retest reliability for certain preschool executive function measures was good (ICCs ≥ 0.75)”

    From Assessing Executive Function in Preschoolers (2012) · cites this paper as Beck, Schaefer, Pang, & Carlson, 2011

  • Child-friendly tasks will reduce the high refusal rate experienced when assessing preschoolers.

    “Child friendly tasks will reduce the high refusal rate experienced when assessing preschoolers”

    From Assessing Executive Function in Preschoolers (2012) · cites this paper as Beck, Schaefer, Pang, & Carlson, 2011

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: 2

  1. Hughes C Ensor R 2005 Theory of mind and executive function: A family affair? Developmental Neuropsychology 28 645 668 16144431
  2. Roid GH 2005 Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales for Early Childhood, Fifth Edition, Manual Itasca, IL Riverside Publishing

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beck, D. M., Schaefer, C., Pang, K., & Carlson, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Simpson University (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Carlson, Stephanie M.
Venue
Journal of Cognition and Development
Published
2011-04
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
169-193
ISSN
  • 1524-8372 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7647
OpenAlex
W2029517916
Cited by
262
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 7
FWCI
52.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognition and Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD051495)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
executive function, preschool children, test-retest reliability, extrinsic rewards, individual differences, kindergarten readiness

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