The DOI matches its Crossref record; 141 of the 141 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Individual Differences in Children’s Pragmatic Ability: A Review of Associations with Formal Language, Social Cognition, and Executive Functions
Abstract
Children vary in their ability to use language in social contexts and this has important consequences for wellbeing. We review studies that test whether individual differences in pragmatic skill are associated with formal language ability, mentalizing, and executive functions in both typical and atypical development. The strongest and most consistent associations found were between pragmatic and formal language. Additional associations with mentalizing were observed, particularly with discourse contingency and irony understanding. Fewer studies considered executive function and evidence is mixed. To make progress, high-quality studies of specific pragmatic skills are needed to test mechanistic models of development. We propose six goals for future research: (1) developing an empirically based taxonomy of pragmatic skills; (2) establishing which skills matter most for everyday functioning; (3) testing specific hypotheses about information processing; (4) augmenting measures of individual differences; (5) considering a broader set of psychological associates; and (6) employing statistical tools that model the nested structure of pragmatics and cognition.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
Diamond, A. (2013) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 · Cited by 13,268
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-6498 · Cited by 8,149
Lord, C., Risi, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook, E. H., Leventhal, B. L., DiLavore, P. C., Pickles, A., & Rutter, M. (2000) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1023/a:1005592401947 · Cited by 7,520
The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.
Merton, R. K. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56 · Cited by 6,720
(1968) · PubMed · Cited by 4,803
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Baron‐Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00715 · Cited by 4,555 · cited 6×
“Bernard and Deleau (2007) found medium to large correlations between a composite false belief measure and a composite measure of communicative perspective taking at all three time points (3;8, 4;2, 4;8) in their longitudinal study.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBaron‐Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S. J., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001) · PubMed · Cited by 4,313
Cited by
Hauptman, M., Blank, I., & Fedorenko, E. (2023) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2023.01.013 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Matthews, D., Biney, H., & Abbot-Smith, K.
- Venue
- Language Learning and Development
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-04-25
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 186-223
- ISSN
- 1547-3341 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-5441
- OpenAlex
- W2795632738
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 141
- FWCI
- 38.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Individual Differences in Children’s Pragmatic Ability: A Review of Associations with Formal Language, Social Cognition, and Executive Functions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/15475441.2018.1455584
- The paper
- Matthews, D., Biney, H., & Abbot-Smith, K. (2018). Individual Differences in Children’s Pragmatic Ability: A Review of Associations with Formal Language, Social Cognition, and Executive Functions. Language Learning and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2018.1455584
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
