The DOI matches its Crossref record.
C-42The Relation Between Verbal Fluency and Executive Functioning: An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Approach
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate recent findings that phonemic and semantic verbal fluency were related to language processing but not executive functioning (EF). Method: 320 healthy participants (M age = 19.84, SD = 1.44; M education = 12.98, SD = 0.97; 57.8% female; 67.5% White, 23.4% African American, 4.7% Asian, 1.9% Hispanic, 1.6% Other) completed a neuropsychological battery. An exploratory factor analysis was performed using principle axis factoring and varimax rotation on measures of EF. The first three factors were extracted based on the scree plot and used as latent executive variables. The first factor (working memory) included high loadings from Auditory Consonant Trigrams, Reading Span, and Operation Span. The second factor (fluid reasoning) consisted of Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices and WAIS-IV Visual Puzzles, Matrix Reasoning, and Similarities. The third factor (shifting/updating) was composed of the CNS Vital Signs Shifting Attention Test, WAIS-IV Digit Span, and Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test. WAIS-IV Vocabulary was used as a criterion measure of language and verbal fluency was measured using COWAT (FAS) and Animal Naming. Participants were also split into low, medium, and high verbal fluency performance groups. Results: Phonemic and semantic fluency correlated similarly with the fluid reasoning and shifting/updating factor scores and Vocabulary, with r values ranging from .22 to .34 (p values < .01). Interestingly, neither verbal fluency measure significantly correlated with working memory. Using one-way ANOVAs, there was a main effect for the verbal fluency group and all outcome variables (i.e., the fluid reasoning and shifting/updating factors and Vocabulary) except for the working memory factor (F ratios ranging from 3.93 to 10.03, p values < .05). Tukey post-hoc analyses showed that those in the low verbal fluency performance groups had significantly lower scores across all outcome measures except for the working memory factor compared to the high verbal fluency performance groups (p values < .01). Conclusion: Contrary to recent findings that verbal fluency (phonemic and semantic) was related to language but not EF, both phonemic and semantic fluency were as related to aspects of EF as they were to vocabulary knowledge.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Las tareas de fluidez verbal se incluyen habitualmente en la evaluación neuropsicológica, tanto en el ámbito clínico como en investigación, y no únicamente como medida del procesamiento del lenguaje (Whiteside et al., 2016), sino con frecuencia como prueba de control ejecutivo (Aita et al., 2016; Fitzpatrick, Gilbert y Serpell, 2013; Henry y Crawford, 2004).”
From Adicciones a internet y funciones ejecutivas en estudiantes universitarios: una revisión sistemática (2020) · cites this paper as Aita et al., 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“para otros el factor críticamente implicado en esta tarea es un componente ejecutivo (Aita et al., 2016; Hirshorn y Thompson-Shill, 2006), y por eso se ha incluido el término 'fluidez verbal' en esta revisión.”
From Adicciones a internet y funciones ejecutivas en estudiantes universitarios: una revisión sistemática (2020) · cites this paper as Aita et al., 2016
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
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Demetriou, E. A., DeMayo, M. M., & Guastella, A. J. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00753 · Cited by 274
Adicciones a internet y funciones ejecutivas en estudiantes universitarios: una revisión sistemática
Bernabéu Brotóns, E., Marchena Giráldez, C. A., González Pizzio, A., & Lubrini, G. (2020) · Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology · doi:10.25115/ejrep.v18i52.3346 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Aita, S., Boettcher, A., Slagel, B., Holcombe, J., Espenan, M., King, M., & Hill, B.
- Venue
- Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-08-31
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 656.1-656
- ISSN
- 0887-6177 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-5843
- OpenAlex
- W2509342526
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 1.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- verbal fluency, executive function, phonemic fluency, semantic fluency, working memory, fluid reasoning, cognitive flexibility, language processing, vocabulary, animal naming, WAIS-IV, Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices, Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test, reading span, operation span, digit span, Similarities subtest
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: C-42The Relation Between Verbal Fluency and Executive Functioning: An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/arclin/acw043.191
- The paper
- Aita, S., Boettcher, A., Slagel, B., Holcombe, J., Espenan, M., King, M., & Hill, B. (2016). C-42The Relation Between Verbal Fluency and Executive Functioning: An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Approach. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw043.191