CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Cognitive Abilities and TestingDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyEarly Childhood Education and Development

The malleability of executive function in early childhood: Effects of schooling and targeted training

Open access
Zhang, Qiong, Wang, Cuiping, Zhao, Qianwen, Yang, Ling, Buschkuehl, Martin, Jaeggi, Susanne M.·2019·Developmental Science
DOI 10.1111/desc.12748PMC PMC6408936
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Executive function (EF), its importance for scholastic achievement and the question of whether or not EF is malleable, have become a topic of intense interest. Education or schooling is often seen as effective approaches to enhance EF due to the specific school‐related requirements as compared to kindergarten or pre‐school. However, no study to date has investigated whether targeted training focusing on those domains might be comparable with regular schooling in improving EF and fluid intelligence (Gf). The aim of the present study was to replicate and extend the previously demonstrated schooling effects on EF by using a school‐cutoff design, and to further investigate whether a theoretically motivated intervention targeting specific EF, i.e., working memory (WM) or inhibitory control (IC), could achieve comparable effects with schooling in both, WM and IC, as well as Gf. 91 6‐year‐old kindergarteners and first‐graders with similar chronological age participated the study. We compared the performance of a first‐grade schooling group with that of two kindergarten training groups as well as a business‐as‐usual kindergarten control group. Participants were assessed in WM, IC and Gf at baseline, immediately after the intervention (posttest), as well as 3 months after training completion (follow‐up). The results showed that the schooling group indeed outperformed the kindergarten groups at baseline in several cognitive tasks. Furthermore, both the WM and IC training showed pronounced gains in the trained tasks, as well as varying degrees of improvement in non‐trained outcome measures. Most importantly, both training groups achieved comparable performance with the schooling group, which was especially apparent in Gf at follow‐up. Our findings provide further evidence for the malleability of EF demonstrating that both, long‐term and short‐term interventions can facilitate the acquisition of those important skills, and as such, our work has important implications for educational practice.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This school-cutoff study compared age-matched first graders, kindergartners receiving working memory (WM) or inhibitory control (IC) training, and a business-as-usual kindergarten control group. It found schooling effects on fluid intelligence (Gf) and evidence that both targeted training groups caught up to the schooling group in Gf at 3-month follow-up.

Key findings

  • At baseline, the schooling group outperformed all kindergarten groups on Gf (BF10 = 58.69), while there was no evidence for baseline differences in backward digit span (BDST; BF10 = 0.49) or AX-CPT BSI RT (BF10 = 0.27).
  • Both training groups improved on their trained tasks: WM group increased maximum set sizes (BF−0 = 2.39e+6); IC group improved stop-signal SSRT (BF+0 = 4.53) and modified Stroop accuracy/RT (e.g., incongruent accuracy BF−0 = 14,577.89).
  • At follow-up, both training groups outperformed the kindergarten control group on Gf (WM vs. CG BF10 = 7.01; IC vs. CG BF10 = 5.55), and there was no longer evidence of a difference between either training group and the schooling group (both BF10 ≤ 0.80).
  • On BDST at follow-up, the schooling group and IC training group improved substantially (SG BF−0 = 7.43; IC BF−0 = 12.29), the WM group showed anecdotal improvement (BF−0 = 2.70), and the WM group outperformed the control group (BF10 = 25.77); no training group differed from the schooling group (all BF10 ≤ 0.55).

Methods

  • School-cutoff design in Hangzhou, China: 91 typically developing six-year-olds (mean age 73.50 months, SD 2.10) were assigned to first-grade schooling (n = 25), WM training (final n = 20), IC training (final n = 21), or kindergarten control (n = 22).
  • Training groups completed 15-minute sessions 4 times per week for 20 sessions over 5 weeks; all participants were assessed at pretest, posttest, and approximately 3 months after posttest on WM (BDST), IC (AX-CPT), and Gf (Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices).
  • Analyses used paired t-tests for trained-task improvement and mixed/univariate ANOVAs with Bayes factors in JASP to test session, group, and session-by-group effects.

Limitations

  • Stated: re-test reliabilities were fairly low, especially for difference scores based on relatively few trials; the sample was typically developing and predominantly from privileged backgrounds, raising restricted-range concerns; only one test per cognitive domain was used, so latent-level effects could not be determined; the study would have benefited from a larger sample and an additional active control group.
  • Evident: many key effects were only observed at follow-up and several comparisons were anecdotal, with no reliable session-by-group interactions for some outcomes; the IC training group did not show the expected shift toward proactive control on AX-CPT and remained relatively reactive.
  • Evident: baseline matching was imperfect for AX-CPT BSI errors, where the WM training group outperformed the IC and control groups (BF10 = 23.87), complicating interpretation of IC-related schooling/training effects.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/desc.12748

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 68 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    At baseline, there was a substantial group difference among the kindergarten groups on AX-CPT behavioral shift index errors.

    “However, there was a substantial group difference for the BSI errors in the AX-CPT (BF10 = 23.87)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    For backward digit span from pretest to posttest, within-group comparisons showed no changes except anecdotal evidence for the inhibitory control group.

    “Within-group comparisons did not indicate any changes either (all BF−0 ≤ 0.60), except for the IC group, but the evidence was merely anecdotal (BF−0 = 1.92)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The working memory training group improved its maximum set sizes over the intervention.

    “The children in the WM group decisively improved their performance as reflected by their increase in maximum set sizes (BF−0 = 2.39e+6)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The inhibitory control training group improved modified Stroop accuracy in both congruent and incongruent conditions.

    “as well as the modified Stroop task (accuracy in the congruent condition: BF−0 = 115.17; accuracy in the incongruent condition: BF−0 = 14,577.89”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    At follow-up on backward digit span, neither training group differed from the schooling group.

    “there were no differences between the two training groups and the schooling group (all BF10 ≤ 0.55), suggesting that both targeted training and schooling impact BDST performance”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 75
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 13

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At baseline, the three kindergarten groups did not differ on backward digit span, AX-CPT behavioral shift index reaction time, or fluid intelligence.

    “Comparing the three kindergarten groups, there were no group differences in most of the measures (BDST: BF10 = 0.42; BSI RT: BF10 = 0.13; Gf: BF10 = 0.15), indicating that the groups were well matched at baseline in those measures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For AX-CPT behavioral shift index errors from pretest to posttest, there was no session effect, a very strong group effect, and no session-by-group interaction.

    “The mixed ANOVA to test for immediate changes in the AX-CPT (BSI errors; pre vs. post) revealed no evidence for a main effect of session (BF10 = 0.57), but there was very strong evidence for a main effect of group (BF10 = 38.77), however, there was no evidence for a session by group interaction (BF10 = 0.16).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At pretest, the working memory group relied on a proactive strategy, the inhibitory control and control groups relied on a reactive strategy, and the schooling group did not differ from zero.

    “At pretest, there was anecdotal evidence that the WM training group was relying on a proactive strategy (BSI > 0; BF10 = 1.86), whereas the IC training group and the kindergarten control group relied on a reactive strategy (BSI < 0; IC: BF10 = 1.39; CG: BF10 = 2.31). The score in the schooling group was not different from 0 (BF10 = 0.25).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For backward digit span, the inhibitory control group compared with the control group showed an anecdotal session-by-group interaction from pretest to follow-up; other comparisons did not.

    “the ANOVAs that specifically compared the WM or IC training groups with kindergarten control group revealed anecdotal evidence for an interaction between session and group, but only from pretest to follow-up, and only for the IC vs. CG comparison (IC vs. CG: BF10 = 30; all other BF10 < 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At follow-up on AX-CPT behavioral shift index errors, group differences remained: the schooling and working memory groups differed from the inhibitory control group, and the control group differed from the inhibitory control group.

    “At the follow-up test, the overall group differences remained substantial (BF10 = 7.10). Further analyses revealed strong to decisive evidence that the schooling group and the WM training group were different from the IC training group (SG vs. IC: BF10 = 107; WM vs. IC: BF10 = 11.52). There was also anecdotal evidence that the kindergarten control group was now also different from the IC training”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For backward digit span from pretest to follow-up, there was a decisive session effect, a moderate group effect, and no session-by-group interaction.

    “A mixed ANOVA to test for any longitudinal effects (BDST; pre vs. follow-up) revealed a decisive main effect of session (BF10 = 564.04), as well as a moderate main effect of group (BF10 = 3.88), however, there was no evidence for an interaction between session and group (BF10 = 0.28).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For backward digit span, there were no group differences at pretest or posttest, but strong group differences at follow-up.

    “There was no evidence for group differences at either the pretest (BF10 = 0.34) or the posttest (BF10 = 0.08). However, strong evidence for group differences appeared at follow-up (BF10 = 31)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For AX-CPT behavioral shift index errors from pretest to follow-up, the schooling and control groups changed, while the two training groups did not.

    “Within group comparisons indicated that the schooling group as well as the kindergarten control group changed from baseline to follow-up (SG: BF−0 = 324; CG: BF−0 = 12.86), while there was no evidence for changes in the two trainings groups (both BF−0 ≤ 0.60).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At pretest on AX-CPT behavioral shift index errors, group differences existed: the schooling group differed from the control and inhibitory control groups, and the working memory group differed from the control and inhibitory control groups.

    “Comparing the performance between the four groups revealed group differences at pretest (BF10 = 19.22), and further analyses indicated anecdotal evidence for a schooling effect in that the schooling group differed from the kindergarten control group and the IC training group (SG vs. CG: BF10 = 1.94; SG vs. IC: BF10 = 1.40). In addition, there was strong evidence showing that the WM training group”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At follow-up, the working memory and schooling groups relied on a proactive strategy, with decisive evidence for the schooling group, while the inhibitory control and control groups did not differ from zero.

    “At follow-up, the evidence for the WM training group and the schooling group using a proactive strategy was now even stronger, and it was decisive in the case of the schooling group (BSI > 0; WM: BF10 = 12.20; SG: BF10 = 3,403). In contrast, the BSI for neither the IC training group nor the kindergarten control group was different from 0 (both BF10 ≤ 0.67).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For backward digit span from pretest to follow-up, the schooling and inhibitory control groups improved, the working memory group showed anecdotal improvement, and the control group did not change.

    “Within-group comparisons showed that the schooling group and the IC training group substantially improved from baseline to follow-up (SG: BF−0 = 7.43; IC: BF−0 = 12.29), while the evidence was merely anecdotal in the WM training group (BF−0 = 2.70). The kindergarten control group did not show any change (BF−0 = 0.37; see Table 1 and Figure 3a).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At baseline, on AX-CPT behavioral shift index errors, the schooling group did not differ from the working memory group but showed anecdotal to moderate evidence of outperforming the inhibitory control and control groups.

    “one comparing the schooling group with the WM group, which did not provide any evidence for a schooling effect (BF10 = 0.77), but comparing the schooling group with the remaining two kindergarten groups revealed anecdotal to moderate evidence for a schooling effect (SG vs. IC and CG: BF10 = 3.07).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At baseline, the working memory training group outperformed the inhibitory control and control kindergarten groups on AX-CPT behavioral shift index errors, while the latter two groups did not differ.

    “post-hoc tests which revealed that the WM group outperformed the two other groups (WM vs. IC: BF10 = 11.16; WM vs. CG: BF10 = 17.63), but there was no difference between the two remaining groups (IC vs. CG: BF10 = 0.30).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For backward digit span from pretest to posttest, there was no evidence for session, group, or session-by-group effects.

    “A mixed ANOVA on the BDST to test for immediate changes (pre vs. post) revealed no evidence for either the main effect of session (BF10 = 0.36), or the main effect of group (BF10 = 0.16), or the session by group interaction (BF10 = 0.15).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For AX-CPT behavioral shift index errors from pretest to posttest, only the schooling group changed toward a more proactive strategy; no kindergarten group did.

    “Within group comparisons indicated that only the schooling group substantially changed from baseline to posttest (BF−0 = 7.47; i.e. changing towards using a more proactive strategy), while none of the three kindergarten groups did (all BF−0 ≤ 0.83).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For AX-CPT behavioral shift index errors from pretest to follow-up, there was a decisive session effect, a strong group effect, and only anecdotal session-by-group interaction.

    “The mixed ANOVA to test for the longitudinal effects (BSI errors; pre vs. follow-up) provided decisive evidence for a main effect of session (BF10 = 407.00), as well as strong evidence for a main effect of group (BF10 = 26.11). However, there was only anecdotal evidence for an interaction between group and session (BF10 = 1.14).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At posttest on AX-CPT behavioral shift index errors, group differences existed: the schooling group differed from the control and inhibitory control groups, and the working memory group differed from the control and inhibitory control groups.

    “There was also substantial evidence for group differences at posttest (BF10 = 4.90). Further analyses showed a similar pattern that was observed at pretest, indicating anecdotal to moderate evidence for a schooling effect in that the schooling group was still different from the kindergarten control group (SG vs. CG: BF10 = 1.30) and the IC training group (SG vs. IC: BF10 = 5.30). Furthermore, the”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At posttest, the working memory and schooling groups relied on a proactive strategy, while the inhibitory control and control groups did not differ from zero.

    “At posttest, there was now moderate evidence that the WM training group and the schooling group relied on a proactive strategy (BSI > 0; WM: BF10 = 3.77; SG: BF10 = 3.87). The BSI in the IC training group and kindergarten control group was no longer different from 0 (both BF10 ≤ 0.58).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At baseline, the schooling group did not differ from the kindergarten groups on backward digit span or AX-CPT behavioral shift index reaction time.

    “there was no evidence for group differences in the BDST (BF10 = 0.49) and AX-CPT (BSI RT: BF10 = 0.27).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At follow-up on backward digit span, the working memory training group outperformed the control group, while evidence for the inhibitory control group versus control was anecdotal.

    “While there was strong evidence for an effect in the WM training group (WM vs. CG: BF10 = 25.77), the evidence was merely anecdotal for the IC group (IC vs. CG: BF10 = 1.94).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was anecdotal evidence for BDST improvement in the WM training group at follow-up 3 months later, and the WM training group outperformed the control group at that time.

    “there was anecdotal evidence for an improvement at follow-up 3 months later, and moreover, the WM training group outperformed the control group at this time”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For fluid intelligence from pretest to follow-up, both training groups and the schooling group improved, while the control group did not.

    “Nonetheless, it is worth noting that both training groups substantially improved from baseline to follow-up (WM: BF−0 = 17.12; IC: BF−0 = 19.74), as did the schooling group, although to a lesser extent (BF−0 = 3.15). In contrast, the kindergarten control group did not show any change (BF−0 = 0.29; see Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At follow-up, the schooling group decisively outperformed the kindergarten control group, with BF10 = 663.42.

    “the schooling group now decisively outperformed the kindergarten control group (SG vs. CG: BF10 = 663.42)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The school-cutoff design makes the first-grade and kindergarten groups comparable on factors other than schooling, so differences between them can be attributed to schooling.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    For fluid intelligence, working memory or inhibitory control training versus control showed anecdotal session-by-group interactions only from pretest to follow-up.

    “To further illustrate this point, the ANOVAs that directly compared the WM or IC training group with kindergarten control group revealed anecdotal evidence for session by group interactions, but only from pretest to follow-up (WM vs. CG: BF10= 1.78; IC vs. CG: BF10 = 1.29).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At follow-up, there was substantial evidence that both training groups outperformed the kindergarten control group, with BF10 = 7.01 for WM and 5.55 for IC.

    “there was now also substantial evidence for the two training groups outperforming the kindergarten control group as well (WM vs. CG: BF10 = 7.01; IC vs. CG: BF10 = 5.55)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The business-as-usual kindergarten control group provides a valid estimate of maturation or typical development, so training effects beyond this group can be attributed to training.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The WM training group showed improved Gf performance compared with the kindergarten control group, but only at follow-up.

    “we did observe improved performance in Gf as a function of WM training as compared to the kindergarten control group, but again, those benefits were only present at follow-up”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The business-as-usual kindergarten control group provides a valid estimate of maturation or typical development, so training effects beyond this group can be attributed to training.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Children in both training groups improved on their respective trained tasks and showed varying degrees of improvement on untrained measures.

    “children in both training groups did not only improve on their respective trained tasks, but also showed varying degrees of improvement in the untrained measures”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For WM, there were group differences at follow-up, indicating that the schooling group outperformed the kindergarten control group.

    “we did observe group differences at follow-up, indicating that the schooling group now outperformed the kindergarten control group”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The school-cutoff design makes the first-grade and kindergarten groups comparable on factors other than schooling, so differences between them can be attributed to schooling.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For fluid intelligence from pretest to posttest, the working memory group improved, while no other group did.

    “Within group comparisons indicated anecdotal evidence for the WM group improving from baseline to posttest (BF−0 = 2.65), but there was no evidence for any of the other groups improving (all BF−0 ≤ 0.68).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The AX-CPT pattern remained the same at posttest, but at follow-up the kindergarten control group caught up with the schooling and WM training groups.

    “This pattern remained the same at posttest, however, at follow-up, also the kindergarten control group caught up with the schooling and WM training groups”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Gf difference between first graders and the kindergarten control group persisted over time, with the most pronounced difference at follow-up.

    “this difference persisted when comparing the first graders and kindergarten control group over time, with the most pronounced difference observed at follow-up”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The school-cutoff design makes the first-grade and kindergarten groups comparable on factors other than schooling, so differences between them can be attributed to schooling.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For fluid intelligence from pretest to posttest, there was an anecdotal session effect, a moderate group effect, and no session-by-group interaction.

    “With regards to the immediate changes (pre vs. post), the mixed ANOVA revealed anecdotal evidence for a main effect of session (BF10 = 1.77) and moderate evidence for a main effect of group (BF10 = 5.55). However, there was no evidence for a session by group interaction (BF10 = 0.12).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For AX-CPT behavioral shift index reaction time, working memory training versus control showed an anecdotal session-by-group interaction from pretest to posttest; other comparisons did not.

    “The ANOVAs that specifically compared the WM or IC training with kindergarten control group revealed anecdotal evidence for a session by group interaction, but only from pretest to posttest, and only for the WM vs. CG comparison (WM vs. CG: BF10 = 1.79; all other BF10 < 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For AX-CPT behavioral shift index reaction time from pretest to posttest, there were no session, group, or interaction effects, and no within-group changes.

    “The mixed ANOVA to test for immediate changes (pre vs. post) for the BSI RT revealed no evidence for a main effect of session (BF10 = 0.17) or for a main effect of group (BF10 = 0.35), or for a session by group interaction (BF10 = 0.41), and the within group comparisons revealed no changes from baseline to the posttest (all BF−0 ≤ 0.58).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For AX-CPT behavioral shift index reaction time from pretest to follow-up, there was an anecdotal session effect, no group or interaction effect, and no within-group changes.

    “To test for the longitudinal effects (BSI RT; pre vs. follow-up), the mixed ANOVA indicated anecdotal evidence for a main effect of session (BF10 = 1.35), but there was no evidence for either the main effect of group (BF10 = 0.06), or the group by session interaction (BF10 = 0.08), and the within group comparisons did not indicate any changes from baseline to follow-up (all BF−0 ≤ 0.18).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For fluid intelligence from pretest to follow-up, there was a decisive session effect, a very strong group effect, and no session-by-group interaction.

    “With respect to the longitudinal effect (pre vs. follow-up), the mixed ANOVA revealed decisive evidence for a main effect of session (BF10 = 327.24) as well as very strong evidence for a main effect of group (BF10 = 65.04). However, there was no evidence for an interaction between session and group (BF10 = 0.93).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The baseline AX-CPT schooling effect was merely anecdotal and was complicated by the WM training group showing an even more pronounced proactive strategy at baseline, with BSI scores above 0.

    “the effect was merely anecdotal, and furthermore, it was complicated by the fact that the WM training group showed an even more pronounced proactive strategy at baseline (i.e. showing BSI scores that were larger than 0; Figure 3b)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For AX-CPT behavioral shift index reaction time, there were no group differences at pretest, anecdotal group differences at posttest with working memory and inhibitory control groups differing from control and schooling differing from control, and no group differences at follow-up.

    “Comparing the performance of the four groups at each test session provided no evidence for group differences at pretest (BF10 = 0.07). However, there was anecdotal evidence for group differences at posttest (BF10 = 2.28). Further analyses showed that both, the WM training group and the IC training group were different from the kindergarten control group (WM vs. CG: BF10 = 4.73; IC vs. CG: BF10 = 2”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At pretest, the schooling group outperformed each of the three kindergarten groups, with BF10 values of 6.56 for WM, 4.74 for IC, and 22.23 for control.

    “the schooling group outperformed each of the three kindergarten groups (SG vs. WM: BF10 = 6.56; SG vs. IC: BF10 = 4.74; SG vs. CG: BF10 = 22.23)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The school-cutoff design makes the first-grade and kindergarten groups comparable on factors other than schooling, so differences between them can be attributed to schooling.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Although the schooling group outperformed the WM training group at baseline, there was no more evidence for such group differences after training.

    “even though the schooling group outperformed the WM training group at baseline, there was no more evidence for such group differences after training”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The follow-up Gf benefit for WM training was evidenced by a substantial group difference between the WM training group and the kindergarten control group at follow-up, somewhat mitigated by anecdotal evidence for an interaction.

    “as evidenced by a substantial group difference between the WM training group and the kindergarten control group at follow-up, which was somewhat mitigated by the anecdotal evidence for an interaction”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At follow-up, there was no longer evidence for a difference between the two training groups and the schooling group that had been observed at baseline, with both BF10 values at or below 0.80.

    “there was no longer any evidence for a difference between the two training groups and the schooling group that was observed at baseline (both BF10 ≤ 0.80)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For WM, there were no reliable group differences at baseline or posttest.

    “with respect to WM, while we did not observe any reliable group differences at baseline or posttest”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The IC training group showed strong evidence for performance improvements in both WM and Gf and outperformed the kindergarten control group, but this effect became apparent only at follow-up.

    “the IC training group showed strong evidence for performance improvements in both WM and Gf, and they further outperformed the kindergarten control group, but as with the WM training group, this effect became only apparent at follow-up”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The business-as-usual kindergarten control group provides a valid estimate of maturation or typical development, so training effects beyond this group can be attributed to training.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Education and schooling affect performance on cognitive tasks that assess executive function.

    “Researchers have suggested that education and schooling affect performance in cognitive tasks assessing EF (e.g., Baker et al., 2015; Brod, Bunge, & Shing, 2017; Ceci, 1991).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Baker et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Brod, Bunge, & Shing, 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Ceci, 1991

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In children, executive function is closely related to scholastic achievement and school-related behaviors.

    “In children, EF is closely related to scholastic achievement (e.g., Alloway et al., 2005; Alloway & Alloway, 2010) and school-related behaviors (Alloway, Gathercole, Kirkwood, & Elliott, 2009; Gathercole, Lamont, & Alloway, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Alloway et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Alloway & Alloway, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Alloway, Gathercole, Kirkwood, & Elliott, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Working memory training improves performance on trained tasks and can transfer to untrained tasks such as reading comprehension and fluid reasoning.

    “For example, it has been widely demonstrated that training skills related to WM does not only improve performance in the trained tasks, but also generalize to untrained tasks, such as reading comprehension (e.g., Chein & Morrison, 2010), or fluid reasoning (e.g., Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008; Klingberg et al., 2005; Schmiedek, Lövdén, & Lindenberger, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Chein & Morrison, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Klingberg et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Inhibitory control develops markedly in early childhood and predicts school readiness and achievement in mathematics and reading.

    “Furthermore, there are only very few studies that focus on training targeted IC, which develops markedly in early childhood and is also a key predictor of school readiness for preschoolers and school achievement in mathematics and reading (Blair & Razza, 2007; Davidson, Amso, Anderson, & Diamond, 2006; Willoughby, Kupersmidt, & Voegler-Lee, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Blair & Razza, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Davidson, Amso, Anderson, & Diamond, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Willoughby, Kupersmidt, & Voegler-Lee, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Rueda et al. (2005) found transfer to the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test but no behavioral flanker effects after attention training in 4- and 6-year-olds.

    “Significant transfer effects were observed in the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, and although there were training-related differences in the brain activation pattern during the flanker task, there were no behavioral effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rueda et al. (2005)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    A power analysis based on pilot studies predicted a medium effect size and determined that about 75 participants were needed for 80% power at alpha 0.05.

    “Based on the results of our pilot studies, we predicted a medium effect size (Cohen’s f = 0.20; Cohen, 1988) for our experimental design. A power analysis using G*power 3.1 determined that given an α level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, the sample size required to achieve the predicted effect size was approximately 75 individuals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cohen, 1988

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Thorell et al. (2009) found inhibitory control training improved go/no-go and flanker tasks without transfer, while working memory training improved working memory and transferred to inhibitory control.

    “They only found the IC training effect in the go/no-go and flanker tasks, but no transfer effects. On the other hand, the WM training resulted not only in improved WM performance, but also in transfer to IC.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Thorell et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The four groups were matched on gender, and the three kindergarten groups were matched on age and fluid intelligence scores.

    “The four groups were matched according to gender (BF10 = 0.05), and in addition, the three kindergarten groups were matched with respect to age (BF10 = 0.36) and Gf scores (BF10 = 0.15).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Training-related gains in children can persist for three months.

    “Finally, given that earlier work with children has shown that training-related gains can persist for three months (Jaeggi et al., 2011; Klingberg, Forssberg, & Westerberg, 2002; Karbach, Strobach, & Schubert, 2015), we also tested for any longitudinal effects of training three months after the posttest.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Jaeggi et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Klingberg, Forssberg, & Westerberg, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Karbach, Strobach, & Schubert, 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Rueda, Checa, and Combita (2012) found transfer to fluid intelligence and faster, more efficient executive attention brain circuitry after training 5-year-olds.

    “Their results also showed transfer effects to fluid intelligence (Gf), and the brain circuitry involved in executive attention was activated faster and more efficiently after training.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rueda, Checa, and Combita (2012)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The backward digit span results provide tentative evidence that schooling and working memory training affect performance over the long run.

    “Overall, those results provide tentative evidence that schooling and WM training impact BDST performance over the long run”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    One possibility for long-term benefits is that training-induced cognitive improvement needs time to produce measurable behavioral effects, which might be related to consolidation.

    “one possibility for long-term benefits is that training-induced cognitive improvement might need time to result in measurable behavioral effects, which might be related to consolidation effects (Au, Karsten, Buschkuehl, & Jaeggi, 2017)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Au, Karsten, Buschkuehl, & Jaeggi, 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The findings provide evidence that executive function is malleable and that both long-term and short-term interventions can facilitate the acquisition of executive function skills.

    “Our findings provide further evidence for the malleability of EF demonstrating that both, long-term and short-term interventions can facilitate the acquisition of those important skills”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Both working memory and inhibitory control training produced gains in the trained tasks and varying degrees of improvement in non-trained outcome measures.

    “Furthermore, both the WM and IC training showed pronounced gains in the trained tasks, as well as varying degrees of improvement in non-trained outcome measures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The absence of a follow-up difference between the training groups and the schooling group, together with the training groups outperforming the control group, indicates that the training groups caught up to the schooling group.

    “indicating that the training groups caught up to the schooling group”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The business-as-usual kindergarten control group provides a valid estimate of maturation or typical development, so training effects beyond this group can be attributed to training.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    Another possibility is that children learn how to implement and translate newly acquired skills in other situations over time, indicating changes in underlying competence beyond mere practice effects.

    “Another possibility that does not exclude the previous one could be that children learn how to implement and translate their newly acquired skills in other situations over time, indicating changes in ‘underlying competence’ that go beyond mere practice effects (Klauer & Phye, 2008)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Klauer & Phye, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Both training groups reached performance comparable to the schooling group, especially on fluid intelligence at follow-up.

    “Most importantly, both training groups achieved comparable performance with the schooling group, which was especially apparent in Gf at follow-up.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Both training groups ultimately caught up with the schooling group, with Gf performance comparable to that of the first graders at follow-up.

    “both training groups ultimately caught up with the schooling group in that their Gf performance was comparable to that of the first graders at follow-up”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The business-as-usual kindergarten control group provides a valid estimate of maturation or typical development, so training effects beyond this group can be attributed to training.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Holmes, Gathercole, and Dunning (2009) reported improvements in math 6 months later in children with low WM skills.

    “Holmes, Gathercole, & Dunning (2009) reported improvements in math 6 months later”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Holmes, Gathercole, & Dunning (2009)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Because the kindergarten control group showed no significant improvement from pretest to follow-up in BDST or Gf, the effects seem to go beyond simple maturation, suggesting that changes in the WM training group were most likely due to training itself.

    “given that there was no significant improvement in the kindergarten control group from pretest to follow-up test in either BDST or Gf, our effects seem to go beyond simple maturation processes, suggesting that the changes observed in the WM training group were most likely due to the training itself”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The business-as-usual kindergarten control group provides a valid estimate of maturation or typical development, so training effects beyond this group can be attributed to training.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The follow-up advantage of both WM and IC training groups over the kindergarten control group indicates transfer, because both training types facilitated performance on the Gf task.

    “indicating transfer in that both, WM and IC training facilitated performance in the Gf task”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The business-as-usual kindergarten control group provides a valid estimate of maturation or typical development, so training effects beyond this group can be attributed to training.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results suggest that both targeted WM training and schooling lead to improvements in important cognitive measures, but those effects require time to manifest because they were only observed at follow-up.

    “Overall, our results suggest that both, targeted WM training and schooling lead to improvements in important cognitive measures, however, those effects seem to require time to manifest themselves given that they were only observed at follow-up.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The business-as-usual kindergarten control group provides a valid estimate of maturation or typical development, so training effects beyond this group can be attributed to training.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    This finding corroborates earlier work showing a positive relationship between schooling and cognitive ability.

    “This finding corroborates earlier work demonstrating a positive relationship between schooling and cognitive ability (Brod, et al., 2017; Ceci, 1991, see also Nisbett, 2013; Nisbett et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Brod, et al., 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Ceci, 1991

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Nisbett, 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: The school-cutoff design makes the first-grade and kindergarten groups comparable on factors other than schooling, so differences between them can be attributed to schooling.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The modest BDST improvement in the WM training group might be due to high baseline scores limiting improvement and to BDST requiring additional executive control beyond the training task's basic WM demands.

    “two issues might have contributed to this result: first, the WM training group started with rather high baseline scores, and as such, their ability to improve might have been limited, and second, the BDST requires additional executive control resources that go beyond the more basic WM requirements of the training task (St Clair-Thompson, 2010)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites St Clair-Thompson, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The changes over the study in AX-CPT might reflect general maturation and/or regression to the mean rather than schooling or targeted training.

    “the changes over the course of the study might reflect a general maturation and/or regression to the mean phenomenon rather than schooling (or targeted training)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Burrage et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Many WM training studies fail to observe improvements in Gf, including one of the authors' own studies using the same intervention.

    “Although we acknowledge that many WM training studies fail to observe improvements in Gf, including one of our own in which we used the same intervention (Loosli et al., 2012)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Loosli et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Not only long-term experiences such as schooling improve EF in early childhood, but similar effects can be obtained with short-term cognitive interventions.

    “suggesting that not only long-term experiences such as schooling improve EF in early childhood, but that similar effects can be obtained with short-term cognitive interventions”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The school-cutoff design makes the first-grade and kindergarten groups comparable on factors other than schooling, so differences between them can be attributed to schooling.
    • Rests on an assumption: The business-as-usual kindergarten control group provides a valid estimate of maturation or typical development, so training effects beyond this group can be attributed to training.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The work provides further evidence for the malleability of EF, illustrating the role of specific experiences in driving this malleability.

    “our work provides further evidence for the malleability of EF, illustrating the role of specific experiences in driving this malleability”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The school-cutoff design makes the first-grade and kindergarten groups comparable on factors other than schooling, so differences between them can be attributed to schooling.
    • Rests on an assumption: The business-as-usual kindergarten control group provides a valid estimate of maturation or typical development, so training effects beyond this group can be attributed to training.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The population consisted of typically developing children from predominantly privileged backgrounds, so the results might have been affected by restricted range issues.

    “our population consisted of typically developing children from predominantly privileged backgrounds, and thus, our results might have been affected by restricted range issues”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Children from low SES backgrounds seem to show especially large improvements in EF after targeted training, presumably because they are at higher risk of deficits and have more room to improve.

    “children from low SES backgrounds seem to show especially large improvements in EF after targeted training, presumably since they are at a higher risk of having deficits in those areas, and consequentially, they have more room to improve (Blair & Raver, 2014; Segretin et al., 2014)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Blair & Raver, 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Segretin et al., 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Rueda et al. (2005, 2012) found that training on several attention tasks including a Stroop-like task in preschoolers led to neural changes associated with a flanker task, but no behavioral effects were observed.

    “while training on several attention tasks including a Stroop-like task in preschoolers led to neural changes associated with a flanker task (Rueda et al., 2005, 2012), no behavioral effects were observed”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rueda et al., 2005, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Zhao et al. (2018) observed improvements in WM after go/no-go inhibition training in older children aged 10 to 12 years, most pronounced after 3 months.

    “a recent study by Zhao et al. (2018) with older children (10-12-year-olds) observed improvements in WM after go/no-go inhibition training, which was most pronounced after 3 months”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zhao et al. (2018)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Although the schooling group outperformed the IC training group at baseline in Gf, there was no longer evidence for that difference at follow-up, suggesting that both groups benefited equally from their experiences.

    “despite that the schooling group outperformed the IC training group at baseline in Gf, there was no longer any evidence for that difference at follow-up, suggesting again that both groups benefitted equally from their experiences”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The business-as-usual kindergarten control group provides a valid estimate of maturation or typical development, so training effects beyond this group can be attributed to training.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Rueda et al. (2012) trained 5-year-old children on executive attention games including Stroop-like tasks and observed significant gains in the attention network test and in measures of Gf.

    “Rueda et al. (2012) trained 5-year old children on a set of executive attention games that included Stroop-like tasks, and they observed a significant gain in the attention network test (ANT) as well as in measures on Gf”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rueda et al. (2012)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    It has generally been argued that training variability is critical for learning outcome.

    “it has generally been argued that training variability is critical for learning outcome (Schmidt & Bjork, 1992)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schmidt & Bjork, 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The Zhao et al. finding is consistent with the authors' own finding and emphasizes the need for researchers to routinely include follow-up assessments, especially in child populations.

    “which is consistent with our own finding, emphasizing the need for researchers to routinely include follow-up assessments, especially in children populations”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zhao et al. (2018)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The kindergarten groups that received targeted training improved in the trained task and ultimately caught up to the schooling group as a result of their training, especially in Gf at follow-up.

    “the kindergarten groups that received targeted training did not only show improvements in the trained task, but importantly, they were ultimately able to catch up to the schooling group as a result of their training, which was especially apparent in Gf at follow-up”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The business-as-usual kindergarten control group provides a valid estimate of maturation or typical development, so training effects beyond this group can be attributed to training.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The authors were constrained by the number of students in that particular school district who fit their exact age criterion.

    “we were constrained by the number of students in that particular school district that fit our exact age criterion”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study might have benefited from a larger sample size and from including at least an additional active control group.

    “our study might have benefitted from a larger sample size and from including at least an additional, active, control group”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    One reason the authors' earlier study might not have observed reliable Gf improvements is that its training time was considerably shorter; more importantly, it did not assess long-term effects, and transfer effects might not have been apparent at posttest.

    “One of the reasons we might not have observed reliable improvements in Gf in our earlier study might be because the training time in that study was considerably shorter, most importantly however, our earlier study did not assess long-term effects, and as discussed above, the transfer effects might not have been apparent at posttest.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Loosli et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

84 of 84

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No prior study has systematically compared the effects of targeted cognitive training with the effects of schooling.

    “However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no study to date that has systematically compared the effects of targeted cognitive training with the effects of schooling.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Almost no studies have used computerized interventions in early childhood.

    “there are almost no studies to date that used computerized interventions in early childhood”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The school-cutoff design makes the first-grade and kindergarten groups comparable on factors other than schooling, so differences between them can be attributed to schooling.

    “Using a school-cutoff design, we trained kindergartners targeted either WM or IC skills for 20 sessions over 5 weeks, and we compared their performance with that of age-matched first-graders receiving their regular school curriculum, as well as with a business-as-usual kindergarten control group.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The business-as-usual kindergarten control group provides a valid estimate of maturation or typical development, so training effects beyond this group can be attributed to training.

    “as well as with a business-as-usual kindergarten control group”
4 of 4

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • The reported Bayes-factor direction conflicts with its interpretation

    Minor

    The analytical approach describes the reported comparison as the data's probability under the null versus the alternative. Yet a BF10 of 58.69 is interpreted as strong evidence for the schooling effect, which requires the alternative-versus-null direction.

  • A Bayes factor of 30 is called anecdotal, while 31 is called strong

    Minor

    The paper describes BF10 = 30 as anecdotal evidence for an interaction, but describes the nearly identical BF10 = 31 as strong evidence elsewhere. These classifications are inconsistent.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 84 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Carlson S. M., 2013, The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Psychology: Vol. 1, Body and mind, 706
  2. Raven J. C., 1998, Manual for Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices
  3. Wechsler D., 1991, WISC‐III: Wechsler intelligence scale for children: Manual

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Zhang, Q., Wang, C., Zhao, Q., Yang, L., Buschkuehl, M., & Jaeggi, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Zhejiang University (CN)
  • Hangzhou No. 4 High School Hangzhou China
  • MIND Research Institute (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Jaeggi, Susanne M.
ORCID
Venue
Developmental Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-10-08
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
e12748-e12748
ISSN
  • 1363-755X (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-7687
DOI
10.1111/desc.12748
PMC
PMC6408936
OpenAlex
W2889010917
Semantic Scholar
d1e01454757c99c52d80427d6e75152e62eaa620
Cited by
61
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
6.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Developmental Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (31100753)
  • National Institute on Aging (1K02AG054665)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
Keywords
executive function, early childhood, schooling effects, working memory training, inhibitory control training, fluid intelligence, kindergarten, first grade, transfer of training, cognitive intervention
MeSH terms
Academic Success, Child, Child, Preschool, Cognition, Education, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Intelligence, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Schools, Young Adult, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

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