Content uploaded by Mark T Greenberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark T Greenberg on May 24, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
The contribution of inhibitory control to preschoolers'
social–emotional competence☆
Brittany L. Rhoades ⁎, Mark T. Greenberg, Celene E. Domitrovich
Pennsylvania State University, USA
article info abstract
Available online 23 February 2009 Social–emotional competence is a key developmental task during early childhood. This study
examined concurrent relationships between maternal education and employment status,
children's sex, ethnicity, age, receptive vocabulary, emotional knowledge, attention skills,
inhibitory control and social–emotional competence in a sample of 146 preschool, low-income,
ethnically diverse children from Head Start classrooms. Multilevel models demonstrated that
inhibitory control played a significant role in the concurrent prediction of teacher ratings of
social–emotional competence above and beyond other variables associated with social–
emotional competence. Children who demonstrated better inhibitory control were more likely
to be rated higher on social skills and lower in internalizing behaviors. Findings suggest that
early identification of inhibitory control difficulties may be beneficial for targeting children at
risk for maladaptive outcomes. The contribution of environmental experience to the
development of inhibitory control skills suggests there are many opportunities to intervene
during early childhood.
© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Executive function
Inhibitory control
Social–emotional competence
Preschoolers
1. Introduction
The development of social–emotional competence is a process of acquiring a set of interrelated skills that promote emotion
recognition and management, compassion for others, positive social relationships, and responsible and effective decision-making
(Denham & Weissberg, 2004; Greenberg, Weissberg, O'Brien, Zins, Fredericks, Resnik, 2003). The ability to manage behaviors and
emotions in accordance with societal expectations is an essential component of social-competence that is especially important
during early childhood as it has been shown to play an important role in school adjustment and achievement during kindergarten
(Howse, Calkins, Anastopoulos, Keane, & Shelton, 2003; Shields, Dickstein, Seifer, Giusti, & Spritz, 2001). There has been
considerable theorizing and some data indicating that executive function, and in particular inhibitory control, may facilitate this
process (Hughes, Dunn, & White,1998; Kochanska, Coy, & Murray, 2001; Rothbart, Ahadi, & Hershey, 1994). Inhibitory control, the
cognitive-related ability to inhibit a strong dominant response in favor of a subdominant one, could serve as a key internal resource
for young children faced with the social challenges presented by a preschool classroom.
To better understand the role inhibitory control plays in preschool children's development of social–emotional competence, the
present study used an at-risk, low-income sample of preschoolers to examine the concurrent relationships between inhibitory
control abilities and teacher-rated social skills, internalizing and externalizing problems above and beyond other factors known to
be associated with these behaviors.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 310–320
☆Support for this research was provided by Head Start/University Partnership Grant (#90YD0063) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA 017629).
⁎Corresponding author. Pennsylvania State University, 113 S. Henderson Bldg., University Park, PA 16802, USA. Tel.: +1 814 865 9373; fax: +1 814 865 2530.
E-mail address: blr162@psu.edu (B.L. Rhoades).
0193-3973/$ –see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.012
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
1.1. Inhibitory control in early childhood
Preschool represents an important developmental period to study individual differences in inhibitory control and their
associations with behavioral outcomes. Inhibitory control emerges in late infancy and exhibits dramatic development in the
preschool years (Diamond, 2002; Rothbart, 1989). Research consistently shows that young children have difficulty inhibiting
impulses (Diamond, Kirkham, & Amso, 2002; Diamond & Taylor,1996; Dowsett & Livesey, 2000; Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond,1994).
Although age-related improvements in inhibitory control occur from three to six years, children less than five years old still have
substantial difficulty inhibiting a prepotent response (Gerstadt et al., 1994).
Inhibitory control has been conceptualized in a variety of ways throughout the early childhood literature (see Kochanska,
Murray, & Harlan, 2000). Effortful control was first introduced by Rothbart and colleagues as the self-regulatory aspect of
temperament that enables children to regulate their anger and approach systems (Rothbart,1989; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Effortful
control is part of the active inhibitory system and has been described as the ability to inhibit a prepotent or dominant response in
favor of a subdominant one (Kochanska et al., 2000; Olson, Sameroff, Kerr, Lopez, & Wellman, 2005). It is believed that effortful
control allows children to regulate their actions in the service of current and future goals (Rueda, Posner, & Rothbart, 2005).
Effortful control first emerges in the second half of the first year of life with individual differences becoming increasingly stable
during toddlerhood and into preschool (Kochanska et al., 2000).
Other researchers suggest that inhibitory control is one aspect of the multi-component construct of executive function (EF). EF
contributes to the ability to coordinate thoughts and actions in a goal-directed manner (Kopp, 1989; Perner & Lang, 1999) and
includes planning, working memory, and attentional control skills in addition to inhibitory control (Hughes, 1998; Pennington,
1997; Welsh, Pennington, & Groisser,1991). Rudimentary forms of EF emerge in the first year of life and continue to develop until at
least early adulthood (Dempster & Corkhill, 1999; Diamond, 1991; Welsh & Pennington, 1988). EF research suggests that inhibitory
control is especially relevant to the developmentof children's abilities to regulate their behaviors and emotions (Carlson, Moses, &
Brenton, 2002; Hughes et al., 1998; Hughes, White, Sharpen & Dunn, 2000 ). However, it is important to note that because EF tasks
are inherently complex, no pure measure of any single EF component exists. Most EF tasks (including the ones used in the present
study) tap into multiple components (Diamond, Kirkham, & Amso, 2002; Pennington, 1997).
Olson and colleagues posit that inhibitory control is one facet of the broader multi-dimensional construct of impulse control
(Olson, 1989; Olson, Schilling, & Bates, 1999). Their findings suggest that impulse control is composed of a cognitive dimension and
a delay dimension. Inhibitory control falls under the cognitive dimension and is generally measured using highly structured tasks
where children are required to inhibit action in a non-emotional task. On the other hand, the delay dimension of impulse control
has been measured using tasks like “delay of gratification”or “resistance to temptation”where children are required to comply
with social expectations of appropriate behavior in a more emotionally-eliciting situation (Olson, 1989). Some research indicates
that the delay dimension of impulse control may be a stronger predictor of children's outcomes than the cognitive dimension
(Olson, 1989; Olson & Hoza, 1993; Olson et al., 1999). However, the cognitive dimension remains a significant aspect of impulse
control, which may influence children's classroom behaviors.
Children's ability to inhibit impulses plays a crucial role in everyday peer and adult interactions in the preschool classroom.
For instance, preschool children are likely to encounter peer conflict in situations when other children obstruct or interfere with
their goals (e.g., another child takes away the toy he/she was playing with/takes his/her place in line etc.). For many children,
their natural tendency may be to use physical aggression (e.g., hit the child who took his/her toy away, push the child who took
his/her space in line) to attain their goals. However, children who are better able to inhibit their natural tendency to use physical
aggression (i.e., dominant response) and instead use their words (i.e., subdominant response) to attain their goals are likely to
be viewed by their peers and teachers as better play partners and therefore more socially competent. On the other hand, those
children who are unable to inhibit their impulses are more likely to exhibit externalizing behaviors such as physical aggression
and to be viewed by their peers and teachers as poor play partners. They may be rejected from play groups, which may lead to
internalizing behaviors.
1.2. The relationship between inhibitory control and behavior
Several studies have investigated the relationship between inhibitory control skills and behavioral outcomes in middle-class
children. Kochanska and colleagues reported that effortful/inhibitory control in early childhood was longitudinallyrelated to better
emotion regulation, fewer externalizing problems, stronger conscience, and greater committed compliance later in childhood
(Kochanska & Knaack, 2003; Kochanska et al., 2000, 20 01). Olson et al. (2005) reported that children's effortful control at age three
was a significant negative predictor of externalizing behavior above and beyond IQ, dispositional anger, and psychosocial adversity
in a middle-class sample. In another study, Olson et al. (1999) found that laboratory measures of both cognitive and delay
dimensions of inhibitory control at six and eight years old predicted parent and self-ratings of externalizing behavior problems
during adolescence.
Research also has examined inhibitory control in young children at risk for developing ADHD (Campbell, Pierce, March,
Ewing, & Szumowski, 1994; Hughes et al., 1998, 2000; Perner, Winfried, & Barchfeld, 2002). Hughes and colleagues found that
although preschoolers with high rates of hyperactive symptoms were more likely to fail a variety of EF tasks (i.e., planning,
working memory, inhibition, attentional flexibility), inhibitory control was the only EF dimension that remained significant
after controlling for verbal skill, age, and family background (Hughes et al., 1998). Additionally, inhibitory control skills were
negatively related to antisocial behavior and positively related to prosocial behaviors during peer interactions (Hughes et al.,
311B.L. Rhoades et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 310–320
2000). Hughes and colleagues consistently report that inhibitory control is the most important skill predicting young children's
behavior.
Others have examined EF, broadly defined, in children with elevated problem behaviors (Cole, Usher, & Cargo, 1993; Kusche,
Cook, & Greenberg, 1993; Seguin & Zelazo, 2005; Speltz, DeKlyen, Calderon, Greenberg, & Fisher, 1999). The majority of these
studies created composite EF scores by aggregating across various tasks, thereby overlooking the significant role of inhibitory
control. They found that children exhibiting behavior problems had poorer EF skills in general compared to normally developing
children. Within an intervention context, Riggs, Greenberg, Kuche, & Pentz (2006) found that children exposed to a social–
emotional intervention had fewer problem behaviors at one year post-intervention as compared to control children and that this
intervention effect was mediated by improvements in inhibitory control.
Although the aforementioned research, largely conducted on middle class samples, suggests that inhibitory control is central to
the development of social–emotional competence, it is important to investigate whether this relationship holds for low-income
children as well in order to understand the generalizability of these findings. Very few reports have examined inhibitory control in
samples of disadvantaged children (Blair, 2003; Blair & Peters, 2003). In a sample of Head Start children, Blair (2003) and Blair and
Peters (2003), reported a positive association between teachers' reports of children's on task behavior in the classroom and high
levels of inhibitory control as assessed by a composite score of the Peg Tapping and Day/Night tasks. Although this provides some
support for the generalization of this relationship to disadvantaged population, the present study aims to provide more evidence
by examining these relationships in a larger and more ethnically diverse sample of Head Start children.
1.3. Predictors of social–emotional competence in preschool
The above findings suggest that children who are better able to inhibit their behavior have better social skills and fewer
behavior problems. However, there has been little research that has integrated the assessment of inhibitory control inpreschoolers
with the examination of other factors that have also been shown to predict social and emotional competence. Children's sex
(Lavigne, Gibbons, Christoffel, Arend, & Rosenbaum, 1995; Spieker, Larson, Lewis, Keller, & Gilchrist, 1999), academic skills (Malecki
& Elliott, 2002), emotional knowledge (Arsenio, Cooperman, & Lover, 2000; Denham, Blair, DeMulderr, Levitas, & Sawyer, 2003;
Fine, Izard, Mostow, Trentacosta, & Ackerman, 2003) and attention skills (Belsky, Friedman, & Hsieh, 2001; Eisenberg, Fabes,
Nyman, Bernzweig, & Pinuelas, 1994; Raver, Blackburn, Bancroft, & Torp, 1999) have been identified as important predictors of
social–emotional competence. Caregivers' education and employment status have also been shown to predict children's social–
emotional skills (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). There has been little examination of how inhibitory control may interact with these
predictors or how it may relate to social competence and behavior problems in young children above and beyond the impact of the
aforementioned factors.
1.4. The present study
This study contributes to the field in three ways. First, it examined the relationship between inhibitory control and social–
emotional competence in a disadvantaged sample of ethnically-diverse, urbanpreschoolers. Second, by using multi-level modeling
it examined whether classroom-level effects influence relations between factors and accurately accounted for the effect of
classroom-level effects on individual-level relations. Third, the present study controlled for factors already shown to influence
social–emotional competence in order to isolate the impact of inhibitory control. To this aim, two primary research questions were
addressed:
1) What is the role of inhibitory control in predicting children's social–emotional competence, controlling for factors that have
already been shown to predict social skills and behavior problems (maternal education and employment status, children's sex,
ethnicity, age, receptive vocabulary, emotional knowledge, attention)?
2) Does the relationship between inhibitory control and social–emotional competence vary by maternal education and
employment status, children's sex, ethnicity, receptive vocabulary, emotional knowledge and/or attention skills?
It is hypothesized that children with better inhibitory control would have higher social skills and lower externalizing and
internalizing ratings, above and beyond the impact of the aforementioned factors. Because of the limited research on what factors
might moderate the relationship between inhibitory control and social–emotional competence, we did not pose any a priori
hypotheses regarding the moderation analyses.
2. Method
2.1. Design
The present study examined behavior of a subsetof preschool children from a randomized clinical trial of the PATHS (Promoting
Alternative THinking Strategies) preschool program, a curriculum developed to promote social and emotional competence
(Domitrovich, Greenberg, Cortes, & Kusche, 2005). Time 1 data for both control and intervention children were used in the present
analyses. Time 1 assessments were conducted at the beginning of the school year during the fall of 2000. As these data were
collected at the pretest/Time 1, no intervention had been initiated (see Domitrovich, Cortes, & Greenberg, 2007 for results from the
impact study).
312 B.L. Rhoades et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 310–320
2.2. Participants
There were 246 children ranging in age from2.5 to 5 years old in the PATHS program at Time 1. However, onlychildren four and
older were included because of the need for valid assessment of the present study's constructs. This study therefore included 146
children who were 4–5 years old. See Table 1 for a description of the sample participants and their caregivers.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Receptive vocabulary
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R; Dunn & Dunn, 1981) is a well-established measure of children's
receptive vocabulary. The interviewer presented the child with four pictures and asked him/her to identify the picture of the word
that was orally presented to him/her. The measure consists of 175 items. The PPVT-R shows good convergent validity, and the split-
half reliability coefficient for the PPVT-R is .71 for children 48 to 53 months of age. The median internal consistency across age
groups is r= . 95 (Dunn & Dunn, 1981).
2.3.2. Emotional knowledge
The Kusche Emotional Inventory (KEI, Kusche, 1984) was developed to assess children's recognition of various emotion labels
(e.g., happy, sad, mad, scared, love). A version of the Recognition of Emotion Concepts subtest, adapted for 4-year olds, was used in
this study (Speltz et al., 1999). Children were presented with a page divided into four sections with four cartoon faces, each with a
particular emotional expression. Out of the four cartoons, there was one target picture and three distracter pictures. Children were
presented with 30 stimuli pages assessing 15 different emotions and asked to identify the cartoon picture that best matched the
emotion stated. For each trial, children received two points for the correct response and zero for an incorrect response. If children
chose a picture that depicted an emotional expression of the same valence (e.g., child answered sad for a mad expression) as the
target feeling word, they received one point. The highest possible score was 60. For the original version of this subtest, Kusche (in
press) reported a split-half reliability of .89 and test–retest reliability of .85. In the present sample, there was adequate internal
consistency with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .73. Total percent correct was used as the predictor variable in the present
analyses.
2.3.3. Attention skills
The Leiter-Revised Attention Sustained Subtest (Leiter-R AS; Roid & Miller, 1997) assessed children's ability to sustain attention
to detail in a repetitive task. Children were shown a target figure (e.g., flower) located at the top of the stimulus and were instructed
to scan an array of figures and cross out all of the target figures as quickly as they can. Children were administered a series of four
boxes, each with a different target figure located in an increasingly more complicated array of figures. For each box, they were given
up to 30 s to complete the task. An adjusted total correct score was created by subtracting the total number of errors from the total
number of correct. This score was converted into an adjusted total scaled score where the average score is represented by a scaled
score of 10 (SD = 3). The Leiter-R AS has been shown to have good internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .83 for
the 4–5 year old version and good test–retest reliability of (r= .85).
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for participants and caregivers (N= 146).
Mean (SD) or percent
Participant characteristic
Age 54 months (3.6)
Female 54%
Ethnicity
African-American 49.3%
Anglo-American 38.4%
Hispanic 6.8%
Multi-racial or other 5.5%
Caregiver characteristic
Age 32 years (9.8)
Income $6642 (6320)
Relationship to child
Biological mother 81.3%
Relative, foster parent or guardian 18.3%
Employment
Full or part-time employed 60.3%
Unemployed 39.7%
Education
Some high school 22.8%
GED or high school diploma 50.4%
Some college 12.3%
Associates or bachelor degree 14.2%
313B.L. Rhoades et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 310–320
2.3.4. Inhibitory control
Two tasks were used to assess children's inhibitory control skills. One measure was a Stroop-like task called Day/Night (D/N;
Gerstadt et al., 1994). This measure assesses children's ability to inhibit a natural tendency to give a verbal response while
remembering the rule for the correct response. Children were presented with a series of two types of cards. One was a black card
with stars and one was a white card with a bright sun. Children were instructed to say “day”to the black cards and “night”to the
white cards. Children were given the opportunity to practice each action following the experimenter's instructions. Then, children
were given up to three practice trials and praised for correct responses and corrected for incorrect responses. If children got any
trials correct during the practice trials, they were included as their first two trials. In all, children were administered 16 trials in
which eight of each type of card was included in a counterbalanced sequence. The internal consistency was good within the
present sample with a Kuder–Richardson (KR-20) coefficient of .89.
The other measure of inhibitory control was Luria's (1966) tapping task called Peg Tapping (PT; Diamond & Taylor, 1996). This
measure was administered to assess children's ability to inhibit a natural tendency to mimic an action while remembering the rule
for the correct action. The administration procedures described by Diamond and her colleagues were followed. Children were
instructed to tap a wooden dowel (15-cm length ×1-cm diameter) twice when the experimenter tapped once and to tap once when
the experimenter tapped twice. The procedures for administration of the PT task were similar to those described above for the D/N
task. In all, children were administered 16 trials in which eight of each action (one-tap and two-tap) were included in a
counterbalanced sequence. The internal consistency was good within the present sample with a KR-20 of .88. Although both tasks
are well-established measures of inhibitory control, it is important to recognize that neither is solely a measure of inhibitory
control, but also requires working memory. For the purpose of the present study, however, these tasks will be referred to as
inhibitory control tasks.
Similar to previous work with these two measures, the scores on D/N and PT were moderately correlated (r=. 42, pb. 001).
Although previous studies have created a single indicator of inhibitory control by averaging the total percent correct on both D/N
and PT (e.g., Blair, 2003; Blair & Peters, 2003), the present study analyzed scores for each measure separately in order to examine
their independent contributions in the prediction of children's social–emotional competence.
2.3.5. Social–emotional competence
The Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales (PKBS; Merrell, 1996), a teacher report measure, was designed to assess social
skills and problem behaviors during the past month in 3–6 year old children. The Social Skills scale consisted of 34 items that
describe adaptive or positive behaviors associated with positive personal and social outcomes (e.g., is cooperative, follows
directions, shows self-control). These items were designed to reflect both peer-related and adult-related forms of social
adjustment. The Problem Behavior scale consists of 42 items that were designed to reflect common preschool and kindergarten
children behavior problems (e.g., has tantrums, will not share, is physically aggressive). The two subscales, externalizing and
internalizing behaviors, were used for the present study. For all items, responses were based on a four-point scale: 0 = never true,
1 = rarely true, 2 = sometimes true, and 3 = often true. The subscales showed good internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha
coefficients ranging from .84 to .97 in the present sample. The present study used mean scores for each scale as the outcome
variables.
2.4. Procedure
Children were tested outside the classroom and completed the battery of measures in a quiet area of the Head Start center
during two separate, 30-minute sessions within a two-month period. The first session included the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Task-Revised and the Kusche Emotional Inventory. The second session included the Leiter-R Sustained Attention Task, Day/Night
Task and Peg Tapping. Teacher ratings of children's behaviors were collected at this time as well.
Demographic information was collected from the primary caregiver at the first home visit with the child's teacher. It included
questions about the caregiver's and child's ethnicity, age, and the caregiver's relationship to the child, his or her education,
employment status, current income, and marital status.
3. Results
3.1. Missing data treatment
Out of the total sample (N= 146), 25 children were missingat least one child-based assessment: one child was missing only the
PPVT-R; three children were missing only the Leiter-R AS; five children were missing only the D/N measure; six children were
missing only the PT measure; one child was missing both the KEI and the Leiter-R AS measures; one child was missing both the
Leiter-R AS and the PT measures; and eight childrenwere missing both the D/N and PT measures. Also, two children did not receive
teacher ratings at Time 1. Reasons for missing data include interviewer error, child refusal to complete the measure, and child's
inability to understand the instructions. To effectively use all available data, multiple imputation was used to calculate the
parameter estimates. For the present analyses, five datasets (Schafer & Olsen, 1998) were imputed using PROC MI in SAS v9.1. PROC
MI Analyze was used to combine parameter estimates from the imputed datasets (Schafer & Graham, 2002). Although the
parameter estimates were very similar using the multiple imputation procedure compared to listwise deletion, the multiple
imputation analyses increases power to detect significant differences and corrects for any potential selection bias for children who
314 B.L. Rhoades et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 310–320
completed the measures compared to those who did not. Therefore, the values obtained using PROC MI Analyze will be reported in
the following sections.
3.2. Preliminary analyses
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for the child and teacher report variables. In this low-income sample, children scored
close to one standard deviation below the national norm for receptive vocabulary. However, they demonstrated average sustained
attention with scores comparable with the national norm. On average, they achieved a somewhat greater percent of items correct
on the Day/Night measure of inhibitory control compared to scores on the Peg Tapping measure. In general, the children in this
sample were rated by teachers as having good social skills and low levels of externalizing and internalizing behaviors at the
beginning of the school year.
Table 3 presents the correlations among the child variables. Receptive vocabulary was strongly related to emotional knowledge
and moderately related to sustained attention. There was a significant positive relation between the inhibitory control, as
measured by PT, and both emotional knowledge and sustained attention. Emotional knowledge was moderately, positively
correlated with sustained attention.
Table 3 also presents correlations between the child constructs and the three teacher-rated subscales. There were no significant
relationships between sustained attention and social skills or problem behaviors. Inhibitory control, as measured by both D/N and
PT, was positively correlated with social skills. However, only PT was significantly (negatively) correlated with externalizing and
internalizing problems. Both receptive vocabulary and emotional knowledge were related to children's social skills, indicating
these scores should be covaried in order to examine the role of inhibitory control.
3.3. Analytic method for the multi-level models
Because children in this sample were nested within classrooms, multilevel models with child-level variables at level 1 and
classroom membership at level 2 were used to examine the relationship between inhibitory control and teacher-rated social–
emotional competence. By specifying a 2-level model we were able to control for any interdependence in teacher ratings due to
children being in the same classroom and having the same rater. The intraclass correlation (ICC) from the empty model (i.e., no
predictors included) was .16 for social skills, .23 for externalizing behavior, and .37 for internalizing behaviors. These numbers
represent the correlation of teacher ratings for children in the same classroom.
For the 2-level models predicting each of the three outcomes, child-level variables were created as predictors. The child-level
variables were grand-mean centered and represent between-person differences. For instance, the child-level PPVT-R variable (i.e.,
receptive vocabulary) represents the deviation between the overall mean PPVT-R score (90) and the child's individual PPVT-R
score. SAS PROC MIXED was used to estimate linear mixed models to assess the between-person differences in maternal education
and employment status, children's sex, ethnicity, age, receptive vocabulary, emotional knowledge, attention skills, and inhibitory
Table 2
Mean (and SD) child measure scores and teacher-rated outcomes.
Measure Mean (SD)
PPVT standard score 89.61 (12.81)
KEI % correct 65.11 (13.05)
Leiter-R AS adjusted correct scaled score 10.75 (2.90)
D/N % correct 78.38 (24.88)
PT % correct 68.21 (29.78)
PKBS social skills 2.35 (.48)
PKBS externalizing .75 (.60)
PKBS internalizing .64 (.60)
Table 3
Concurrent correlations among child constructs and between child constructs and social–emotional competence.
Receptive vocabulary Emotional knowledge Sustained attention IC: day/night IC: peg tapping
Receptive vocabulary
Emotional knowledge .52***
Sustained attention .25** .21*
IC: day night .03 .14 .01
IC: peg tapping .15 .29** .26** .42***
Social skills .38*** .35*** .13 .19* .34**
Externalizing −.19* −.11 −.13 −.08 −.22*
Internalizing −.16 −.05 −.10 −.15 −.35***
*pb.05, **pb.01, ***pb.001.
315B.L. Rhoades et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 310–320
control in the prediction of social skills, externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. For each model, fixed effects of the
predictor variables were added to the empty 2-level model. Model parameters are reported in Table 4.
3.4. The role of inhibitory control in prediction of social–emotional competence
3.4.1. Social skills
Parameter estimates for this model can be found on the left panel of Table 4. The fixed effects of receptive vocabulary (pb. 05)
and inhibitory control (as measured by PT; pb. 01) were significant. The parameter estimates suggest that children with greater
receptive vocabulary and greater inhibitory control skills are more socially competent.
3.4.2. Externalizing behaviors
Parameter estimates for this model can be found in the middle panel of Table 4. Only the fixed effect of receptive vocabulary (pb
. 05) was significant. The parameter estimate suggests that children with greater receptive vocabulary have fewer externalizing
behaviors.
3.4.3. Internalizing behaviors
Parameter estimates for this model can be found on the right panel of Table 4. The fixed effects of receptive vocabulary (pb.01)
and inhibitory control (as measured by PT; pb. 01) were significant. The parameter estimates suggest that children with greater
receptive vocabulary and greater inhibitory control skills have fewer internalizing problems.
3.4.4. Moderation effects
The two-way interactions between inhibitory control and maternal education, maternal employment status, children's sex,
ethnicity (Anglo-American vs. non Anglo-American), receptive vocabulary, emotional knowledge, and attention skills were each
added separately to each of the above 2-level models to determine if the relationships between inhibitory control and social–
emotional competence varied by these factors. None of the two-way interactions were significant in any of the three models. These
findings suggested that the relationship between inhibitory control and social–emotional competence was similar for children
with mothers of varying levels of education and employment status. It was also similar for boys and girls, Anglo-American and
non-Anglo-American children and children with different levels of receptive vocabulary, emotional knowledge and attentionskills.
4. Discussion
This study extends previous research by more closely examining the relationships between inhibitory control and social–
emotional competence in low-income preschoolers. As hypothesized, the study found that children with better inhibitory control
(as measured by PT) showed better behavioral adjustment compared to those with poorer inhibitory control skills. The findings
indicated that after controlling for other variables known to be related to children's social–emotional competence, inhibitory
control (as measured by PT) was a significant, unique predictor of social skills and internalizing problems. Children who had
greater inhibitory control were more likely to be rated higher in social skills and lower in internalizing behavior. Although
inhibitory control was not significant at the pb.05 level in the model predicting externalizing behavior, the parameter estimate
indicated a relationship in the negative direction, which is consistent with the hypotheses. The exploratory moderation analyses
indicated that these relationships did not vary by maternal education, maternal employment status or children's sex, ethnicity,
receptive vocabulary, emotional knowledge or attention skills.
These findings provide further evidence for the central role of inhibitory control in distinguishing children with adjustment
problems (Blair, 2003; Blair & Peters, 2003; Hughes et al., 1998, 2000). Research has consistently shown that inhibitory control is
crucial in the development of social skills (Berlin & Bohlin, 2002; Brophy, Taylor, & Hughes, 2002; Hughes et al., 1998; Eisenberg,
Spinrad, Fabes, Reiser, Cumberland, 2004) and may help explain the association between cognitive deficits and disruptive behavior
Table 4
Parameter estimates for multi-level model predicting social skills, externalizing problems and internalizing problems.
Fixed effects Social skills Externalizing problems Internalizing problems
Estimate SE p value Estimate SE p value Estimate SE p value
Intercept 2.274 0.083 b.0001 0.699 0.138 b.0001 0.588 0.115 b.0001
Maternal education −0.042 0.056 0.4487 0.096 0.082 0.2457 0.007 0.059 0.9106
Maternal employment status 0.013 0.045 0.7799 −0.087 0.065 0.1847 −0.041 0.048 0.3901
Sex 0.077 0.073 0.2897 0.028 0.104 0.7884 0.053 0.077 0.4950
Ethnicity 0.125 0.083 0.1306 −0.027 0.122 0.8235 0.037 0.092 0.6847
Age 0.035 0.129 0.7842 −0.011 0.183 0.9525 −0.014 0.136 0.9158
Receptive vocabulary 0.009 0.003 0.0106 −0.010 0.005 0.0361 −0.010 0.004 0.0101
Emotional knowledge 0.005 0.003 0.1667 −0.002 0.005 0.6676 0.003 0.004 0.4405
Sustained attention −0.009 0.015 0.5469 −0.002 0.020 0.9311 0.014 0.014 0.3141
Inhibitory control: D/N 0.001 0.002 0.4156 −0.000 0.003 0.8960 −0.000 0.002 0.9695
Inhibitory control: PT 0.005 0.002 0.0240 −0.004 0.003 0.2321 −0.006 0.002 0.0008
Note. Bolded parameter estimates are significant at pb.05.
316 B.L. Rhoades et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 310–320
(Charman, Carroll, & Sturge, 2001; Quay, 1997; Rubia, Oosterlaan, Sergeant, Brandeis, & Leeuwen, 1998; Songuga-Barke, Dalen,
Daley, & Remmington, 2002). In all, these findings suggest children's ability to inhibit prepotent responses is a significant predictor
of social skills and problem behaviors above and beyond the impact of receptive vocabulary.
These conclusions must be tempered, however, by two considerations. First, like other measures of EF, PT and D/N are not pure
measures of one individual component of EF. Instead, they measure inhibitory control in the contextof a working memory demand.
Although the results suggest that children's inhibitory control plays an important role in predicting children's social–emotional
competence above and beyond maternal education and employment status, and children's sex, ethnicity, age, receptive vocabulary,
emotional knowledge, and attention, the individual contribution of inhibitory control cannot be disentangled from working
memory.
Second, the present study demonstrated that all inhibitory control tasks are not created equal. In the present analyses two
commonly used measures of inhibitory control for young children, PT and D/N were only moderated correlated and were
differentially related to social–emotional competence. Previous studies that utilized both of these measures created a composite
inhibitory control score by averaging the PT and D/N scores (Blair, 2003; Blair & Peters, 2003), which masked the individual
contributions of the two measures. Our analyses suggest that compared to D/N, PT is a more robust predictor of child behaviors. It
may be that D/N is not as sensitive to individual differences in inhibitory control for disadvantaged preschool children or that the
ability to inhibit a verbal response (as compared to a motor response) is less predictive of children's behavior. PT is designed to
assess children's ability to inhibit a motor response, which particularly during early childhood when aggression is at its peak, may
be more predictive of their social–emotional competence in the classroom.
4.1. Prevention implications
Numerous preschool prevention programs are aimed at improving children's intellectual ability (e.g., Ramey & Ramey, 2004;
Weikart & Schweinhart, 1997). However, the results from the present study would suggest that inhibitory control skills are
essential to children's social–emotional competence. Preschool children who have difficulties with inhibitory control skills are
clearly at risk for lower social–emotional competence. Children who exhibit increased problem behaviors during early childhood
are at risk for numerous poor developmental outcomes later in life including antisocial behavior, mental health problems, school
failure, poor peer relationships, and unemployment (Broidy, Nagin, Tremblay, Bates, Brame, 2003; Caspi, Moffitt, Wright, & Silva,
1998; Henry, Caspi, Moffitt, & Silva,1996; Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, & Carlson, 2000; Moffitt, 1993; Moffitt, Caspi, Dickson, Silva, &
Stanton, 1996; Robins & Price, 1991; Tremblay, Phil, Vitaro, & Dobkin, 1994). Therefore, early identification of inhibitory control
difficulties may be beneficial for targeting children at-risk for these maladaptive outcomes. Research highlights the role of
environmental experience in the development of inhibitory control skills, suggesting there are many opportunities to intervene
during early childhood (Dowsett & Livesey, 2000).
Although there are very few programs that directly target executive functions such as inhibitory control (Diamond, Barnett,
Thomas, & Munro, 2007; Klingberg, Fernell, Olesen, Johnson, & Gustafsson, 2005; Rueda, Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccomanno, &
Posner, 2005), researchers are increasingly recognizing the importance of incorporating theoretical models of neurocognitive
functioning in the development and evaluation of prevention programs aimed at reducing problem behaviors and enhancing social
competence (Greenberg, Riggs, & Blair, 2007; Riggs et al., 2006). Numerous evidence-based prevention programs whose goals are
to promote self-regulation and reduce problem behaviors in preschoolers already currently exist (Domitrovich et al., 2007; Lynch,
Geller, & Schmidt, 2004; Serna, Nielsen, Lambros & Forness, 2000; Webster-Stratton & Reid, 2003). Although these programs were
not designed to enhance inhibitory control skills directly, it is possible that they influence them indirectly by targeting self-control
and problem-solving skills.
4.2. Limitations
There are a number of limitations to the present study that should be considered wheninterpreting the results. First, due to the
correlational and cross-sectional nature of our analyses it is not possible to determine the directionality of the associations
between inhibitory control and children's social–emotional competence. A second limitation was the use of teacher ratings as the
only assessment of social–emotional competence. Although teachers are an excellent source of information about children's
behavior due to the extended periods of time they spend with them, biases may interfere with an accurate representation of their
social–emotional competence. Future studies should include multiple measures from multiple sources in order to more accurately
assess children's social–emotional competence.
A third concern regards the measurement issues that surround the assessment of inhibitory control and attention in young
children (Blair, Zelazo, & Greenberg, 2005). No single, pure measure of inhibitory control in young children currently exists. As
previously mentioned, PT and D/N areboth tasks that require an ability to hold information in mind and therefore reflect children's
working memory abilities in addition to their inhibitory control abilities. Inhibitory control is only one component of the important
multi-dimensional construct of EF. Research has shown that other components of EF, including working memory and planning, are
also important in the prediction of children's behavior (Espy, McDiarmid, Cwik, Stalets, Hamby, & Senn, 2004; Hughes et al., 1998;
Hughes, Cutting, & Dunn, 2001; Moses, Carlson, & Sabbagh, 2005). Future studies should assess all aspects of EF to understand how
different components of EF jointly or uniquely predict children's behavior. Similarly, this study used the Leiter-R AS subtest as our
measure of attention. While it is a measure with strong psychometric properties, there are no studies that we are aware of that
compare the Leiter-R AS, which requires a motor response to other measures of attention that do not.
317B.L. Rhoades et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 310–320
Finally, one must be cautious when interpreting the lack of significant interaction effects as an indication that the relationship
between inhibitory control and social–emotional competence did not vary by maternal education or employment status or
children's sex, ethnicity, receptive vocabulary, emotional knowledge or attention skills. Although the interactions were entered one
at a time to limit the effect of power issues, the sample size in the present study may have limited the ability to detect significant
interactions. Future studies should replicate these moderation analyses with larger sample sizes to eliminate lack of power as the
explanation for these findings.
4.3. Contributions and future directions
The present study makes significant contributions to the growing literature examining the relationship between
neurocognitive skills and social–emotional competencies in young children. First, the majority of past research examining the
link between inhibitory control and children's behavior has been conducted with relatively small, homogenous, middle-class
samples. However, research suggests that inhibitory control skills are especially important sources of resilience for children raised
in stressful environments (Blair, 2002). Therefore it is crucial to understand how inhibitory control operates in a more
disadvantaged sample like the one in the present study. Second, unlike other studies that ignore the nested structure of their data,
the present study used multi-level modeling in order to accurately account for classroom-level effects on individual-level relations
between inhibitory control and teacher-rated social–emotional competence. Finally, few studies have isolated the specific impact
of inhibitory control (in the context of a working memory demand) by covarying factors already known to be associated with
social–emotional competence. The present study makes novel contributions by showing how children's performance on inhibitory
control tasks are significantly associated with teacher ratings of classroom behaviors in a relatively large sample of high risk,
ethnically diverse, low income preschoolers.
Despite the contributions made by the present study, there remain a number of areas of research that deserve furtherattention.
The present study provided evidence of the significant role of inhibitory control to social–emotional competence, but future
research should focus on examining the relationship between inhibitory control and other important developmental tasks in early
childhood, including school readiness and academic achievement (Blair, 2002). Researchers have already begun to examine the
associations between executive functions and academic skills. For instance, Espy et al. (2004) found that both working memory
and inhibitory control contribute to the prediction of early math skills after controlling for child's age, maternal education and
receptive vocabulary. Presumably, the development of these early neurocognitive abilities will lay the groundwork for the future
self-regulatory and problem-solving skills needed to succeed both socially and academically throughout the life course.
References
Arsenio, W. F., Cooperman, S., & Lover, A. (2000). Affective predictors of preschoolers' aggression and peer acceptance: Direct and indirect effects. Developmental
Psychology,36, 438–448.
Belsky, J., Friedman, S., & Hsieh, K. (20 01). Testing core emotion-regulation prediction: Does early attentional persistence moderate the effect of infant negative
emotionality on later development. Child Development,72,123–133.
Berlin, L., & Bohlin, G. (2002). Response inhibition, hyperactivity and conduct problems among preschool children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,31, 242–251.
Blair, C. (2002). School readiness, integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children's functioning at school entry. American
Psychologist,57, 111–127.
Blair, C. (2003). Behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation in young children: Relations with self-regulation and adaptation to preschool in children attending
Head Start. Developmental Psychobiology,43,301–311.
Blair, C., & Peters, R. (2003). Physiological and neurocognitive correlates of adaptive behavior in preschool among children in Head Start. Developmental
Neuropsychology,24,479–497.
Blair, C., Zelazo, P. D., & Greeberg, M. T. (2005). Introduction to the special issue on the measurement of executive function in early childhood. Developmental
Neuropsychology,28,561–571.
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology,53,371–399.
Broidy, L. M., Nagin, D. S., Tremblay, R. E., Bates, J. E., Brame, B., Dodge, K. A., et al. (2003). Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and
adolescent delinquency: A six site, cross-national study. Developmental Psychology,39, 222–245.
Brophy, M., Taylor, E., & Hughes, C. (2002). To go or not to go: Inhibitory control in ‘Hard to manage’children. Infant and Child Development,11,125–140.
Campbell, S. B., Pierce, E. W., March, C. L., Ewing, L. J., & Szumowski, E. K. (1994). Hard to manage preschool boys: Symptomatic behavior across context and time.
Child Development,65, 836–851.
Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Breton, C. (20 02). How specific is the relation between executive function and theory of mind? Contributions of inhibitory control and
working memory. Infant and Child Development,11,73–92.
Caspi, A., Moffitt, T., Wright, B., & Silva, P. (1998). Early failure in the labor market: Childhood and adolescent predictors of unemployment in the transition to
adulthood. American Sociological Review,63, 424–451.
Charman, T., Carroll, F., & Sturge, C. (2001). Theory of mind, executive function and social competence in boys with ADHD. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties,6,
31–49.
Cole, P. M., Usher, B. A., & Cargo, A. P. (1993). Cognitive risk and its association with risk for disruptive behavior disorder in preschoolers. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology,22,154–164 .
Dempster, F. N., & Corkhill, A. J. (1999). Interference and inhibition in cognition and behavior: Unifying themes for education psychology. Educational Psychology
Review,11,1–88.
Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulderr, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K., Auerbach-Major, S., et al. (2003). Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to social competence.
Child Development,74, 238–256.
Denham, S. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2004). Social–emotional learning in early childhood: What we know and where to go from here.In E. Chesebrough, T. P.King, T. P.
Gullotta, & M. Bloom (Eds.), A blueprint for the promotion of prosocial behavior in early childhood (pp. 13–50). New York: Kluwer/Academic Publishers.
Diamond, A. (1991). Frontal lobe involvement in cognitive changes during the first year of life. In K. R. Gibson & A.C. Petersen (Eds.), Brain maturation and cognitive
development: Comparative and cross-cultural perspectives. Foundations of human behavior (pp. 127−180). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Diamond, A. (2002). Normal development of prefrontal cortex from birth to young adulthood: Cognitive functions, anatomy and biochemistry. In D. T. Stuss & R.T.
Knight (Eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function (pp. 466–503). New York: Oxford University Press.
318 B.L. Rhoades et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 310–320
Diamond, A., Barnett, S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool improves cognitive control. Science,318(5855), 1387–1388.
Diamond, A., Kirkham, N., & Amso, D. (2002). Conditions under which young children can hold two rules in mind and inhibit a prepotent response. Developmental
Psychology,38, 352–362.
Diamond, A., & Taylor, C. (1996). Development of an aspect of executive control: Development of the abilities to remember what I said and to “do as I say, not as I do”.
Developmental Psychobiology,29,315–334.
Domitrovich, C. E., Cortes, R. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2007). Improving young children's social and emotional competence: A randomized trial of the Preschool PATHS
Curriculum. Journal of Primary Prevention,28,67–91.
Domitrovich, C. E., Greenberg, M. T., Cortes, R., & Kusche, C. A. (2005). The preschool PATHS curriculum. South Deerfield, MA: Channing-Bete.
Dowsett, S. M., & Livesey, D. J. (2000). The development of inhibitory control in preschool children: Effects of “executive skills”training. Developmental
Psychobiology,36,161–174.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test-revised: Manual for forms L and M. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Nyman, M., Bernzweig, J., & Pinuelas, A. (1994). The relations of emotionality and regulation to children's anger-related reactions. Child
Development,65,109–128.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Cumberland, A., Shepard, S. A., et al. (2004). The relations of effortful control and impulsivity to children's
resiliency and adjustment. Child Development,75,25–46.
Espy, K. A., McDiarmid, M. D., Cwik, M. F., Stalets, M. M., Hamby, A., & Senn, T. E. (2004). The contribution of executive functions to emergent mathematic skills in
preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology,26, 465–486.
Fine, S. E., Izard, C. E., Mostow, A. J., Trentacosta, C. J., & Ackerman,B. P. (2003). First grade emotion knowledge as a predictor of fifth grade self-reported internalizing
behaviors in children from economically disadvantaged families. Development and Psychopathology,15,331–342.
Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y., & Diamond, A. (1994).The relationship between cognition and action: Performance of children 3 1/2–7 years old on a Stroop-like day–night
test. Cognition,53,129–153.
Greenberg, M. T., Riggs, N., & Blair, C. (2007). The role of preventive interventions in enhancing neurocognitive functioning and promoting competence in
adolescence. In E. F. Walker & D. Romer (Eds.), Adolescent psychopathology and the developing brain: Integrating brain and prevention science (pp. 4 41–462). New
York: Oxford.
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., et al. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention through coordinated social,
emotional and academic learning. American Psychologist,58,466–474.
Henry, B., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T., & Silva, P. (1996). Temperamental and familial predictors of violent and nonviolent criminal convictions. Developmental Psychology,
32,614–623.
Howse, R. B., Calkins, S. D., Anastopoulos, A. D., Keane, S. P.,& Shelton, T. L. (2003). Regulatory contributors to children's kindergarten achievement. Early Education
and Development,14,101–11 9.
Hughes, C. (1998). Executive function in preschoolers: Links with theory of mind and verbal ability. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,16, 233–253.
Hughes, C., Cuttting, A. L., & Dunn, J. (2001). Acting nasty in the face of failure? Longitudinal observations of “hard-to-manage”children playing a rigged
competitive game with a friend. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,29, 403–416.
Hughes, C., Dunn, J., & White, A. (1998). Trick or treat?: Uneven understanding of mind and emotion and executive dysfunction in “hard-to-manage”preschoolers.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,39, 981–994.
Hughes, C., White, A., Sharpen, J., & Dunn, J. (20 00). Antisocial, angry, and unsympathetic: “Hard-to-manage”preschoolers' peer problems and possible cognitive
influences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,41,169–179.
Jimerson, S. R., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A., & Carlson, B. (2000). A prospective longitudinal study of high school dropouts: Examining multiple predictors across
development. Journal of School Psychology,38, 525–549.
Klingberg, T., Fernell, E., Olesen, P. J., Johnson, M., Gustafsson, P., Dahlstrom, K., et al. (2005). Computerized training of working memory in childrenwith ADHD—A
randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,44,177–186.
Kochanska, G., Coy, K. C., & Murray, K. T. (2001). The development of self-regulation in the first four years of life. Child Development,72, 1091–1111.
Kochanska, G., & Knaack, A. (2003). Effortful control as a personality characteristic of young children: Antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal of
Personality,71, 1087–1112.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social
development. Developmental Psychology,36, 220–232.
Kopp, C. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental view. Developmental Psychology,25, 343–354.
Kusche, C.A. (1984). The understanding of emotion concepts by deaf children: An assessment of an affective curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Washington, Seattle.
Kusche, C. A., Cook, E. T., & Greenberg, M. T. (1993). Neuropsychological and cognitive functioning in children with anxiety, externalizing and comorbid
psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,22,172–195.
Lavigne, J. V., Gibbons, R. D., Christoffel, K. K., Arend, R., Rosenbaum, D., Binns, H., et al. (1995). Prevalence rates and correlates of psychiatric disorders among
preschool children. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,35,204–214.
Luria, A. R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. New York: Basic Books.
Lynch, K. B., Geller, S. R., & Schmidt, M. G. (2004). Multi-year evaluation of the effectiveness of a resilience-based prevention program for young children. The
Journal of Primary Prevention,24, 335–353.
Malecki, C. K., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Children's social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly,17,
1–23.
Merrell, K. W. (1996). Socio–emotional assessment in early childhood: The preschool and kindergarten behavior scales. Journal of Early Intervention,20,132–145.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review,100,674–701.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Dickson, N., Silva, P., & Stanton, W. (1996). Childhood-onset versus adolescent-onset antisocial conduct problems in males: Natural history
from ages 3 to 18 years. Development and Psychopathology,8, 399–424.
Moses, L. J., Carlson, S. M., & Sabbagh, M. A. (2005). On the specificity of the relation between executive function and children's theories of mind. In W. Schneider, R.
Schumann-Hengsteler, & B. Sodian (Eds.), Young children's cognitive development: Interrelationships among executive functioning, working memory, verbal ability
and theory of mind (pp. 131–145). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Olson, S. L. (1989). Assessment of impulsivity in preschoolers: Cross-measure convergences, longitudinal stability, and relevance to social competence. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology,18,176–183.
Olson, S. L., & Hoza, B. (1993). Preschool developmental antecedents of conduct problems in children beginning school. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,22,
60–67.
Olson, S. L., Sameroff, A. J., Kerr, D. C. R., Lopez, N. L., & Wellman, H. M. (2005). Developmental foundations of externalizing problems in young children:The role of
effortful control. Development and Psychopathology,17,25–45.
Olson, S. L., Schilling, E. M., & Bates, J. E. (1999). Measurement of impulsivity: Construct coherence, longitudinal stability, and relationship with externalizing
problems in middle childhood and adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,27,151–165.
Pennington, B. F. (1997). Dimensions of executive functions in normal and abnormal development. In N. A. Krasnegar, G. R. Lyon & P.S. Goldman-Rakic (Eds.),
Development of the prefrontal cortex: Evolution, neurobiology and behavior (pp. 265–281). Baltimore: Paulth Brookes Publishing.
Perner, J., & Lang, B. (1999). Development of theory of mind and executive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,3,337–344.
Perner, J., Winfried, K., & Barchfeld, P. (2002). Executive control and higher-order theory of mind in children at risk of ADHD. Infant and Child Development,11,
141–158.
Quay, H. C. (1997). Inhibition and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,25,7–13.
Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (2004). Early learning and school readiness: Can early intervention make a difference. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,50,471–491.
319B.L. Rhoades et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 310–320
Raver,C. C., Blackburn, E. K., Bancroft, M., & Torp, N. (1999). Relations between effective emotional self-regulation, attentional control and low-income preschoolers'
social competence with peers. Early Education and Development,10, 333–350.
Riggs, N. R., Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., & Pentz, M. A. (2006). The mediational role of neurocognition in the behavioral outcomes of a social–emotional
prevention program in elementary school students: Effects of the PATHS Curriculum. Prevention Science,7,91–102.
Robins, L. N., & Price, R. K. (1991). Adult disorders predicted by childhood conduct problems: Results from the NIMH epidemiological catchment area project.
Psychiatry,54,116–132.
Roid, G., & Miller, L. (1997). Examiner's manual: Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting Co.
Rothbart, M. (1989). Temperament and development. In G. Kohnstamm, J. Bates & M. Rothbarts (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 187–247). New York: Wiley.
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994). Temperament and social behavior in childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,40,21–39.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3 Social, emotional and personality
development (pp. 105–176). New York: Wiley.
Rubia, K., Oosterlaan, J., Sergeant, J. A., Brandeis, D., & Leeuwen, T. (1998). Inhibitory dysfunction in hyperactive boys. Behavioural Brain Research,94,25–32.
Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., McCandliss, B. D., Saccomanno, L., & Posner, M. I. (2005). Training, maturation, and genetic influences on the development of executive
attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Scie nces,102,14931–14936.
Rueda, R. M., Posner, M., & Rothbart, M. K. (2005). The development of executive attention: Contributions to the emergence of self-regulation. Developmental
Neuropsychology,28,573–594.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods,7,147–177.
Schafer, J. L., & Olsen, M. K. (1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate missing data problems: A data analyst's perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research,33,
545–571.
Seguin, J. R. , & Zelazo, P. D. (2005). Executive f unction in early aggression . In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression
(pp. 307–329). New York: Guilford Press.
Serna, L., Nielsen, E., Lambros, K., & Forness, S. (2000). Primary prevention with children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders: Data on a universal
intervention for Head Start classrooms. Behavioral Disorders,26,70–84.
Shields, A., Dickstein, S., Seifer, R., Giusti, L., Magee, K. D., & Spritz, B. (2001). Emotional competence and early school adjustment: A study of preschoolers at risk.
Early Education and Development,12,73–96.
Songuga-Barke, E. J. S., Dalen, L., Daley, D., & Remmington, B. (2002). Are planning, working memory, and inhibition associated with individual differences in
preschool ADHD symptoms. Developmental Neuropsychology,,21, 255–272.
Speltz, M. L., DeKlyen, M., Calderon, R., Greenberg, M. T., & Fisher, P. A. (1999). Neuropsychological characteristics and test behaviors of boys with early onset
conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,108,315–325.
Spieker, S. J., Larson, N. C., Lewis, S. M., Keller, T. E., & Gilchrist, L. (1999). Developmental trajectories of disruptive behavior problems in preschool children of
adolescent mothers. Child Development,70,443–458.
Tremblay, R. E., Phil, R. O., Vitaro, F., & Dobkin, P.L. (1994). Predicting early onset of male antisocial behavior from preschool behavior. Archives of General Psychiatry,
51,732–739.
Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, M. J. (2003). Treating conduct problems and strengthening social and emotional competence in young children: The Dina Dinosaur
Treatment Program. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,11,130–143.
Weikert, D. P., & Schweinhart, L. J. (1997). High/Scope Perry Preschool Program.In G. Albee & T.P. Gullotta (Eds.), Primary prevention works (pp.146–166). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Welsh, M. C., & Pennington, B. F. (1988). Assessing frontal lobe functioning in children: Views from developmental psychology. Development Neuropsychology,4,
199 –230.
Welsh, M. C., Pennington, B. F., & Groisser, D. B. (1991). A normal-developmental study of executive function: A window on prefrontal function in children.
Developmental Neuropsychology,7,131–149 .
320 B.L. Rhoades et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 310–320
