Content uploaded by Peter Baggetta
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter Baggetta on Apr 21, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
MIND, BRAIN, AND EDUCATION
Conceptualization and
Operationalization of Executive
Function
Peter Baggetta1and Patricia A. Alexander1
ABSTRACT— Executive function is comprised of different
behavioral and cognitive elements and is considered to play a
significant role in learning and academic achievement. Edu-
cational researchers frequently study the construct. How-
ever, because of its complexity functionally, the research on
executive function can at times be both confusing and con-
tradictory. To attempt to bring some clarity to the construct,
a systematic review of contemporary empirical studies was
conducted. A PsycInfo database search was conducted and
106 empirical studies were selected for review. e analyses
explored specific aspects of these studies such as how execu-
tive function is defined and measured, and in what domains
and population groups is it studied. e resulting analyses
identified both points of convergence and divergence, as well
as issues with both the conceptualization and operational-
ization of executive function.
Achievement within educational context is often determined
at least in part by an individual’s ability to be successful in
a particular academic domain (Alexander & Judy, 1988;
Passolunghi & Lanfranchi, 2012). erefore, educational
researchers are continually in search of predictors or keys to
such academic success (Gustafsson & Balke, 1993; Karbach,
Gottschling, Spengler, Hegewald, & Spinath, 2013; Mattern
& Shaw, 2010). One popular trend to ascertain the keys
toacademicsuccessrestsongaugingtheroleofexecutive
function in human learning and performance (Cartwright,
2012; Espy et al., 2004; Gilmore & Cragg, 2014), which at its
most basic pertains to the control and regulation of thought
and action.
As evidence of the burgeoning popularity of executive
function as a domain of inquiry, a quick search of that term
1University of Maryland
Address correspondence to Peter Baggetta, Department of Human
Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742-1131; e-mail: baggetta@umd.edu
using the Google news search engine resulted in 15,900
hits with headlines such as “Executive function skills pre-
dict children’s success in life and in school” (Huffington Post,
June 2012); “Is executive function the new IQ?” (Newsweek,
June 2008); “5 reasons why every parent should be famil-
iar with executive functions” (ScientificLearning.com,March
2012), and “Executive function skills are essential to Amer-
ica’s present and future”(Huffington Post, April 2012). is
attention reflects the interest of parents and commercial
companies in the concept of executive function (Rabipour &
Raz, 2012). In fact, Rabipour and Raz found over 20 commer-
cial companies selling software claiming to enhance execu-
tive function related to academic performance, health, and
pathology by providing brain training.
Educators and researchers also have shown great interest
in executive function. In the past decade, extensive research
has been conducted on executive function. A search of
PsycInfo revealed 181 peer-reviewed studies in 2013 alone,
and over 1,400 peer-reviewed articles between 2000 and
2013 with the term executive function in the title. Fur-
ther, the literature is replete with evidence regarding the
importance of executive function in a variety of domains
and fields. Executive function has been proposed as con-
tributing to success in reasoning, reading comprehension,
and complex learning (Kane, Conway, Hambrick, & Engle,
2007), adult learning (Caine & Caine, 2006), decreasing
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms
(orell, Lindqvist, Nutley, Bohlin, & Klingberg, 2009),
school readiness and success (Diamond & Lee, 2011),
early detection of Alzheimer’s disease (Baddeley, 2012),
school psychology assessments (Reynolds & Horton, 2008),
and even success for soccer players (Vestberg, Gustafson,
Maurex, Ingvar, & Petrovic, 2012).
Examination of the literature on executive function leaves
little doubt this domain of cognitive control and behavioral
regulation is involved in numerous aspects of academics and
everydaylife.However,whatisattimesconfusingisthe
deeper and more specific definition of executive function
10 © 2016 International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Volume 10—Number 1
Peter Baggetta and Patricia A. Alexander
beyond the most cursory definition proffered. A number of
researchers (Banich, 2009; Braver, Cole, & Yarkoni, 2010;
Chun, Golomb, & Turk-Browne, 2011; McCabe, Roediger,
McDaniel, Balota, & Hambrick, 2010) have pointed to the
lack of agreement regarding executive function and the need
for a common language in order to understand its psycholog-
ical and theoretical mechanisms.
Because of the growing relevance of executive function
and heterogeneity in the use of executive function termi-
nology, a systematic analysis of the extant empirical litera-
ture on executive function was undertaken. e purpose of
this review was to conduct a systematic analysis of executive
function using the following guiding questions:
1 How is executive function defined or labeled within
the empirical literature? Specifically, is the term defined
implicitly or explicitly and what are the definitional
emphases?
2 Based on the definitions explicated in the literature, what
abilities, components or processes appear to constitute
executive function?
3 What domains and population groups does research on
executive function focus on?
4 How has executive function been assessed? What spe-
cifictaskshavebeenusedtomeasureexecutivefunction?
5 How does executive function contribute to human per-
formance, especially in the context of education and aca-
demic domains?
METHODS
Initial Search Parameters
Asthefirststepinconductingthesystematicreview,initial
search parameters were devised to guide the selection of
the literature for subsequent analysis. Among those param-
eters, it was determined that those publications that were
in peer-reviewed academic journals, printed in English,
dealt with human learning and performance, and that
were empirical in nature would be included. is excluded
non-empirical publications such as book chapters, theoret-
ical articles, other reviews of the literature, and scholarly
rebuttals. For example, the review articles on the nature
of executive function by Diamond (2013) and Jurado and
Rosselli (2007), as well as the review of executive function
in preschoolers by Garon, Bryson, and Smith (2008) were
excluded because they were summaries of research and
not empirical investigations. However, such review articles
were of value in locating additional empirical studies and in
helping to clarify and frame the findings of this review.
In addition, because the focus of this review was on the
current literature on executive function, the search was lim-
ited to those empirical works published since 2008. Using
these parameters, an initial search of the literature was
conducted in the PsycInfo database using the specific search
term executive function, resulting in a large pool of 4,631
studies.
Resulting Database
Because it was a principal goal of this review to explore the
conceptualization and operationalization of the construct of
executive function that populate the empirical literature, it
was determined that executive function was required to be
a central component in articles included for analysis. Yet,
we found that many studies with executive function among
the key words actually considered executive function only as
a secondary correlate to a variable or construct of primary
interest. us, it was decided that only those studies con-
taining executive function in the title or in the abstract would
be further examined. is narrowed the initial pool of 4,631
to 711 articles. Next, in order to further narrow and specify
the search, only those studies that examined how executive
functions predicted or contributed to human performance,
especially in educational settings, for typically developing
populations were considered, along with psychometric stud-
ies of executive function measures. ese additional crite-
ria meant that the large body of literature that examined
deficiencies of executive functions within atypical popula-
tions, explored the development of executive functions, or
addressed individual functional elements, was not included.
With these established criteria, a final pool of 106 studies
was analyzed and tabled by author and date of publication
according to key dimensions: domains, participants and
sample size, definition of the construct, aspects, measure-
ments and tasks, and outcomes. is resulting table is
reported in Table S1 (Supporting Information).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Conceptions of Executive Function
e first question investigated pertained to the conceptions
of executive function that populate the empirical litera-
ture. As a way to ascertain how researchers were defining
executive function, a detailed coding scheme was devised.
Specifically, studies were first coded based on whether or
not the term executive function was defined either explicitly
(E), or implicitly (I) and further delineated on the basis of
subcategories detailed in the ensuing sections. To ascertain
the reliability of the overall coding scheme, three raters
independently coded all 106 studies with a resulting level of
agreement of α=0.86. Differences in coding were resolved
by discussion and coming to consensus for that definition.
Explicit Definitions
Definitions were coded as explicit if authors stated a
definition of executive function that addressed both its
Volume 10—Number 1 11
Executive Function
salient attributes and its sphere of influence. For example,
Ahmed and Miller (2011) defined executive function as
“higher-order cognitive processes involved in goal-oriented
behavior, such as planning and sequencing” (p. 667). Both
the salient attribute (i.e., higher-order cognitive processes),
and the sphere of influence (i.e., goal-oriented behavior)
are explicitly defined by Ahmed and Miller. Similarly,
Davis-Unger and Carlson (2008) define executive function
as “skills that serve to monitor and control thought and
action” (p. 129), with skills being the salient attribute and
thought and action the sphere of influence. Based on these
criteria, the concept of executive function was explicitly
defined in 59% of the studies reviewed.
e explicit definitions were further examined to deter-
mine the source of the definitions provided in the study.
A total of 27% of the explicit definitions were presented
with no supporting reference, and were thus categorized
as researcher-developed definitions. e remaining 73% of
the studies with explicit definitions contained one or more
references to support the definition. However, no single
source or researcher emerged as a key reference marker for
the definition of executive functions. Instead, when defin-
ing executive function, researchers referenced 61 different
sources, with no single reference cited more than five times.
Explicit definitions are indicated by the letter E, and the
researcher-developed explicit definitions as E(r) in Table
S1. (More information on the references cited in both the
explicit and implicit definitions appear in the Definitional
References section of this review.)
Implicit Definitions
As has been done in prior research (Murphy & Alexander,
2000; Dinsmore, Alexander, & Loughlin, 2008), the contents
of studies that relied on implicit definitions of executive
function were also analyzed and categorized on the basis
of whether the implied meaning was communicated via
select words or phrases (conceptual), citations (referential),
both words and citations (conceptual-referential), and by
the assessments or tasks used (measurement). To ascertain
the reliability of the implicit coding scheme, the same three
raters independently coded the 43 implicit definitions with
a resulting level of agreement of α=0.83. When a difference
in coding was encountered, the raters discussed and agreed
on the best coding for that implicit definition.
Specifically, implicit definitions were coded as conceptual
definitions (C) when the authors did not expressly state a
definition, but instead defined executive function through
related concepts or a model (e.g., Bull, Espy, & Wiebe,
2008a), or provided phrases that alluded to the meaning
(e.g., Black, Semple, Pokhrel, & Grenard, 2011). For example,
Bull et al. (2008a); Bull, Phillips, and Conway (2008b) never
directly defined executive function but instead mention that
executive functions include the components of inhibition,
shifting, and updating. By comparison, when authors were
not direct or explicit in their definitions, but rather provided
references as markers for definitions, studies were coded
as having referential definitions (R). For instance, in lieu
of an explicit definition, Hall, Fong, Epp, and Elias (2008)
referenced an article by Norman and Shallice (1986) to
establish their intended meaning.
Some authors implicitly defined executive function both
conceptually and referentially, and these were dual-coded
with (C/R). For example, Foy and Mann (2013) defined exec-
utive function implicitly by stating that executive function
includes subcomponent processes such as focusing, sustain-
ing and shifting attention, working memory, and inhibition.
In addition, these authors made reference to several key
studies to substantiate their position of executive function,
including works by Banich (2009), Friedman et al. (2006),
and Miyake et al. (2000).
In the rare case when the authors provided no explicit def-
initions or did not indirectly define executive function con-
ceptually or referentially, they instead operationalized the
term through the use of a measure. ese were coded as mea-
surement definitions (M). For instance, Soltész, Goswami,
White, and Sz˝
ucs (2011) did not provide a definition of exec-
utive function but used a numerical Stroop paradigm to
operationalize executive function in their investigation. Sim-
ilarly, Lee et al. (2012) also did not provide a definition but
operationalized executive function using the measures digit
span backwards and trail making tasks.
All implicit definitions are identified in Supplementary
Table 1 a s I ,along with the identified subcategories (C, R,
C/R, or M). Overall, 41% of the reviewed studies were coded
as implicitly defined. Of the implicit definitions, 43% were
conceptual definitions, 39% conceptual-referential defini-
tions, 11% referential definitions, and 7% measurement def-
initions.
Definitional Analysis
Once all of the studies were coded for specificity of defini-
tions (e.g., explicit or implicit), those identified as explicit
were further analyzed to better assess the attributes and
spheres of influence that the definitions entailed. e goal
herewastoinvestigatethelanguageauthorsusetodefine
their conceptions of executive function, and to determine
whether there are commonalities or differences in the
attributes and spheres of influence of executive function
addressed in explicit definitions. For this definitional anal-
ysis, a word-level analysis was undertaken by generating
a frequency count of key words and phrases used in the
definitions.
Salient Attributes. is word-level analysis resulted in a
catalogueof25differentattributesusedtodescribethe
12 Volume 10—Number 1
Peter Baggetta and Patricia A. Alexander
composition of executive function. e frequency of word
use ranged from 1 to 16 occurrences. e most commonly
stated attribute was cognitive processes (n=16), followed
by higher-order cognitive processes (n=10). e major-
ity of attributes were only referenced once (n=15), and
these included attributes such as on-line processes (Clark,
Pritchard, & Woodward, 2010); self-regulatory abilities
(Kelly, Dissanayake, Ihsen, & Hammond, 2011); hypotheti-
cal processes (Monette, Bigras, & Guay, 2011); psychological
processes (Riccio, Hewitt, & Blake, 2011); and behavioral
skills (Peters, Algina, Smith, & Daunic, 2012). e complete
list of attributes identified by key words and phrases to
define executive function is provided in Table S2.
Spheres of Influence. e word-level analysis also resulted in
a list of 24 different spheres of influence that operationalize
executive function. e frequency of their use ranged from a
single to 28 occurrences. ese 28 occurrences were further
grouped into four major spheres of influence of executive
function: goal-directed behaviors; action and thoughts; cog-
nition; and self-regulation of behaviors, cognition and emo-
tions. Two doctoral students independently grouped all 24
identified spheres of influence with a high level of agreement
(𝛂>.89). When a difference in classification was encoun-
tered, the raters discussed and agreed on the best group for
that specific sphere of influence.
e largest category (57%) defined executive function as
performing some type of goal-oriented, goal-directed, or
future-oriented action, behavior, or response (e.g., Beck,
Schaefer, Pang, & Carlson, 2011; Henning, Spinath, & Asch-
ersleben, 2011; Peters et al., 2012). In this sphere of influence,
executive function involves intentionality or allowing an
individual to intentionally do something. Some of the defi-
nitions specifically identified the specific intentional actions
and behaviors, including problem solving (Kotsopoulos &
Lee, 2012), planning (Ahmed & Miller, 2011), impulse or
inhibitory control (Pharo, Sim, Graham, Gross, & Hayne,
2011), and working memory (Sesma, Mahone, Levine,
Eason, & Cutting, 2009). However, these explicitly identified
goal-directed behaviors can raise confusion, as they have
also been identified in the literature by other authors as
components of executive function (i.e., planning, problem
solving, working memory, and inhibitory control).
e next largest category (19%) narrowed the sphere of
influence of executive function to thought and action (e.g.,
Adrian, Postal, Moessinger, Rascle, & Charles, 2011; Gar-
ner, 2009; Monette et al., 2011). e third category (13%)
further narrowed the sphere of influence by linking execu-
tive function specifically with just cognition. is sphere of
influence included executive function impacting cognition
in general (e.g. Agostino, Johnson, & Pascual-Leone, 2010),
lower-level or simple cognition (e.g., Bakos et al., 2008),
complex cognitive processes (e.g., Bierman, Nix, Greenberg,
Blair, & Domitrovich, 2008; Mäntylä, Runnland, & Kliegel,
2010), or other cognitive processes (e.g. Lee, Ng, Bull, Pe,
& Ho, 2011). For instance, Lee et al. (2011) define executive
function as “cognitive processes that control, direct, or coor-
dinate other cognitive processes” (p. 270). e fourth cate-
gory (11%) characterized the sphere of influence of executive
function as involving the self-regulation of emotions, along
with cognition and behaviors (e.g., Lan, Legare, Ponitz, Li,
& Morrison, 2011; Zelazo et al., 2013). is analysis of the
spheres of influence of executive function as stated in the
explicit definitions revealed trends in how authors differen-
tially conceptualized executive function. Some descriptions
reflected the sphere of influence as being rather large (i.e.,
goal-directed behaviors), whereas others viewed the sphere
as being quite narrow (i.e., cognition).
Overall, the high variability of the attributes and spheres
of influence of executive function used in the literature ana-
lyzed muddles rather than clarifies any greater consensus of
an organizing definition of executive function. In fact, some
of the studies we reviewed acknowledged the difficulty and
confusion around defining executive function and that quite
often definitions vary substantially (Best, Miller, & Naglieri,
2011; Foy & Mann, 2013; ibaut, French, & Vezneva, 2010).
Definitional References
When coding the definitions, a total of 83 different refer-
ences were used to either explicitly or implicitly define the
construct of executive function. Out of the 83 published
reports, 23 were cited multiple times. e single most cited
reference (n=11) was the Miyake et al. (2000) article, with
no other article cited more than five times. However, there
were bodies of work by certain researchers that were cited
multiple times. Works by Miyake and Friedman were cited
most frequently (n=17), followed by Zelazo and Carlson
(n=16), Welsh and Pennington (n=11), and Baddeley, Roy-
all, and Shallice, whose studies were cited six times each.
Different fundamental orientations of executive function
appear to differentiate these commonly referenced works.
e definitions of Friedman and Miyake (e.g., Friedman
et al., 2006; Miyake et al., 2000) imply a structural perspec-
tive; that is, there are separate and distinguishable dimen-
sions of executive function. By comparison, Carlson and
Zelazo (e.g., Carlson, Zelazo, & Faja, 2013; Zelazo, Carlson,
& Kesek, 2008) described executive function as a functional
construct that defines the term by accomplishments. Welsh
and Pennington (e.g., Welsh & Pennington, 1988; Welsh,
Pennington, & Groisser, 1991) focus more on individual dif-
ferences, defining executive function as an ability or possible
behavioral marker of prefrontal cortex functioning. ese
authors define executive function as “the ability to maintain
an appropriate problem-solving set for attainment of a future
goal” (Welsh, Pennington, Ozonoff, Rouse, & McCabe, 1990,
Volume 10—Number 1 13
Executive Function
p. 1699). In contrast, Royall (e.g., Royall et al., 2002; Royall
& Mahurin, 1996) does not use the term executive function,
but instead uses the phrase executive control functions,and
suggests that these functions are learned or acquired skills
associated with higher cognitive functions such as insight,
will, abstraction, and judgment. Both Baddeley (e.g., Badde-
ley, 1992, 1996; Repov & Baddeley, 2006), and Shallice (e.g.,
Burgess & Shallice, 1996; Norman & Shallice, 1986) take
another perspective in their communication of executive
function, conveying this construct as a supervisory system
that is responsible for organizing and carrying out differ-
ent cognitive processes. Similar to Royall, Baddeley actually
does not use the term executive function,butinsteadusesthe
term central executive for this homoncular or central ability.
e aforementioned referential differences may not be
conceptually problematic per se, but several concerns in our
interpretation did arise. First, there were instances when
authors relied on multiple references to establish their def-
inition of executive function, but those selected references
represented contrasting orientations toward the construct
(e.g., structural and ability). For example, Kolkman, Hoi-
jtink, Kroesbergen, and Leseman (2013) cite both Badde-
ley (1996) and Miyake et al. (2000) in their definition of
executive function, which may suggest a conceptualization
of executive function as both individual structures and a
supervisory system. It becomes even more confusing with
Kotsopoulos and Lee (2012) referencing Baddeley (1996).
Miyake et al. (2000), and Zelazo et al. (2003), as each of these
references offers a different orientation of executive func-
tion. ere also were instances when the definitions stated by
an author did not align with the cited reference. For instance,
an author may define executive function as a group of multi-
ple processes, but then cite Baddeley or Shallice studies that
regarded executive function as a more supervisory system
(e.g., Fournier-Vicente, Larigauderie, & Gaonach, 2008; Tre-
gay, Gilmour, & Charman, 2009). Conversely, an author may
define executive function as control processes but cite stud-
ies that proposed executive function as a skill (e.g., Brown,
Collier, & Night, 2013; Del Missier, Mäntylä, & Bruin, 2012).
One of the apparent implications of these definitional
ambiguities is the added complexity it presents for those
seeking to understand the potential or demonstrated
relation between executive function and academic perfor-
mance. Without better specification, there will undoubtedly
be seemingly conflicting outcomes that arise when the role
of executive function is investigated within educational con-
texts or for performance in academic domains. Moreover,
any effort to build predictive models that can be rigorously
tested within the realm of education will remain hampered
due to conceptual variability that may ultimately translate
into operational variability. A conscious effort by researchers
to always explicitly define executive function, to be as pre-
cise and consistent as possible with the language used, and
to carefully align the references with the definitions, may
help to reduce the conceptual and operational variability of
executive function, and thereby reduce the confusion for
educators of the relation between executive function and
academic performance.
Further, coming to terms with the core definition of exec-
utive function would allow researchers to better address
questions of its domain-general or domain-specific charac-
ter. Is executive function, as some suggest, a general capacity
that undergirds all human academic performance? Or is
there a domain-specific nature to executive function such
that its manifestation in mathematics is markedly distinct
from what is seen in reading or writing? Of course, it may
well be that executive function operates both at a general
and a domain-specific level. In effect, what exists as a general
capacity can also iterate when these structures, individual
differences, or supervisory system are repeatedly enacted
within particular academic domains or disciplines over
time. Yet, any attempt to explore such questions requires
some core or agreed-upon definition to guide interpretation
within the myriad of general or domain-specific contexts
that will certainly arise when investigations of executive
function are nested within the dynamic and highly variable
educational system.
Executive Function Components and Processes
Often researchers refer to specific individual abilities, com-
ponents, subcomponents or processes or some combination
of individual abilities, components, subcomponents or pro-
cesses under the label executive functions, atermwhichis
usedsynonymouslywithexecutivefunctionandcancreate
confusion for readers. Specifically, upon examining the
literature, researchers identified 39 different components
or processes as executive functions, and 38% of these were
mentioned only once in the 106 studies. Some of these exec-
utive functions mentioned only once included mindfulness
(Black et al., 2011), sequencing (Mitchell & Miller, 2008),
vigilance (Unsworth et al., 2009), and empathy (Garner,
2009). e complete list of components and processes by
frequencyisprovidedinTableS3.
e most frequently mentioned component of executive
function was inhibitory control or response inhibition,which
was described in 68% of the studies. Response inhibition or
inhibitory control is usually defined as the ability to delib-
erately control or inhibit dominant or automatic, behav-
iors, responses, or thoughts (e.g., Causse, Dehais, & Pastor,
2011; Mäntylä et al., 2010). e next most mentioned abil-
ity was working memory (35%)—the ability to maintain a
task or idea in mind while rapidly adding relevant informa-
tion or deleting irrelevant information in response to task
demands (e.g., Miyake et al., 2000). Another 30% of stud-
ies mentioned updating, which is often closely linked to or
14 Volume 10—Number 1
Peter Baggetta and Patricia A. Alexander
used interchangeably with working memory in the literature
(e.g., Brydges, Reid, Fox, & Anderson, 2012; Lee et al., 2011).
Updating is frequently described as the updating of working
memory (e.g., Albinet, B oucard, Bouquet, & Audiffren, 2012)
or the updating of information in working memory (e.g., Vet-
ter, Altgassen, Phillips, Mahy, & Kliegel, 2013).
e third most mentioned term was shifting or set shifting
(31%), generally defined as the ability to intentionally move
backward and forward between tasks, mental sets, or goals
(Best et al., 2011; Friedman et al., 2006). Shifting is also called
cognitive flexibility and switching. Some authors explicitly
explained that shifting, flexibility, and switching are similar
constructs (e.g., Bierman et al., 2008); however, in other
studies authors have proposed flexibility and switching (e.g.,
Floyd, Bergeron, Hamilton, & Parra, 2010), or flexibility and
shifting, as being different (e.g., Huh et al., 2011; Schiebener,
Zamarian, Delazer, & Brand, 2011). Other terms mentioned
multiple times included planning (12%; e.g., Rabin, Fogel,
& Nutter-Upham, 2011; Tregay et al., 2009), and attention
(10%; e.g., Sadeh, Burns, & Sullivan, 2012; Van der Elst et al.,
2012).
Several authors also posited that there are different lev-
els or complexities of executive functions and differentiate
these by labeling them as higher-order executive functions
or core executive functions. Some executive functions that
have been proposed as higher-order are planning (e.g., Clark
et al., 2010; Kroesbergen, Van Luit, Van Lieshout, Van Loos-
broek, & Van de Rijt, 2009), and attention (Pronk, Karre-
mans, & Wigboldus, 2011), and these higher-order executive
functions are conceptualized as the products or integration
of core executive functions such as inhibition, updating, and
shifting. Shifting (also referred to as flexibility or switching)
has also been described as a higher-order executive function
that requires both inhibition and updating in order to cogni-
tively shift or switch mental sets (e.g., Mäntylä et al., 2010).
Overall, the lack of clarity on the conceptualization of
executive function seems to lend itself to a proliferation of
the number of components or processes that are labeled as
executive functions, which in turn can lead to a “kitchen
sink” approach of identifying or labeling a multitude of
abilities, components, and processes as executive functions.
Further, labeling individual components or processes syn-
onymously as executive functions serves to muddle the
construct and understanding of executive function. At a
minimum, researchers should try to avoid labeling individ-
ual components and processes as executive functions, but
instead specify the difference between executive function
as an overall construct and the individual components or
processes that may serve to make up executive function. In
addition, it might make it less confusing to readers if those
higher-order functions such as planning and attention are
labeled or identified as higher-order thinking or cognitive
processes and not as higher-order executive functions. Our
goal is that this review will encourage those who engage
in research in executive function to pay closer attention to
their choice of terminology.
Models of Executive Function
Where there seems to be general consensus in the liter-
ature is on the fact that executive function is a multidi-
mensional rather than unidimensional construct. In fact,
79% of the studies examined in this review conceptualized
executive function as multidimensional; that is, comprised
of a number of distinct and separate components or pro-
cesses. e remaining 21% either proposed executive func-
tion as a unitary or single dimensional construct, or sim-
ply did not discuss executive function as either unitary or
non-unitary. Some of the researchers who proposed a uni-
tary structure or domain-general process of executive func-
tion suggested that executive function initially manifests in
infants and preschool children as unitary. However, these
researchers allowed that executive function likely develops
into a multidimensional construct with age (e.g., Miller,
Giesbrecht, Muller, McInerney, & Kerns, 2012; Wiebe et al.,
2011). Where researchers disagreed was on what the spe-
cific model of executive function is; that is, how many com-
ponents or processes make up executive function, and how
much they are interrelated or independent.
Among the reviewed studies, researchers investigated
or referenced 48 different models of executive function.
e single most commonly cited model was the Miyake
et al. (2000) model (n=34 occurrences). In this model, the
researchers proposed an integrative framework of both a
unitary construct of executive function and three separate
but related components (i.e., updating, set shifting, and inhi-
bition) with an underlying common mechanism. A very sim-
ilar model referenced in another six of the reviewed studies
was the Diamond (2006, 2013) model. Diamond also pro-
posed executive function as a multidimensional construct
with three core domains: inhibition, working memory, and
cognitive flexibility. Where Diamond (2006, 2013) differs
from Miyake’s model is that Diamond posits the three core
executive functions work together to build more complex or
higher-order “executive functions” such as reasoning, prob-
lem solving, and planning. Further, there is no common or
underlying unitary mechanism in Diamond’s model, in con-
trast to Miyake’s conceptualization.
A number of other researchers (n=43) proposed or
investigated their own researcher-developed multidi-
mensional model of executive function, often using
aspects of both the Miyake and Diamond models. For
example, Chung and McBride-Chang (2011) investi-
gated two aspects as potential predictors of early reading
development (i.e., working memory and inhibitory control).
Volume 10—Number 1 15
Executive Function
ese researcher-developed models differed in the num-
ber of components and processes (i.e., two to six different
components or processes) and also the complexity of the
executive function (i.e., higher-level or core processes). For
example, Garcia-Barrera, Kamphaus, and Bandalos (2011)
posited a model of four higher-level control components
(i.e., attentional control, behavioral control, emotional con-
trol, and problem solving), while Gilhooly and Fioratou
(2009) proposed a model of two core components (i.e.,
inhibition and switching). In addition, there were differ-
ences between the researcher-developed models regarding
whether the components in the model act relatively inde-
pendently in producing top-down or higher-order cognitive
processes (e.g., Pronk et al., 2011), or operate in a hierar-
chically manner with both distinct subcomponents and an
underlying common ability such as attention (e.g., Roebers,
Rothlisberger, Cimeli, Michel, & Neuenschwander, 2011) or
inhibition (e.g., Pnevmatikos & Trikkaliotis, 2013).
Two models among the reviewed studies proposed exec-
utive function as a single monolithic model or theory of
unity, with the emphasis and research not on the struc-
ture of executive function, but on the functions and pro-
cesses involved in controlling behavior. e first of these
two models (referenced by three authors) was the Badde-
ley multi-component model of working memory (Baddeley,
2000; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974), in which executive function is
a unitary or central component, called the central executive,
that regulates various sub-processes (e.g., Andersson, 2008)
within the working memory model. e second model was
the model of “hot” and “cool” executive functions proposed
by Zelazo, Carter, Reznick, and Frye (1997) and Zelazo et al.
(2003), referenced by five authors. e Zelazo model pro-
poses that there are two dimensions of executive function,
a cognitive control or regulation dimension, which includes
executive functions labeled as cool, and an emotional control
or regulation dimension, which is labeled as a hot execu-
tive function. A relatively small number of other researchers
(n=5) also proposed their own research-developed unitary
models of executive function; some of these researchers
started out investigating a multi-component model, but their
findings resulted in a single factor model of executive func-
tion (e.g., Brydges et al., 2012; Wiebe et al., 2011). e mod-
els of executive function with their specific components are
presented in Table 1.
Domain and Population Groups
e 106 studies were grouped into five categories on the
basis of the fields expressly mentioned within the study
methods—academics, social functioning, cognitive abilities,
human performance, and psychometric studies. e break-
down by domain and content areas is presented in Table S4.
Tabl e 1
Executive Function Models with Components
Model f Components
Researcher-developed 43 See Table S1
Miyake et al. (2000) 35 Shifting
Inhibition
Updating
No model 10
Diamond (2006) 6 Inhibitory control
Working memory
Cognitive flexibility
“Hot” and “Cool” 5 Cognitive control/
regulation/problem
solving
Emotional control/
regulation/problem
solving
Working memory
Attentional control
Planning
Monitoring
Inhibitory control
Unitary model 4
Baddeley and Hitch (1974) 3 Central executive
Domains
e category of academics, which pertains to general or
subject-specific academic performance (e.g., mathematics
or reading), contained the most studies (31%). Within the
category, the bulk of the studies concerned mathematics
(n=17). e large number of studies investigating the rela-
tion between mathematics and executive function (e.g.,
Clark et al., 2010; Kolkman et al., 2013; Soltész et al., 2011)
is understandable, as aspects of executive function such
as inhibitory control, working memory, and shifting are
thought to be important to mathematical ability (Bull &
Scerif, 2001; Cragg & Gilmore, 2014; St Clair-ompson &
Gathercole, 2006).
e category with the next highest number of studies was
social functioning (22%). Social functioning can be thought
of as the interrelationship of cognitive and social aspects of
behavior, such as how an individual operates within a social
context, responds to social patterns, and regulates his or her
self and social interactions. e two most common areas
within this category were studies that examined the rela-
tion between executive functions and self-regulation (n=11;
e.g., Bridgett, Oddi, Laake, Murdock, & Bachmann, 2012;
Patrick, Blair, & Maggs, 2008), and theory of mind (n=7;
e.g., Bull et al., 2008b; Davis-Unger & Carlson, 2008). Stud-
ies examining the association of executive functions and
memory (Mäntylä et al., 2010; Piolino et al., 2010), decision
making (e.g., Del Missier et al., 2012; Schiebener, Wegmann,
Pawlikowski, & Brand, 2012), problem solving and reason-
ing (e.g., Gilhooly & Fioratou, 2009; Richland & Burchinal,
2013), and intelligence (e.g., Brydges et al., 2012; Duan, Wei,
16 Volume 10—Number 1
Peter Baggetta and Patricia A. Alexander
Wang, & Shi, 2010) were grouped into the domain cate-
gory of cognitive abilities (19%). e final domain category,
human performance, included studies that examined the
relation between executive function and physical activity,
motor control, timing, nutrition, sleep, driving, flying , music,
playing sports, and public speaking (e.g., Brown et al., 2013;
Causse et al., 2011; Vaughan & Giovanello, 2010). ese
studies accounted for 13% of the empirical studies reviewed.
Psychometric Studies
In addition to the 91 empirical studies of executive function
that were grouped into the four domain categories, 15
empirical psychometric studies of executive function were
also reviewed. e psychometric studies fell into one of two
areas, studies that examined the reliability and validity (60%)
of an instrument, and studies that examined either the factor
structure of executive functions or the factor structure of an
instrument used to measure executive function (40%). Stud-
ies of reliability and validity included both well known and
used neuropsychological tests like the NEPSY-II: A Devel-
opmental Neuropsychological Assessment (e.g., Molfese
et al., 2010) and the Delis-Kaplan executive function system
(D-KEFS) (Mitchell & Miller, 2008), as well as new (e.g.,
NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery; Zelazo et al., 2013) or
researcher-developed instruments specific to the study (i.e.,
Self-Knowledge Questionnaire; Necka, Lech, Sobczyk, &
Smieja, 2012). e NEPSY-II was the only instrument that
had more than one psychometric study (n=4).
ree studies utilized confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
to examine the factor structure of executive functions. Two
of the studies (Miller et al., 2012; van der Ven, Kroesbergen,
Boom, & Leseman, 2013) attempted to replicate the Miyake
et al. (2000) three-factor model of executive function; how-
ever, both studies found that a two-factor model was the best
fitting model for their data. Fournier-Vicente et al. (2008)
examined the factor structure of executive function using a
six-factor model and found the CFA analyses indicated that a
five-factor model of five separate but related latent variables
was the model that best represented the data.
ree studies used CFA to examine the factor structure
of an instrument measuring executive function. Two stud-
ies examined the factor structure of generalized, reliable
instruments, the Behavior Assessment System for Children
(BASC) (Garcia-Barrera et al., 2011) and the Behavior Rat-
ing Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) (Peters et al.,
2012), and one study examined the factor structure of a new
instrument, the Amsterdam Executive Function Inventory
(Van der Elst et al., 2012).
Population Groups
To examine any trends or patterns in the ages and grades
of the participants in the reviewed studies, the participants
Tabl e 2
Studies by Population Group
Population group fPercent
Infants and toddlers (0–3 years old) 11 7
Young children (4–5 years old) 36 23
Children (6–12 years old) 45 29
Adolescents (13–18 years old) 13 8
Adults (19–59 years old) 38 25
Older adults (60+years old) 11 7
in these studies were sorted into six population groups, but
at the same time allowing for multiple population groups
within a single study. e six population groups were infants
and toddlers (0–3 years old), young children (4–5 years old),
children (6–12 years old), adolescents (13–18 years old),
adults (19–59 years old), and older adults (60+years old).
ree population groups accounted for over 77% of the stud-
ies. ese were children (29%), followed by adults (25%) and
young children (23%). Fewer studies investigated executive
functions with adolescents (8%), infants and toddlers (7%),
and older adults (7%). e studies reviewed by population
group are presented in Table 2.
Foci of Domain by Population Group
e foci of domain for each population group were also
examined to see if there were any specific trends in terms
of what domains researchers were studying in specific popu-
lation groups. e complete 2 ×2matrixisfoundinTable3.
Studies with young children (40%) and children (49%) domi-
nated the academic domain (e.g., Agostino et al., 2010; Foy &
Mann, 2013; Willoughby, Kupersmidt, & Voegler-Lee, 2012)
with very few studies or no studies with infants and tod-
dlers (2%) and older adults (0%). is was not unexpected
as infants and toddlers have not yet started their academic
careers and most older adults are no longer in school. How-
ever, what was surprising was the relatively small number of
studies that examined the relation between executive func-
tions and academics in adolescents (7%; e.g., Best et al., 2011;
Kotsopoulos & Lee, 2012).
e three youngest population groups of infants and
toddlers, young children, and children dominated the social
functioning domain, accounting for 61% of the studies
reviewed. is was not surprising, given that many of the
studies within the domain examined concepts such as the-
ory of mind, which relates to development during childhood
(Harris, 2006; Wellman, Fang, & Peterson, 2011), play, and
false-belief understanding. e largest single population
group researchers investigated in the social functioning
domain was adults (33%) and the majority of the studies
involved the concept of self-regulation (e.g., Bridgett et al.,
2012; Rabin et al., 2011). Surprisingly, fewer studies in the
Volume 10—Number 1 17
Executive Function
Tabl e 3
Studies by Population Group and Domain
Domain
Population group Academics Social functioning Cognitive abilities Human performance Psychometrics
Infants/toddlers 1 6 0 0 4
Young children 18 9 3 0 6
Children 22 9 6 2 6
Adolescents 3 3 3 1 3
Adults 1 13 8 15 1
Older adults 0 0 5 5 1
Total (percent) 45(29) 40(26) 25(16) 23(15) 21(14)
domain of social functioning investigated adolescent pop-
ulations (8%), even though adolescence is thought to be a
time of diminished self-control and regulation (Casey &
Caudle, 2013; Steinberg, 2007).
ree population groups—adults (32%), children (24%),
and older adults (20%)—dominated the studies that investi-
gated cognitive abilities and executive functions. Once again,
it was found that a relatively small number of researchers
focused on adolescents. In the domain of human perfor-
mance, the majority of studies were with adults (65%) and
older adults (22%). e majority of these studies looked at
the concepts of physical activity and motor control (e.g., Hall
et al., 2008; Holm, Ullén, & Madison, 2013) and how exec-
utive function processes may impact them. e majority of
studies were focused on adult populations because the abil-
ity to perform many of the activities grouped under human
performance, such as driving (e.g., Adrian et al., 2011) or fly-
ing (e.g., Causse et al., 2011), would require one to be older.
Overall, a limited number of studies were found that inves-
tigated how executive function processes might influence
different aspects of human performance. In particular, very
few studies examined the relation between executive func-
tion and concepts such as physical activity and sleep with the
younger populations. When examining psychometric stud-
ies by population groups, three population groups accounted
for the majority of the psychometric studies, young children
(29%), children (29%), and infants and toddlers (19%). ere
were some psychometric studies that included adolescents
(14%) and relatively fewer studies with adults (5%) and older
adults (5%).
Overall, three general patterns emerged from the foci
of domain by population group examination of the studies
reviewed. First, the vast majority of studies (87%) of younger
populations (infants and toddlers, young children, and
children) were within the domains of academics and social
functioning. Second, studies of executive function in older
populations (adults and older adults) focused predominantly
in the domains of cognitive abilities and human performance
(70%). ird, few studies investigated executive function in
adolescents.
is lack of attention to adolescent populations is espe-
cially salient given that adolescence is considered as a period
of significant cognitive and social development (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002). As students transition into high school
and later into college, increased demands are placed on
self-regulation, decision making, and problem solving. Con-
currently, the educational literature is replete with stud-
ies that illustrate that adolescence is a time of decreasing
motivation toward learning, yet, paradoxically, a phase in
the lifespan where the foundation for the development of
expertise is more firmly established (Alexander, 2003; Ryan,
2001). ere is likewise a rich literature on the maturation
of the adolescent brain that emphasizes this period as a
critical point in the development of the prefrontal cortex
(PFC)—in particular the medial PFC and the parietotempo-
ral cortex—associated with executive function (Choudhury,
Charman, & Blakemore, 2008; Dumontheil, 2014). However,
despite these compelling cognitive, social, and physical rea-
sons, relatively few studies have investigated the relation
between executive function and educational performance of
adolescents.
Executive Function Assessments
e fourth research question examined what specific
tasks researchers used to measure executive functions.
Researchers used 11 different batteries, a set of subtests
or scales that either measure different aspects of execu-
tive function or provide a composite executive function
score, and 109 different individual tasks to assess executive
functions.
Batteries
e most common battery used to assess executive function
was the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS;
Delis, Kaplan, & Kramer, 2001), a battery of nine subtests
that can be administered to individuals between 8 and 89
years of age, and measures nine components of executive
function. ese nine components are (1) cognitive flexi-
bility, (2) verbal fluency, (3) design fluency, (4) inhibition,
18 Volume 10—Number 1
Peter Baggetta and Patricia A. Alexander
Tabl e 4
Executive Function Batteries and Scales
Batteries and scales fTyp e
D-KEFS 7 Performance-based
Behavior Rating
Inventory of Executive
Function (BRIEF)
6 Behavioral rating (parent
and teacher)
Woodcock–Johnson Test
of Cognitive Abilities
3 Performance-based
NEPSY-II 2 Performance-based
Behavior Assessment
System for Children
(BASC)
2 Behavioral rating
(teacher)
Amsterdam Executive
Function Inventory
(AEFI)
1 Behavioral rating
(self-report)
Ballet Executive Scale
(BES)
1 Behavioral rating
(self-report)
Executive Function Index
(EFI)
1 Behavioral rating
(self-report)
Mindful Attention
Awareness Scale
(MAAS)
1 Behavioral rating
(self-report)
Self-Knowledge
Questionnaire (SKQ)
1 Behavioral rating
(self-report)
Cognitive Assessment
Scale (CAS)
1 Performance-based
(5) problem solving, (6) categorical processing, (7) deduc-
tive reasoning, (8) spatial planning, and (9) verbal abstrac-
tion. e D-KEFS was used in seven different studies, with
some studies measuring all nine components (e.g., Ahmed &
Miller, 2011), and other studies only using several of the sub-
tests to assess specific components (e.g., Latzman, Elkovitch,
Young, & Clark, 2010).
e second most used battery found in the studies is
the BRIEF (Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000), a par-
ent and teacher completed rating scale. Unlike the D-KEFS,
which assesses components of executive function, the BRIEF
assesses everyday behavioral manifestations of executive
control functions within an individual’s daily environment.
e BRIEF consists of nine scales that together provide three
different indices, Behavioral Regulation Index, Emotional
Regulation Index, and a Metacognition Index, which in turn
provide a Global Executive Composite score (Gioia, Isquith,
Retzlaff, & Espy, 2002). e BRIEF was used in six studies,
with some studies using the BRIEF to assess overall execu-
tive function (e.g., Clark et al., 2010), and other studies using
it for either a specific index or scale (e.g., Bridgett et al., 2012;
Rabin et al., 2011). e full summary of the batteries and
scales is presented in Table 4.
All the batteries and scales identified can be sorted
into two categories, performance-based tasks (n=4) and
behavioral ratings (n=7) by either others or self-reports.
Performance-based tasks require a participant to perform
a task under controlled circumstances and are distin-
guished by their focus on measuring a specific component
of executive function (e.g., attentional control, cognitive
flexibility, inhibition, or planning). irteen of the charted
studies included such performance-based batteries. For
example, Hooper et al. (2011) used two subtests from the
Woodcock–Johnson tests of cognitive abilities to measure
planning and retrieval fluency in first graders to examine
the relation between executive function and writing and
spelling abilities, whereas Degé, Kubicek, and Schwarzer
(2011) used the NEPSY-II to measure the components of
set shifting, selective attention, planning, inhibition, and
fluency to investigate the association between music and
intelligence.
In six cases, the researchers relied on ratings of behavioral
manifestations associated with executive functions (e.g.,
attentional control, emotional regulation, problem solving,
and metacognition) provided by someone other than the
target participant, like parents or teachers. For example,
Sadeh et al. (2012) used the BASC to investigate the rela-
tion between behaviors associated with executive function
(i.e., problem solving, attentional control, behavioral con-
trol, and emotional control), as reported by teachers, and
kindergarten and first-grade academic achievement. Seven
other studies also depended on self-report data, but these
data were drawn directly from study participants about their
own behavioral manifestations of executive function. One of
those studies (Garner, 2009) examined the relation between
executive function and self-regulated learning by having par-
ticipants self-report five behavioral manifestations of execu-
tive function (i.e., impulse control, strategic planning, orga-
nization, motivational drive, and empathy) using the Execu-
tive Function Index (EFI; Spinella, 2005).
Task s
In addition to the different batteries and scales, a multitude
of different tasks to assess executive function were identified.
Overall, 109 different tasks were used to measure executive
function. Of the 109 tasks, 56 tasks were used only once,
suggesting that often researchers develop their own task to
assess executive function for the specific study, while 53 tasks
were used multiple times. e most commonly used task
was the Stroop task (MacLeod, 1992; Stroop, 1935), used 52
times, with researchers often using different variations of the
Stroop task such as color/word, day/night, and large/small.
e next four most commonly used tasks were the digit span
task (n=20; Wechsler, 1944, 2008), go/no-go task (n=18;
Drewe, 1975; Luria, 1973), trail making test (n=15; Army
Individual Test Battery, 1944; Reitan, 1958), and n-back tasks
(n=14; Jonides et al., 1997; Kane & Engle, 2002). A complete
list of the tasks is presented in Table S5.
Volume 10—Number 1 19
Executive Function
An examination of the 109 tasks revealed that updating
and working memory; shifting, switching, and cognitive
flexibility; and inhibition had the most number of different
tasks to assess the components. is was not surprising,
given that 38% of the studies reviewed were associated with
the Miyake et al. (2000) model of updating, shifting, and
inhibition or the Diamond (2006, 2013) model of working
memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibition. Overall, updat-
ing/working memory was assessed 107 times by 37 different
tasks, inhibition was assessed 92 times by 28 different tasks,
and shifting/switching/cognitive flexibility was assessed 80
times by 33 different tasks.
e problem with the large number of tasks becomes
even more compounded when a task assesses multiple com-
ponents or processes. Over 27% of the 109 tasks assessed
multiple individual components or processes, as well as
the single construct of executive function. e different
tasks that were identified as assessing multiple components
or processes assessed anywhere from two to six different
constructs. For example, the Stroop task was used as a
measure of inhibition (e.g., Adrian et al., 2011), cognitive
control (e.g., Romer et al., 2009), working memory (e.g.,
Lagattuta, Sayfan, & Monsour, 2011), attention (e.g., Muller,
Liebermann-Finestone, Carpendale, Hammond, & Bibok,
2012), central executive (e.g., Andersson, 2008), and overall
executive function (e.g., Pharo et al., 2011).
In the literature, this phenomenon of one task assessing
multiple aspects is known as the task impurity problem
(Miyake & Friedman, 2012; Packwood, Hodgetts, & Trem-
blay, 2011). e task impurity problem occurs when a single
task may assess or operate on a number of different exec-
utive components as well as other non-executive function
processes, thereby making it difficult to infer exactly what
thetaskismeasuring.Tasksthatareconsideredcomplex
(i.e., Tower of Hanoi and Wisconsin Card Sort Test) seem
obvious as suffering from the task impurity problem, but it
seems that this also happens for tasks that are considered
as “pure” tasks, such as the Stroop or go/no-go tasks. is
occurs when researchers use these tasks to assess different
aspects of executive function, either within the same study,
or across different studies.
Another finding that arose from the review was that some
studies used only a single task to measure a component
or process (e.g., Patrick et al., 2008; Pennequin, Sorel, &
Fontaine, 2010; Pronk et al., 2011), whereas other studies
used multiple tasks to assess one aspect (e.g., Friedman et al.,
2008; Lee, Ng, & Ng, 2009; Romer et al., 2009) Over 54%
of the studies reviewed only used a single task to assess a
single component or process, while the rest of the studies
used either two or three tasks to measure a specific compo-
nent or process. For instance, Patrick et al. (2008) used only
the n-back task to assess working memory, and the go/no-go
task to assess inhibition, whereas Friedman et al. (2008) used
the keep track, letter memory, and spatial n-back tasks to
assess working memory, and the anti-saccade, stop signal,
and Stroop tasks to assess inhibition. e use of only a sin-
gle task to measure a component, process, or the unidimen-
sional construct of executive function may call into question
the reliability and validity of study data.
In summary, the direct measurement of executive func-
tion is often challenging to capture due to the complexity
of the construct, and the sheer number of different tasks
that are used to measure executive functions. Additionally,
the majority of studies of executive function continue to be
dependent on tasks that have not been subjected to rigorous
psychometric evaluation. Frequently, the construct validity
is not well established for researcher-developed measures
and tasks. Additionally these researcher-developed mea-
sures and tasks may have low reliability and may not be par-
ticularly useful beyond a narrow population.
Executive Function Outcomes
e final question of the review investigated what human
performance outcomes, especially within educational
settings and academic domains, have been empirically
connected to executive function. e initial part of this
analysis examined the type of relation between executive
function and the outcomes. is first analysis revealed that
researchers used 18 different terms to describe the relation
between executive function and the outcomes. ese were
sorted into five groups that each inferred a different type of
relation. e most commonly stated group (40%) was exec-
utive functions as a predictor. In this instance, researchers
made claims that executive function or some aspect of
executive function predicted some type of performance (i.e.,
executive function predicted mathematics achievement).
For example, Brock, Rimm-Kaufman, Nathanson, and
Grimm (2009) found “cool” executive functions (cognitive
regulation and problem-solving processes) predicted math
achievement in kindergarten students, but that “hot” exec-
utive functions (emotional regulation and problem-solving
processes) did not predict math achievement when exam-
ined concurrently with “cool” executive functions. e next
most commonly stated group (27%) was executive function
as relational. For this category, researchers expressed some
association or correlation between executive function and
some outcome (i.e., inhibitory control and working memory
with improvements in reading scores, or driving perfor-
mance with shifting and updating). For instance, Adrian
et al. (2011) reported findings that poor driving performance
of older adults were correlated with shifting and updating.
e third group (20%) of outcomes conveyed executive
function as an influencer. Specifically, researchers stated
generally that executive functions contributed, helped,
played a role, or was involved in the outcome (i.e., executive
20 Volume 10—Number 1
Peter Baggetta and Patricia A. Alexander
function and theory of mind). In their study, Davis-Unger
and Carlson (2008) reported findings that suggested exec-
utive function skills appear to play a vital role in the
development of children’s teaching efficacy over and above
theory of mind. In contrast, some studies (8%) described
executive function having an indirect effect as a mediator
or moderator. For example, Degé et al. (2011) reported that
the association between music lessons and intelligence was
mediated by executive function. eir findings suggest that
music lessons enhance children’s IQ scores indirectly by
strengthening children’s executive function. Patrick et al.
(2008) found that executive function ability moderated both
self-reported behavioral tendencies and objective emo-
tional decision-making ability of adult females to predict
engagement in risky behaviors such as alcohol and drug
use and delinquency. e final cluster of studies (5%) made
claims of executive functions as being required for some
aspect of human behavior (i.e., timing requires updating).
For instance, in their study Ogden, Salominaite, Jones, Fisk,
and Montgomery (2011) found that accurate human timing
requires updating resources to enable accurate monitoring
of the accumulation of pulses from a pacemaker.
e second part of the results and findings analysis was
to examine the specific human learning and performance
outcomes that have been empirically connected to exec-
utive function. e findings reported by authors revealed
that the domain of academics had the most findings (43%),
followed by social functioning (24%), human performance
(17%), and finally cognitive abilities (16%). Some of the out-
comes reported and possible issues with the findings are dis-
cussed below.
Academics
e largest portion of studies that connected executive
function with academic achievement and performance was
mathematics (60%). Studies found links between executive
function and mathematics concepts such as multiplication
word problem solving ability (Agostino et al., 2010), math-
ematics achievement test performance (Clark et al., 2010),
and algebraic word problem solving performance (Lee et al.,
2009). However, in these studies there were differing results
regarding what specific component of executive function is
involved. For example, Agostino et al. (2010) found that inhi-
bition correlated with multiplication word problem solving
ability in third–sixth graders and that when it came to per-
formance on multiple-step problems updating also played a
role. However, they found that shifting was not a significant
predictor for any of the different types of word problems.
At the same time, Clark et al. (2010) found inhibi-
tion, shifting, and metacognitive planning all associated
with improvement on mathematical achievement tests in
4–6-year-olds, including word problems. Lee et al. (2009)
reported in their study that only working memory predicted
performance on algebra word problems for sixth graders,
and neither inhibition nor switching were correlated with
algebra word problem performance. ese differences in
results may be due to the different population groups that
were studied, as well as to the different conceptualizations,
models, and tasks that the researchers used. For instance,
both Agostino et al. (2010) and Lee et al. (2009) referenced
the Miyake model (Miyake et al., 2000) to conceptualize
executive function, but Clark et al. (2010) proposed their
own researcher-developed model. In addition, Agostino
et al. (2010) measured inhibition using the anti-saccade and
Stroop tasks, updating using the letter memory task (LMT)
and visual n-back task, and shifting using the contingency
naming task (CNT) and trail making test (TMT). Clark
et al. (2010) used the Tower of Hanoi to measure com-
plex executive functions, the flexible item selection task to
measure shifting, and shape school to measure inhibition.
Lee et al. (2009) assessed working memory with the keep
track task, counting recall task, and LMT, inhibition with
numeric Stroop and stop signal tasks, and switching with
the number-letter and plus-minus tasks. is elaboration
of the differences of three specific studies that reported
associations between executive function and mathematics
performance highlights the difficulty of interpreting find-
ings reported regarding executive function and academic
performance.
Even in cases where results of studies were in concurrence
as to what aspects of executive function related to academic
performance, it was challenging to compare results. For
instance, in the studies investigating the link between exec-
utive function and reading and literacy, both Chung and
McBride-Chang (2011), and Foy and Mann (2013) reported
that there are associations between executive function,
specifically inhibition, and reading for young children (4–5
years old). However, Chung and McBride-Chang (2011)
also found that working memory plays a role while Foy and
Mann (2013) reported that working memory does not play a
significant role. is challenge to compare results becomes
even more compounded when studies used different tasks to
measure the same functional domain. For example, Chung
and McBride-Chang (2011) used the digit span tasks to
measure working memory, and Stroop tasks to measure
inhibition, while Foy and Mann (2013) used the go/no-go
task and continuous performance task (CPT) to assess
executive function.
Even with the increasing number of studies of executive
function in educational settings, the key question for edu-
cators that remains elusive is the actual relation between
executive function and academic achievement. e answer
can vary depending on how one conceptualizes executive
function. If one considers executive function as a set of
Volume 10—Number 1 21
Executive Function
domain-general cognitive process or domain-specific strate-
gies that assist a learner to perform specific operations
in subjects such as mathematics (Blair, Knipe, & Gamson,
2008), reading (Cartwright, 2012), or biology (Rhodes et al.,
2014), then executive function could be considered as lead-
ing directly to higher levels of student learning and academic
achievement. However, if executive function is seen as a
self-regulatory process that allows an individual to engage in
learning-related behaviors (Nesbitt, Farran, & Fuhs, 2015),
then executive function could be considered as leading indi-
rectly to academic achievement by enabling appropriate
classroom behaviors, adjustment to formal education, and
higher levels of involvement in the classroom and learning.
Both researchers and educators need to be aware of this vari-
ability in the way the construct has been defined and con-
ceptualized, because it greatly impacts those focusing on the
educational relevance of executive function and how to apply
it in the classroom. is understanding of the role of exec-
utive function for successful learning in the classroom also
impacts teacher educators. Researchers (Gilmore & Cragg,
2014; Laski, Reeves, Ganley, & Mitchell, 2013) have argued
that teacher educators should incorporate the understand-
ing and the importance of executive function for classroom
learning into teacher education programs. However, the lack
of clarity on the association between executive function and
academic performance makes it challenging for teacher edu-
cators to communicate the importance and understanding of
executive function to pre-service teachers.
Social Functioning
eory of mind was investigated in 35% of the studies within
the domain of social functioning and seems to be one of the
few topics where there is some consensus and agreement.
For instance, both Benson, Sabbagh, Carlson, and Zelazo
(2012), and Henning et al. (2011) investigated 3–6-year-olds
and used the Dimensional Change Card Sort task, and
reported that their results showed a link between execu-
tive function and theory of mind development. Another
example of consensus is found in the findings by both Bull
et al. (2008a, 2008b)), and Vetter et al. (2013) that inhi-
bition was an important predictor of theory of mind in
17–19-year-olds. However, the two studies used different
measures of inhibition; Bull et al. (2008a, 2008b) assessed
inhibition using the go/no-go task, while Vetter et al. (2013)
used the anti-saccade to measure inhibition.
A number of studies reported a link between risk-taking
behaviors and executive function (20%). Romer et al. (2009)
examined possible influences on the initiation of drugs
and other risk behaviors in pre-adolescents. ey tested
three components of executive function—working mem-
ory, cognitive control, and reward processing—to determine
whether these aspects were related to risk taking and impul-
sivity. ey found that none of their measures of specific
skills that compose executive function was directly related
to risk taking, but working memory and reward process-
ing were inversely related to impulsivity. Conversely, another
study of risk-taking behavior (Pharo et al., 2011) reported the
opposite finding of executive function playing an important
role in risk-taking behavior during adolescence. ey exam-
ined the relation between participants’ scores on a neuropsy-
chological battery of executive functions, their personality
profiles, and their involvement in real-life risky behavior, and
found that individual differences in performance on the bat-
tery of executive function tests were uniquely predictive of
participants’ real-life risky behavior.
Patrick et al. (2008) explored individual differences in
executive function (working memory and inhibitory con-
trol), approach sensitivity (the degree to which individuals
are drawn to stimulating activities), and emotional decision
making associated with self-reported risk behaviors in adult
females. ey found emotional decision making was associ-
ated with higher levels of alcohol use, but only for individ-
uals low in inhibitory control. ey also found that individ-
uals with a combination of better working memory ability
and stronger approach sensitivity tended to engage in more
risk behaviors, implying that women who have better work-
ing memory and stronger approach tendencies may be bet-
ter able to manage their behavior to reduce negative conse-
quences than those individuals with lower working memory
capacity and weaker approach tendencies.
Each of these three studies posits a differing definition and
structure of executive function, as well as assessing executive
function differently. For instance, Romer et al. (2009) express
that executive function includes working memory, cogni-
tive control, and reward processing, and measure each of
these components with two to three tasks each. Pharo et al.
(2011) operationalize executive function as processes such
as judgment, impulse control, self-monitoring, and plan-
ning, and create a battery of six different tasks to come
up with what they call a Neuro-Function score. Similar to
Romer et al. (2009); Patrick et al. (2008) identify specific
aspects of executive function in their study—working mem-
ory and inhibitory control—but use just a single task to
assess each aspect. e difference in findings of these three
studies reporting the relation between executive function
and risk-taking behaviors, highlight the need for both def-
initional and assessment clarity.
Human performance
e most researched topic within the human performance
domain was timing (21%), the temporal judgment, percep-
tion, or processing of the duration of events. Ogden et al.
(2011) investigated which executive function processes are
implicated in timing using the Miyake model (Miyake et al.,
2000) of shifting, updating, and inhibition, and found that
22 Volume 10—Number 1
Peter Baggetta and Patricia A. Alexander
accurate timing requires updating resources but not inhibi-
tion or switching. However, Brown et al. (2013) investigated
the connection between timing and specific executive func-
tions also using the Miyake model (Miyake et al., 2000), and
found that timing tasks depended on the same resources
used by all three of the executive functions—updating, inhi-
bition, and switching. e two studies had similar sample
sizes and populations of interest but had differing results that
could be the result of using different tasks to assess the same
three components, a common problem found in studies of
executive function.
Another topic in human performance that was inves-
tigated multiple times was driving (14%). A study of
adolescents in a simulated driving task by Mäntylä, Karls-
son, and Marklund (2009) conducted six experimental tasks
that tapped three components of executive functioning—
response inhibition, working memory updating, and mental
shifting—and found the updating component was the pri-
mary predictor of driving performance. Adrian et al. (2011)
found similar results in their study of adults and older
adults on-road driving performance. ey found that poor
driving performances were correlated with lower shifting
and updating scores, but inhibition was not correlated with
driving performance. Updating or working memory was also
linked to pilots’ flight simulator performance in the study
by Causse et al. (2011), but they did not find any significant
effects for shifting or inhibition.
Several of the human performance studies reported links
with executive function as a composite. e ability to sustain
psychomotor vigilance during sleep deprivation by adults
were found to be related to baseline levels of executive func-
tion capacity (Killgore, Grugle, Reichardt, Killgore, & Balkin,
2009); snack food intake in fourth graders was found to
be related to executive function skills (Riggs, Spruijt-Metz,
Sakuma, Chih-Ping, & Pentz, 2010); and executive functions
predicted the success of adult soccer players (Vestberg et al.,
2012). However, it is challenging to make any overall gener-
alizations from these studies since they all are single studies
that have not yet been replicated by other researchers.
Cognitive Abilities
ere seemed to be more areas of conceptual similarity
among the studies that reported findings connecting exec-
utive function and cognitive abilities such as intelligence
and memory. Two studies (Brydges et al., 2012; Duan et al.,
2010) investigated the organization of executive function
in children and its relation to intelligence. is was one of
the few cases where both studies explored the same exec-
utive function structures of inhibition, updating/working
memory and shifting using similar tasks. In addition, both
studies used confirmatory factor analysis to examine the
organization of executive functions at the latent level and
to determine the best fitting model of executive functions.
However, each study found different results regarding the
structure of executive function. Duan et al. (2010) found in
11–12-year-old children executive function could be sepa-
rated into three distinct but related factors of updating, inhi-
bition, and shifting, and that these factors were moderately
correlated with each other. Only the component of updat-
ing was found to be significantly correlated to intelligence,
reinforcing previous findings of the relation between updat-
ing and intelligence (e.g., Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Con-
way, 1999; Friedman et al., 2006). On the other hand, Bry-
dges et al. (2012) found that in children 7–9 years old, the
latent traits of inhibition, working memory, and shifting were
indistinguishable from each other, and a single-factor model
of executive function provided the best fitting model. Fur-
thermore, results revealed that fluid and crystallized intelli-
gence are both highly associated with executive functioning.
e studies involving memory and executive function pre-
sented findings that suggested that individual differences in
executive function are related to different aspects of mem-
ory. Mäntylä et al. (2010) examined the relation between
components of executive function (inhibition, updating, and
shifting), and both subjective and objective measure of mem-
ory performance in adults. ey found shifting was only
related to subjective self-reports of memory, while in the
objective memory tasks both updating and response inhibi-
tion, but not shifting, were related to performance. Another
study (Piolino et al., 2010) investigated, in a group of both
adults and older adults, the relations between age, auto-
biographical memory, and components of executive func-
tion, updating, inhibition, and shifting. Regression analy-
ses revealed that increases in age-related deficits of auto-
biographical memory were mediated by both updating and
inhibition, but not shifting. Similar to the studies researching
intelligence, studies examining the relation between memory
and executive function seem to have some level of concep-
tual similarity (i.e., three-factor structure of executive func-
tion) and populations (primarily adults), allowing for the
making of comparisons between findings of studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Executive function is one of the most widely cited constructs
in cognitive, developmental, educational, and neuropsychol-
ogy (Ardila, 2008; Toplak, West, & Stanovich, 2013). At the
same time, executive function remains a confusing construct
due to the various definitions, multiple theories and concep-
tualizations, and numerous measures to which it has been
associated in the literature. e purpose of this review was
to examine the construct of executive function as currently
conceptualized (explicitly or otherwise) and operationalized
in empirical studies across a number of different fields. An
Volume 10—Number 1 23
Executive Function
important goal of this review was to bring some clarity
to the conceptualization of executive function by seeking
some degree of convergence from the writings of researchers
focused on this multifaceted construct. However, the review
of the literature per se presented a number of challenges
such as locating and selecting relevant studies that matched
search criteria, assessing the clarity and robustness of the
definitions of executive function, and evaluating the impli-
cations of the findings reported in the reviewed studies.
Before delving into recommendations regarding the
conceptualization and operationalization of executive func-
tions, the contributions made by researchers of executive
function and the limitations of this review require acknowl-
edgment. All of the researchers whose work was included
in this review have made significant contributions to the
understanding of executive function and its role in human
behavior. e review is not meant to be a critique of their
efforts and research. Rather, it is an effort to acknowledge
the varying differences in conceptual distinctions, and to
find points of concurrence whenever possible. Not every
researcher will concur with the fine grain analysis around
the clarity of definition or with the categorization or classi-
fications employed in this review. However, the procedures
for systematic review and critical analysis of study con-
ceptions and operations followed in this investigation were
modeled on prior successful reviews of equally extensive
and complex literature (Dinsmore et al., 2008; Murphy &
Alexander, 2000). Without such conceptual clarity, it is very
challenging to come to any consensus regarding executive
function and what it does. Further, clarity and precision may
also help to make the research more understandable and
relevant to educators and other consumers.
No claim is made here that every empirical article con-
cerning executive function published between 2008 and
2013 is represented in this review. Such an undertaking
would be overwhelming and making the analysis of the
studies unyieldingly difficult to manage. is required
the establishment of certain constraints on the location and
selection of studies. ese constraints excluded a large num-
ber of studies from the review. Empirical studies regarding
the development of executive function in individuals were
not included, as well as studies that investigated specific
deficiencies of executive function, or studies with atypical
populations. e primary aim in this study is to highlight
thedegreetowhichthereisvariabilityinthebehavioral
literature on executive function with respect to the concep-
tualization and operationalization of executive function as
a construct. Without achieving clarity around the definition
and construct of executive function, it would be arduous
to investigate its development and deficiencies. e second
aim is to assist both researchers and educators focusing on
the educational relevance of executive function to be aware
of the large variability in the way the construct has been
defined in the current literature.
Conceptual Convergence
is review systematically analyzed a large body of research
regarding the conceptualization and operationalization of
executive function. e numerous varying and divergent
ideas regarding executive function made this construct very
challenging to define and difficult to measure. However,
although many points of differences were found, the review
also identified a number of conceptual and operational sim-
ilarities among researchers. Linking these converging con-
ceptualization and operationalization may help to provide
a better understanding of executive function. For instance,
even though there were a number of varying definitions, the
majority of definitions proffered by researchers suggested
the following.
Executive function is a set of cognitive processes that: (1)
guides action and behaviors essential to aspects of learning
and everyday human performance tasks; (2) contributes to
the monitoring or regulation of such tasks; and (3) pertains
not only to the cognitive domain, but also socioemotional
and behavioral domains of human performance.
e preceding points of convergence seem useful in iden-
tifying a starting place in clarifying the conceptualization
of executive function. As illustrated in this review, these
processes are numerous, and there is a wide range of behav-
iors identified by researchers. us, it becomes difficult
to provide any more precise definition of executive func-
tion that is generalizable to the body of work considered
herein. Yet, even the general definition presented seems
preferable to those situations when either no explication as
to the meaning of executive function is provided or when
the meaning of the construct is so particularized as to be
relevant only to the study at hand.
Another point of conceptual convergence is the belief that
executive function is multidimensional. A number of mod-
els with varying viewpoints were identified, but common
across most of them is the idea that executive function is
multidimensional in nature with more than one individual
component or function. For that reason, the earlier prof-
fered description referenced “a set” of cognitive processes.
At the same time, there is evidence that there are develop-
mental differences in executive function as found by some
researchers (e.g., Brydges et al., 2012; Wiebe et al., 2011) in
which executive function may appear more unidimensional
early in life but develops into a multidimensional construct
in adulthood. A large number of individual different exec-
utive functions were identified in this review, but overall it
seems like there is agreement regarding three executive func-
tions in particular: inhibitory control, working memory, and
shifting or cognitive flexibility.
24 Volume 10—Number 1
Peter Baggetta and Patricia A. Alexander
Another major challenge in the conceptualization of exec-
utive function is the labeling of so many different individ-
ual skills that comprise the construct. For that reason, it
seems advisable for those engaged in this research to be as
explicit as possible when defining and describing the dif-
ference between executive function as a construct and the
parts or processes that may make up executive function and
not label individual components as “executive functions.” If
the relation between such components or processes can be
specified that would also add conceptual clarity (e.g., the per-
ceived association between shifting and cognitive flexibility
or between working memory and updating). It would fur-
ther frame the literature if researchers would specify if the
label reflects a manifestation of behavior (i.e., emotional or
behavioral control) or for an executive function component
or process.
is review demonstrated that executive function is
involved in numerous domains but seems to be particularly
important for academic achievement and readiness (e.g.,
Hughes & Ensor, 2011; Lemaire & Lecacheur, 2011) and
social functioning (e.g., Benson et al., 2012; Razza & Blair,
2009) especially in young children and children. What
seems to be common in the research is that populations of
various age ranges draw greater interest (e.g., young children
and older adults) whereas others are less often considered
(e.g., adolescents). Consequently, it would appear that more
research in a variety of different domains with adolescents
would afford a broader picture of development of executive
function.
Operational Convergence
One of the more challenging problems associated with the
research of executive function seems to be the operational-
ization of executive function. Much of this is driven by the
challengeofmeasuringexecutivefunctionasanintegrated
construct, in contrast to relying on measures of individual
domains. ere are some common measurement issues that
emerged from the review, in particular the number of mea-
sures used, the use of single measures, and the psychometric
properties of the measures. Within the 106 studies reviewed,
109 different individual tasks and 11 different batteries were
identified to measure executive functions. In addition to the
large quantity of tasks employed, many of the tasks were used
to assess different components or processes in different stud-
ies. Adding to the problem with one task being used to assess
multiple components and processes is the use of only a single
task to measure a process or component. Given the com-
plexity of executive function, it seems unlikely that any sin-
gletaskcouldadequatelycapturetheconstruct.us,when
researchers only use a single task in their investigation, it
may call into question the construct validity of the outcomes.
Researchers may not be measuring executive function per se,
but one or more individual components that may or may not
be a part of executive function. In contrast, and in keeping
with the multidimensionality of the construct, it would seem
advisable for researchers to consider the use of multiple tasks
or a test battery to assess executive function.
What makes the selection of tasks or a battery diffi-
cult is that many of the tasks may lack strong psychome-
tric properties. Over 50% of the tasks were identified only
once in the review, suggesting that the reliability and valid-
ityofdatafromthesetasksmaynotbeensufficientlyascer-
tained. Although no “gold standard” task of executive func-
tion exists, researchers may elect to use tasks, batteries, or
scales that have been empirically tested for their psycho-
metric properties such as the Stroop task (Stroop, 1935) or
D-KEFS battery (Delis et al., 2001). However, researchers
need to be cautious in the selection of the tasks and batteries,
given the study of Toplak et al. (2013) which discovered that
performance-based tasks and rating measures of executive
function assess different underlying constructs of executive
function.
ere is no question that both the research and educa-
tional community would benefit greatly from a more uni-
fying definition of executive function and more practical
tools for examining executive function outside the context
of the laboratory with a broader spectrum of school-aged
learners. e results of this review seem to suggest that if
researchers are serious in their goals of understanding the
relations between executive function and academic perfor-
mance, a working group should come together from the var-
ious disciplines engaged in researching executive function to
generate a unifying definition, and attempt to develop stan-
dardized instruments to measure executive function.
Attention and Self-Regulation
Several open questions remain. First, there is not consen-
sus regarding the relation between attention or attentional
control and executive function. e crux of the issue is the
prominence of attention in the array of executive function
processes. at is, researchers have identified attention as
the main component of executive function (e.g., Andersson,
2008), as a mechanism or process involved in executive func-
tion (e.g., Bull et al., 2008a, 2008b; Degé et al., 2011), and also
as a component or subcomponent of executive function (e.g.,
Foy & Mann, 2013; Garcia-Barrera et al., 2011).
Some researchers in the executive function literature
regard attention as the common underlying ability of exec-
utive functions. Rabipour and Raz (2012) stated that all
executive function processes require attention and that
working memory ability draws upon attention. McCabe
et al. (2010) argued that executive functions have a hierar-
chical structure and share a common underlying attentional
ability. McCabe et al. further argue that executive attention
Volume 10—Number 1 25
Executive Function
underlies performance on complex span and higher-order
cognition tasks. Finally, Garon et al. (2008) proposed that
attention is the basic building block for the executive func-
tions. ey argue the ability to attend is a prerequisite skill
in any executive function task and that the development of
the attentional system sets the stage for executive function
components to develop.
Other researchers claim that executive functions are the
underlying ability for attention. Chun et al. (2011) found that
attention is linked to inhibitory control ability and argued
that inhibitory control is the core function of all forms of
attention. Diamond (2013) asserts that executive functions
are responsible for the control of thoughts, actions, and
attention. ese competing views point to the need for
further investigation into the relation between attention and
executive function.
e second question to emerge is about the relation
between self-regulation and executive function. Some of
the reviewed studies have proposed that executive function
is a set of self-regulatory cognitive processes or abili-
ties (Beck et al., 2011; Dilworth-Bart, 2012; Kelly et al.,
2011), others have stated that executive function under-
lies self-regulation (Benson et al., 2012), while others have
suggested that executive function is important or allows
for self-regulation (Bridgett et al., 2012; Clark et al., 2010;
Rabin et al., 2011). Within the clinical psychological and
neuropsychological fields, the relevant literature positions
self-regulation as executive function. For example, Barkley
(2012) claims that executive function is self-regulation and
that each component of executive function is a specific
type of self-regulation. He defines executive function as
“self-directed actions needed to choose goals and to create,
enact, and sustain actions toward those goals” (p. 60).
Educational literature often states that executive func-
tion is involved in metacognition or self-regulated learn-
ing (Borkowski & Burke, 1996). Garner (2009) attempted
to connect the two differing perspectives of executive func-
tion in her study investigating the relation between measures
of executive function and self-regulated learning. She found
low to moderate correlations between many of the compo-
nents, suggesting that executive function and self-regulated
learning are overlapping constructs, with areas of both con-
vergence and separation.
Diamond (2013) also differentiates between the two
constructs by stating that executive function regulates
thoughts, actions, and attention while self-regulation regu-
lates emotions. However, Diamond does acknowledge that
there is great overlap between self-regulation and inhibitory
control. Hofmann, Schmeichel, and Baddeley (2012) offer
a different perspective on this relation between the two
constructs. ey make distinctions between ‘cool’ executive
functions (i.e., processes that are mostly just cognitive) and
‘hot’ executive functions (i.e., processes that are involved
in the regulation of emotional experiences, desires and
cravings). Hofmann et al. propose the three components
(inhibition, updating, and shifting) of executive function as
put forth by Miyake et al. (2000) often support mechanisms
of self-regulatory goal pursuit, and that improvements in
executive functions lead to better behavioral self-regulation.
e overlap and lack of explicit definitions on metacognition
and self-regulation as reported by Dinsmore et al. (2008) in
their review was thus reflected in this systematic analysis.
Although there is no way at present to resolve the differ-
ing relations between attention or self-regulation and execu-
tive function articulated in the reviewed studies, it is a point
of convergence that executive function is tied in some sig-
nificant manner to not only human performance in cogni-
tive, socioemotional, and behavioral domains but also to the
monitoring or regulation of said performance. For that rea-
son, this characteristic was acknowledged in the conceptu-
alization of executive function offered at the outset of this
concluding section.
Training of Executive Function
Recent research indicates that domain-general skills (1) can
be modified by experience, (2) that these experience-based
improvements generalize to academic domains (includ-
ing reading and mathematics), and (3) that these changes
occur in classroom settings under relatively modest training
conditions. For example, in school-age children, working
memory ability has been shown to be enhanced using adap-
tive computerized training tasks administered in the school
setting for 35 min a day for 5–7 weeks (Holmes, Gathercole,
& Dunning, 2009). ese substantial improvements were
not only sustained over a 6-month period but were also
related to similar improvements in mathematical reasoning
(Holmes et al., 2009). Such plasticity has also been sug-
gested in atypical populations. For example, a similar study
reported that 25 hr of working memory training in 7- to
15-year-old children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder improved response inhibition and reasoning,
reduced parent-rated inattentive symptoms of ADHD, and
improved IQ scores (Dowsett & Livesey, 2000; Kerns, Esso,
& ompson, 1999; Klingberg, Forssberg, & Westerberg,
2002). Evidence for malleability also exists for young chil-
dren with very large effects. For example, Rueda, Rothbart,
McCandliss, Saccomanno, and Posner (2005) used a brief
5-day attention training program to significantly improve
4- and 6-year-old children’s attention abilities. Finally,
slight changes in educational curricula have been shown to
improve domain-general skills in young children who are at
risk for academic problems (i.e., low income and Head Start).
Striking examples come from preschool programs such as
Tools of the Mind used to promote executive functions, and
Head Start Research-Based Developmentally Informed to
26 Volume 10—Number 1
Peter Baggetta and Patricia A. Alexander
promote cognitive control (Bierman et al., 2008). is evi-
dence provides justification for targeting highly malleable
domain-general skills in educational settings to improve
academic achievement.
However, there are few studies of executive function train-
ing and interventions in typical children in school settings
(Kloo & Perner, 2008), and the results have been mixed
regarding the ecological validity of executive function inter-
ventions. For example, Traverso, Viterbori, and Usai (2015)
found that children who received executive function inter-
vention outperformed children who did not on executive
function tasks. However, they found no convincing evidence
of the generalization of executive function training to other
academic skills. Further studies are needed to investigate the
effectiveness and transferability of executive function train-
ing programs on school readiness and achievement.
FINAL THOUGHTS
is review was conducted to attempt to bring some clarity
to the construct of executive function by examining how
empirical studies conceptualized and operationalized exec-
utive function. It is perhaps not surprising that there is so
much variability in conceptualization and operationalization
for such a burgeoning and significant field of exploration.
Divergence can be healthy in research, as when competing
theories and models allow the field to advance and change.
However, at the same time, the continuing lack of clarity
and precision in the definitions that frame the empirical
research, and the burgeoning of existing and newly devised
tasks and measures employed to assess executive function or
to ascertain its role in human performance, can only serve to
complicate an already complex domain of inquiry. Perhaps
seeking out a few points of convergence within the current
conceptual and operational chaos can help signal next steps
in future research and in theory building. And, given the
growing interest in and importance of executive function
research, there can be no option but move forward. e pro-
cess of moving can begin by bringing together researchers
from cognitive neuroscience, developmental psychology,
educational psychology, and other disciplines engaged in the
study of executive function and academic performance as
was done just recently when researchers from multiple disci-
plines came together to share insights and make recommen-
dations on how to conceptualize, measure, and foster critical
analytic thinking in young learners (Alexander, 2014).
Yet, it is not only future research and theory building
that matter. For those concerned with harnessing the power
of executive function in order to facilitate learning and
development within academic contexts, there is also much
that conceptual and operational clarity can afford. Any step
forward in making teachers increasingly aware of the role
that executive function plays generally in academic devel-
opment, as well as within specific academic domains and
subjects, and certainly any efforts to translate the extant
knowledge base on executive function into meaningful edu-
cational experiences, hinges on conceptual specificity as to
what executive function means and what it entails. As this
systematic review indicates, there is much work to be done
before executive function research can be readily, directly,
and practically translated into educational experiences. We
remain optimistic that one or more of those paths will result
in deeper understanding of the role that executive function
plays in performance, particularly within academic domains
and disciplines that are the heart of formal education.
Acknowledgments—We would like to thank Donald J. Bolger,
Pat Levitt, and David Daniel for their helpful comments and
feedback on this article.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found in the
online version of this article:
Table S1. Summary of Executive Function Studies Identi-
fied in is Systematic Review
Table S2. List of Explicit Definition Attributes
Table S3. List of Individual Executive Functions
Table S4. List of Studies by Domain Categories and
Content Area
Table S5. List of Individual Executive Function Tasks
REFERENCES
Adrian, J., Postal, V., Moessinger, M., Rascle, N., & Charles,
A. (2011). Personality traits and executive functions
related to on-road driving performance among older
drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention,43, 1652–1659.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.03.023
Agostino, A., Johnson, J., & Pascual-Leone, J. (2010). Executive
functions underlying multiplicative reasoning: Problem type
matters. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,105,
286–305. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.09.006
Ahmed, F. S., & Miller, L. (2011). Executive function mechanisms
of theory of mind. Journal of Autism and Developmental Dis-
orders,41, 667–678. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-1087-7
Albinet, C. T., Boucard, G., Bouquet, C. A., & Audiffren, M. (2012).
Processing speed and executive functions in cognitive aging:
How to disentangle their mutual relationship? Brain and Cog-
nition,79(1), 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2012.02.001
Alexander, P. A. (2003). e development of expertise: e jour-
ney from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher,
32(8), 10–14.
Alexander, P. A. (2014). inking critically and analytically about
critical-analytic thinking: An introduction. Educational Psy-
chology Review,26, 469–476.
Volume 10—Number 1 27
Executive Function
Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). e interaction of
domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic per-
formance. Review of Educational Research,58, 375–404.
doi:10.3102/00346543058004375
Andersson, U. (2008). Working memory as a predictor of written
arithmetical skills in children: e importance of central exec-
utive functions. British Journal of Educational Psychology,78,
181–203. doi:10.1348/000709907X209854
Ardila, A. (2008). On the evolutionary origins of executive func-
tions. Brain and Cognition,68, 92–99. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.
2008.03.003
Army Individual Test Battery. (1944). Manual of directions and
scoring. Washington DC: War Department, Adjutant Gen-
eral’s Office.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science,255(5044),
556–559. doi:10.1126/science.1736359
Baddeley, A. (1996). e fractionation of working memory.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,93(24),
13468–13472.
Baddeley, A. (2000). e episodic buffer: A new component of
working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4, 417–423.
doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working memory: eories, models
and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology,63, 1–29.
doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory.
Psychology of Learning and Motivation,8, 47–89.
doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
Bakos, D., de Paula Couto, M., Melo, W., Parente, M. P., Koller,
S. H., & Bizarro, L. (2008). Executive functions in the young
elderly and oldest old: A preliminary comparison emphasizing
decision making. Psychology and Neuroscience,1(2), 183–189.
doi:10.3922/j.psns.2008.2.011
Banich, M. T. (2009). Executive function: e search for an inte-
grated account. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
18(2), 89–94. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01615
Barkley, R. A. (2012). Executive functions: What they are, how they
work, and why they evolved. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Beck, D. M., Schaefer, C., Pang, K., & Carlson, S. M. (2011).
Executive function in preschool children: Test-retest relia-
bility. Journal of Cognition and Development,12, 169–193.
doi:10.1080/15248372.2011.563485
Benson, J. E., Sabbagh, M. A., Carlson, S. M., & Zelazo, P. D.
(2012). Individual differences in executive functioning pre-
dict preschoolers’ improvement from theory-of-mind train-
ing. Developmental Psychology,49, 1615–1627.
Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Naglieri, J. A. (2011). Relations
between executive function and academic achievement
from ages 5 to 17 in a large, representative national sam-
ple. Learning and Individual Differences,21, 327–336.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.007
Bierman,K.L.,Nix,R.L.,Greenberg,M.T.,Blair,C.,&Domitro-
vich, C. E. (2008). Executive functions and school readiness
intervention: Impact, moderation, and mediation in the Head
StartREDIprogram.Development and Psychopathology,20,
821–843. doi:10.1017/S0954579408000394
Black, D. S., Semple, R. J., Pokhrel, P., & Grenard, J. L. (2011).
Component processes of executive function—mindfulness,
self-control, and working memory—and their relationships
with mental and behavioral health. Mindfulness,2(3),
179–185. doi:10.1007/s12671-011-0057-2
Blair, C., Knipe, H., & Gamson, D. (2008). Is there a role for exec-
utive functions in the development of mathematics ability?
Mind, Brain, and Education,2, 80–89.
Borkowski, J. G., & Burke, J. E. (1996). eories, models, and mea-
surements of executive functioning: An information process-
ing perspective. In G. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Atten-
tion, memory, and executive function (pp. 235–261). Balti-
more, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Braver, T. S., Cole, M. W., & Yarkoni, T. (2010). Vive les differ-
ences! Individual variation in neural mechanisms of execu-
tive control. Current Opinion in Neurobiology,20, 242–250.
doi:10.1016/j.conb.2010.03.002
Bridgett, D. J., Oddi, K. B., Laake, L. M., Murdock, K. W., & Bach-
mann, M. N. (2012). Integrating and differentiating aspects
of self-regulation: Effortful control, executive functioning, and
links to negative affectivity. Emotion,13(1), 47–63.
Brock, L. L., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Nathanson, L., &
Grimm, K. J. (2009). e contributions of ‘hot’and
‘cool’executive function to children’s academic achievement,
learning-related behaviors, and engagement in kinder-
garten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,24, 337–349.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.06.001
Brown, S. W., Collier, S. A., & Night, J. C. (2013). Timing and
executive resources: Dual-task interference patterns between
temporal production and shifting, updating, and inhibition
tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance,39, 947–963. doi:10.1037/a0030484
Brydges, C. R., Reid, C. L., Fox, A. M., & Anderson, M. (2012).
A unitary executive function predicts intelligence in children.
Intelligence,40, 458–469. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2012.05.006
Bull, R., Espy, K. A., & Wiebe, S. A. (2008a). Short-term mem-
ory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschool-
ers: Longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at
age 7 years. Developmental Neuropsychology,33, 205–228.
doi:10.1080/87565640801982312
Bull, R., Phillips, L. H., & Conway, C. A. (2008b). e role of
control functions in mentalizing: Dual-task studies of theory
of mind and executive function. Cognition,107, 663–672.
doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.015
Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive functioning as a predic-
tor of children’s mathematics ability: Inhibition, switching,
and working memory. Developmental Neuropsychology,19,
273–293. doi:10.1207/S15326942DN1903_3
Burgess, P. W., & Shallice, T. (1996). Response suppression, initia-
tion and strategy use following frontal lobe lesions. Neuropsy-
chologia,34, 263–272. doi:10.1016/0028 3932(95)00104
Caine, G., & Caine, R. N. (2006). Meaningful learning and the
executive functions of the brain. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education,110, 53–61.
Carlson, S. M., Zelazo, P. D., & Faja, S. (2013). Executive function.
Oxford handbook of developmental psychology.NewYork,NY:
Oxford University Press.
Cartwright, K. B. (2012). Insights from cognitive neuroscience: e
importance of executive function for early reading develop-
ment and education. Early Education and Development,23(1),
24–36. doi:10.1080/10409289.2011.615025
28 Volume 10—Number 1
Peter Baggetta and Patricia A. Alexander
Casey, B. J., & Caudle, K. (2013). e teenage brain self con-
trol. Current Directions in Psychological Science,22(2), 82–87.
doi:10.1177/0963721413480170
Causse, M., Dehais, F., & Pastor, J. (2011). Executive functions and
pilot characteristics predict flight simulator performance in
general aviation pilots. International Journal of Aviation Psy-
chology,21(3), 217–234. doi:10.1080/10508414.2011.582441
Choudhury, S., Charman, T., & Blakemore, S. J. (2008). Develop-
ment of the teenage brain. Mind, Brain, and Education,2,
142–147.
Chun, M. M., Golomb, J. D., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2011).
A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annual
Review of Psychology,62, 73–101. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.
093008.100427
Chung, K. K., & McBride-Chang, C. (2011). Executive functioning
skills uniquely predict Chinese word reading. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology,103, 909–921. doi:10.1111/desc.12039
Clark, C. C., Pritchard, V. E., & Woodward, L. J. (2010). Preschool
executive functioning abilities predict early mathematics
achievement. Developmental Psychology,46, 1176–1191.
doi:10.1037/a0019672
Cragg, L., & Gilmore, C. (2014). Skills underlying mathematics: e
role of executive function in the development of mathemat-
ics proficiency. Trends in Neuroscience and Education,3(2),
63–68. doi:10.1016/j.tine.2013.12.001
Davis-Unger, A. C., & Carlson, S. M. (2008). Children’s
teaching skills: e role of theory of mind and execu-
tive function. Mind, Brain, and Education,2, 128–135.
doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2008.00043.x
Degé, F., Kubicek, C., & Schwarzer, G. (2011). Music lessons and
intelligence: A relation mediated by executive functions. Music
Perception,29(2), 195–201. doi:10.1525/mp.2011.29.2.195
Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2001). Delis-Kaplan exec-
utive function system (D- KEFS). San Antonio, TX: Psycholog-
ical Corporation.
Del Missier, F., Mäntylä, T., & Bruin, W. B. (2012). Decision-making
competence, executive functioning, and general cognitive abil-
ities. JournalofBehavioralDecisionMaking,25, 331–351.
doi:10.1002/bdm.731
Diamond, A. (2006). e early development of executive functions.
In E. Bialystock & F. I. Craig (Eds.), Lifespan cognition: Mecha-
nisms of change (pp. 70–95). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of
Psychology,64, 1–34. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-
143750
Diamond, A., & Lee, K . (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive
function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science,
333, 959–964. doi:10.1126/science.1204529
Dilworth-Bart, J. E. (2012). Does executive function mediate
SES and home quality associations with academic readi-
ness? Early Childhood Research Quarterly,27 , 416–425.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.02.002
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focus-
ing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and
self-regulated learning. Educational Psychological Review,20,
391–409. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6
Dowsett, S. M., & Livesey, D. J. (2000). e development of
inhibitory control in preschool children: Effects of “executive
skills” training. Developmental Psychobiology,36(2), 161–174.
Drewe, E. A. (1975). Go-no go learning after frontal
lobe lesions in humans. Cortex,11(1), 8–16.
doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(75)80015-3
Duan, X., Wei, S., Wang, G., & Shi, J. (2010). e relationship
between executive functions and intelligence on 11-to
12-year-old children. Psychological Test and Assessment
Modeling ,52, 419–431.
Dumontheil, I. (2014). Development of abstract thinking during
childhood and adolescence: e role of rostrolateral prefrontal
cortex. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience,10, 57–76.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and
goals. Annual Review of Psychology,53, 109–132.
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. (1999).
Working memory, short-term memor y, and general fluid intel-
ligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General,128, 309–331.
Espy,K.A.,McDiarmid,M.M.,Cwik,M.F.,Stalets,M.M.,
Hamby, A., & Senn, T. E. (2004). e contribution of exec-
utive functions to emergent mathematic skills in preschool
children. Developmental Neuropsychology,26, 465–486.
doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2601_6
Floyd, R. G., Bergeron, R., Hamilton, G., & Parra, G. R. (2010). How
do executive functions fit with the Cattell-Horn-Carroll
model? Some evidence from a joint factor analysis of
the Delis-Kaplan executive function system and the
Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities. Psychology
in the Schools,47, 721–738. doi:10.1002/pits.20500
Fournier-Vicente, S., Larigauderie, P., & Gaonach, D. (2008). More
dissociations and interactions within central executive func-
tioning: A comprehensive latent-variable analysis. Acta Psy-
chologica,129, 32–48. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.04.004
Foy, J. G., & Mann, V. A. (2013). Executive function and early read-
ing skills. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,
26, 453–472.
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Corley, R. P., Young, S. E., DeFries,
J. C., & Hewitt, J. K. (2006). Not all executive functions are
related to intelligence. Psychological Science,17, 172–179.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01681
Friedman,N.P.,Miyake,A.,Young,S.E.,DeFries,J.C.,Corley,
R. P., & Hewitt, J. K. (2008). Individual differences in execu-
tive functions are almost entirely genetic in origin. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General,137(2), 201–225.
Garcia-Barrera, M. A., Kamphaus, R. W., & Bandalos, D. (2011).
eoretical and statistical derivation of a screener for the
behavioral assessment of executive functions in children. Psy-
chological Assessment,23(1), 64–79.
Garner, J. (2009). Conceptualizing the relations between executive
functions and self-regulated learning. Journal of Psychology,
143, 405–426. doi:10.3200/JRLP.143.4.405-426
Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., & Smith, I. M. (2008). Executive function
in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework.
Psychological Bulletin,134(1), 31–60.
Gilhooly, K. J., & Fioratou, E. E. (2009). Executive functions in
insight versus non-insight problem solving: An individual
differences approach. inking and Reasoning,15, 355–376.
doi:10.1080/13546780903178615
Gilmore, C., & Cragg, L. (2014). Teachers’ understanding of the role
of executive functions in mathematics learning. Mind, Brain,
and Education,8, 132–136.
Volume 10—Number 1 29
Executive Function
Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). Test
review behavior rating inventory of executive function. Child
Neuropsychology,6, 235–238. doi:10.1076/chin.6.3.235.3152
Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Retzlaff, P. D., & Espy, K. A. (2002).
Confirmatory factor analysis of the Behavior Rating Inventory
of Executive Function (BRIEF) in a clinical sample. Child
Neuropsychology,8, 249–257. doi:10.1076/chin.8.4.249.13513
Gustafsson, J. E., & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities
as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral
Research,28, 407–434. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2804_2
Hall, P. A ., Fong, G. T., Epp, L. J., & Elias, L. J. (2008). Executive func-
tion moderates the intention-behavior link for physical activ-
ity and dietary behavior. Psychology and Health,23, 309–326.
doi:10.1080/14768320701212099
Harris, P. L. (2006). Social cognition. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner,
D. Kuhn, & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp.
811–856). New York, NY: Wiley.
Henning, A., Spinath, F. M., & Aschersleben, G. (2011). e link
between preschoolers’ executive function and theory of mind
and the role of epistemic states. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology,108, 513–531. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.10.006
Hofmann, W., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Executive
functions and self-regulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
16(3), 174–180. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.006
Holm, L., Ullén, F., & Madison, G. (2013). Motor and executive
control in repetitive timing of brief intervals. Journal of Exper-
imental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,39,
365–380. doi:10.1037/a0029142
Holmes, J., Gathercole, S. E., & Dunning, D. L. (2009). Adap-
tive training leads to sustained enhancement of poor working
memory in children. Developmental Science,12(4), F9–F15.
Hooper, S. R., Costa, L. J., McBee, M., Anderson, K. L., Yerby, D.
C., Knuth, S. B., & Childress, A. (2011). Concurrent and longi-
tudinal neuropsychological contributors to written language
expression in first and second grade students. Reading and
Writing,24, 221–252. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9263-x
Hughes, C., & Ensor, R. (2011). Individual differences in
growth in executive function across the transition to
school predict externalizing and internalizing behaviors
and self-perceived academic success at 6 years of age.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,108, 663–676.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.06.005
Huh, Y., Yang, E., Lee, S., Lim, J., Kim, K., & Paik, N. (2011).
Association between executive function and physical
performance in older Korean adults: Findings from the
Korean longitudinal study on health and aging (KLoSHA).
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics,52(3), 156–161.
doi:10.1016/j.archger.2010.10.018
Jonides, J., Schumacher, E., Smith, E., Lauber, E., Awh, E.,
Minoshima, S., & Koeppe, R. (1997). Verbal working mem-
ory load affects regional brain activation as measured
by PET. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,9, 462–475.
doi:10.1162/jocn.1997.9.4.462
Jurado, M. B., & Rosselli, M. (2007). e elusive nature of
executive functions: A review of our current under-
standing. Neuropsychological Review,17 , 213–233.
doi:10.1007/s11065-007-9040-z
Kane,M.J.,Conway,A.R.A.,Hambrick,D.Z.,&Engle,R.W.
(2007). Variation in working memory capacity as variation in
executive attention and control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jar-
rold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in
working memory (pp. 21–48). New York, NY: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). e role of prefrontal cor-
tex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and
general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences per-
spective. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,9, 637–671.
doi:10.3758/BF03196323
Karbach, J., Gottschling, J., Spengler, M., Hegewald, K., & Spinath,
F. M. (2013). Parental involvement and general cognitive abil-
ity as predictors of domain-specific academic achievement
in early adolescence. Learning and Instruction,23, 43–51.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.09.004
Kelly, R., Dissanayake, C., Ihsen, E., & Hammond, S. (2011). e
relationship between symbolic play and executive function
in young children. AustralasianJournalofEarlyChildhood,
36(2), 21–27.
Kerns, K. A., Esso, K., & ompson, J. (1999). Investigation of a
direct intervention for improving attention in young children
with ADHD. Developmental Neuropsychology,16, 273–295.
Killgore, W. S., Grugle, N. L., Reichardt, R. M., Killgore, D. B., &
Balkin, T. J. (2009). Executive functions and the ability to sus-
tain vigilance during sleep loss. Aviation, Space and Environ-
mental Medicine,80(2), 81–87. doi:10.3357/ASEM.2396.2009
Klingberg, T., Forssberg, H., & Westerberg, H. (2002). Training of
working memory in children with ADHD. Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Neuropsychology,24, 781–791.
Kloo, D., & Perner, J. (2008). Training theory of mind and execu-
tive control: A tool for improving school achievement? Mind,
Brain, and Education,2, 122–127.
Kolkman, M. E., Hoijtink, H. A., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Leseman, P.
M. (2013). e role of executive functions in numerical magni-
tude skills. Learning and Individual Differences,24, 145–151.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.004
Kotsopoulos, D., & Lee, J. (2012). A naturalistic study of
executive function and mathematical problem-solving.
e Journal of Mathematical Behavior,31(2), 196–208.
doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.12.005
Kroesbergen,E.H.,VanLuit,J.H.,VanLieshout,E.M.,Van
Loosbroek, E. E., & Van de Rijt, B. M. (2009). Individual
differences in early numeracy: e role of executive functions
and subitizing. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,27 ,
226–236. doi:10.1177/0734282908330586
Lagattuta, K., Sayfan, L., & Monsour, M. (2011). A new mea-
sure for assessing executive function across a wide age
range: Children and adults find "Happy-Sad" more difficult
than "Day-Night". Developmental Science,14, 481–489.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00994
Lan, X., Legare, C. H., Ponitz, C., Li, S., & Morrison, F. J.
(2011). Investigating the links between the subcompo-
nents of executive function and academic achievement: A
cross-cultural analysis of Chinese and American preschool-
ers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,108, 677–692.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.11.001
Laski, E. V., Reeves, T. D., Ganley, C. M., & Mitchell, R. (2013).
Mathematics teacher educators’ perceptions and use of cog-
nitive research. Mind, Brain, and Education,7, 63–74.
Latzman, R. D., Elkovitch, N., Young, J., & Clark, L. A. (2010).
e contribution of executive functioning to academic
30 Volume 10—Number 1
Peter Baggetta and Patricia A. Alexander
achievement among male adolescents. Journal of Clin-
ical and Experimental Neuropsychology,32, 455–462.
doi:10.1080/13803390903164363
Lee, T., Crawford, J. D., Henry, J. D., Trollor, J. N., Kochan, N. A.,
Wright, M. J., & Sachdev, P. S. (2012). Mediating effects of
processing speed and executive functions in age-related dif-
ferences in episodic memory performance: A cross-validation
study. Neuropsychology,26, 776–784. doi:10.1037/a0030053
Lee, K., Ng, S., Bull, R., Pe, M., & Ho, R. (2011). Are patterns impor-
tant? An investigation of the relationships between proficien-
cies in patterns, computation, executive functioning, and alge-
braic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology,103,
269–281. doi:10.1037/a0023068
Lee, K., Ng, E. L., & Ng, S. F. (2009). e contributions of working
memory and executive functioning to problem representation
and solution generation in algebraic word problems. Journal
of Educational Psychology,101, 373–387.
Lemaire, P., & Lecacheur, M. (2011). Age-related changes in chil-
dren’s executive functions and strategy selection: A study
in computational estimation. Cognitive Development,26,
282–294. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2011.01.002
Luria, A. (1973). e working brain. London: Penguin.
MacLeod, C. M. (1992). e Stroop task: e" gold standard"
of attentional measures. JournalofExperimentalPsychology:
General,121, 12–14. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.121.1.12
Mäntylä, T., Karlsson, M. J., & Marklund, M. (2009). Executive con-
trol functions in simulated driving. Applied Neuropsychology,
16, 11–18. doi:10.1080/09084280802644086
Mäntylä, T., Runnland, M., & Kliegel, M. (2010). Components of
executive functioning in metamemory. Applied Neuropsychol-
ogy,17, 289–298.
Mattern, K. D., & Shaw, E. J. (2010). A look beyond cogni-
tive predictors of academic success: Understanding the
relationship between academic self-beliefs and outcomes.
Journal of College Student Development,51, 665–678.
doi:10.1353/csd.2010.0017
McCabe, D. P., Roediger, H. L., McDaniel, M. A., Balota, D. A.,
& Hambrick, D. Z. (2010). e relationship between working
memory capacity and executive functioning: Evidence for a
common executive attention construct. Neuropsychology,24,
222–243.
Miller, M. R., Giesbrecht, G. F., Muller, U., McInerney, R. J., &
Kerns, K. A. (2012). A latent variable approach to deter-
mining the structure of executive function in preschool chil-
dren. Journal of Cognition and Development,13, 395–423.
doi:10.1080/15248372.2011.585478
Mitchell, M., & Miller, L. (2008). Prediction of functional
status in older adults: e ecological validity of four
Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System tests. Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,30, 683–690.
doi:10.1080/13803390701679893
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). e nature and organiza-
tion of individual differences in executive functions: Four gen-
eral conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
21(1), 8–14. doi:10.1177/0963721411429458
Miyake,A.,Friedman,N.P.,Emerson,M.J.,Witzki,A.H.,How-
erter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). e unity and diversity of exec-
utive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal
lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis . Cognitive Psychology,41,
49–100. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
Molfese, V. J., Molfese, P. J., Molfese, D. L., Rudasill, K., Armstrong,
N., & Starkey, G. (2010). Executive function skills of 6–8
year olds: Brain and behavioral evidence and implications for
school achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
35(2), 116–125. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.004
Monette, S., Bigras, M., & Guay, M. (2011). e role of execu-
tive functions in school achievement at the end of Grade
1. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,109, 158–173.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.01.008
Muller, U., Liebermann-Finestone, D. P., Carpendale, J. M., Ham-
mond, S. I., & Bibok, M. B. (2012). Knowing minds, controlling
actions: e developmental relations between theory of mind
and executive function from 2 to 4 years of age. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology,111, 331–348.
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of
motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychol-
ogy,25, 3–53. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1019
Necka, E., Lech, B., Sobczyk, N., & Smieja, M. (2012). How much
do we know about our own cognitive control?: Self-report
and performance measures of executive functions. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment,28, 240–247.
Nesbitt, K. T., Farran, D. C., & Fuhs, M. W. (2015). Executive
function skills and academic achievement gains in prekinder-
garten: Contributions of learning-related behaviors. Develop-
mental Psychology,51, 865–878.
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed
and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson,
G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and
self-regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp.
1–18). New York, NY: Plenum.
Ogden, R. S., Salominaite, E., Jones, L. A., Fisk, J. E., & Mont-
gomery, C. (2011). e role of executive functions in human
prospective interval timing. Acta Psychologica,137 , 352–358.
doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.040.004
Packwood, S., Hodgetts, H. M., & Tremblay, S. (2011). A multiper-
spective approach to the conceptualization of executive func-
tions. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,
33, 456–470. doi:10.1080/13803395.2010.533157
Passolunghi, M. C., & Lanfranchi, S. (2012). Domain-specific
and domain-general precursors of mathematical achieve-
ment: A longitudinal study from kindergarten to first
grade. British Journal of Educational Psychology,82, 42–63.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02039
Patrick, M. E., Blair, C., & Maggs, J. L. (2008). Executive func-
tion, approach sensitivity, and emotional decision making
as influences on risk behaviors in young adults. Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,30, 449–462.
doi:10.1080/13803390701523109
Pennequin, V., Sorel, O., & Fontaine, R. (2010). Motor plan-
ning between 4 and 7 years of age: Changes linked to
executive functions. Brain and Cognition,74(2), 107–111.
doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2010.07.003
Peters, C., Algina, J., Smith, S. W., & Daunic, A. P. (2012). Factorial
validity of the behavior rating inventory of executive function
(BRIEF)-teacher form. Child Neuropsychology,18, 168–181.
doi:10.1080/09297049.2011.594427
Pharo, H., Sim, C., Graham, M., Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (2011). Risky
business: Executive function, personality, and reckless behav-
ior during adolescence and emerging adulthood. Behavioral
Neuroscience,125, 970–978. doi:10.1037/a0025768
Volume 10—Number 1 31
Executive Function
Piolino, P., Coste, C., Martinelli, P., Macé, A., Quinette, P.,
Guillery-Girard, B., & Belleville, S. (2010). Reduced
specificity of autobiographical memory and aging: Do
the executive and feature binding functions of work-
ing memory have a role? Neuropsychologia,48, 429–440.
doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.035
Pnevmatikos, D., & Trikkaliotis, I. (2013). Intraindividual differ-
ences in executive functions during childhood: e role of
emotions. JournalofExperimentalChildPsychology,115,
245–261. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.01.010
Pronk, T. M., Karremans, J. C., & Wigboldus, D. H. (2011). How
can you resist? Executive control helps romantically involved
individuals to stay faithful. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,100, 827–837.
Rabin, L. A., Fogel, J., & Nutter-Upham, K. E. (2011). Aca-
demic procrastination in college students: e role
of self-reported executive function. Journal of Clini-
cal and Experimental Neuropsychology,33, 344–357.
doi:10.1080/13803395.2010.518597
Rabipour, S., & Raz, A. (2012). Training the brain: Fact and fad in
cognitive and behavioral remediation. Brain and Cognition,
79, 159–179. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2012.02.006
Razza, R. A., & Blair, C. (2009). Associations among false-belief
understanding, executive function, and social competence: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psy-
chology,30, 332–343. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.020
Reitan, R. M. (1958). Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indi-
cator of organic brain damage. Perceptual and Motor Skills,8,
271–276. doi:10.2466/pms.1958.8.3.271
Repov, G., & Baddeley, A. D. (2006). e multi-component model
of working memory: explorations in experimental cognitive
psychology. Neuroscience,139, 5–21.
Reynolds, C. R., & Horton, A. M. (2008). Assessing executive func-
tions: A life-span perspective. Psychology in the Schools,45,
875–892. doi:10.1002/pits.20332
Rhodes, S. M., Booth, J. N., Campbell, L. E., Blythe, R. A., Wheate,
N. J., & Delibegovic, M. (2014). Evidence for a role of executive
functions in learning biology. Infant and Child Development,
23(1), 67–83.
Riccio, C. A., Hewitt, L., & Blake, J. J. (2011). Relation of
measures of executive function to aggressive behav-
ior in children. Applied Neuropsychology,18(1), 1–10.
doi:10.1080/09084282.2010.525143
Richland, L. E., & Burchinal, M. R. (2013). Early executive function
predicts reasoning development. Psychological Science,1–6,
87–92. doi:10.1177/0956797612450883
Riggs, N. R., Spruijt-Metz, D., Sakuma, K., Chih-Ping, C., & Pentz,
M. (2010). Executive cognitive function and food intake in
children. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior,42,
398–403. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2009.11.003
Roebers, C. M., Rothlisberger, M., Cimeli, P., Michel, E., & Neuen-
schwander, R. (2011). School enrollment and executive
functioning: A longitudinal perspective on developmental
changes, the influence of learning context, and the prediction
of pre-academic skills. European Journal of Developmental
Psychology,8, 526–540. doi:10.1080/17405629.2011.571841
Romer,D.,Betancourt,L.,Giannetta,J.M.,Brodsky,N.L.,Farah,
M., & Hurt, H. (2009). Executive cognitive functions and
impulsivity as correlates of risk taking and problem behav-
ior in preadolescents. Neuropsychologia,47 , 2916–2926.
doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.06.019
Royall, D. R., & Mahurin, R. K. (1996). Neuroanatomy, measure-
ment, and clinical significance of the executive cognitive func-
tions. In L. J. Dickstein, J. M. Oldham, & M. B. Riba (Eds.),
Review of psychiatry (pp. 175–204). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychiatric Press.
Royall, P., Lauterbach, E. C., Cummings, J. L., Reeve, A., Rummans,
T. A., Kaufer, D. I., LaFrance, W. C., & Coffey, C. E. (2002).
Executive control function: A review of its promise and chal-
lenges for clinical research. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and
Clinical Neurosciences,14, 377–405.
Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., McCandliss, B. D., Saccomanno, L.,
& Posner, M. I. (2005). Training, maturation, and genetic influ-
ences on the development of executive attention. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America,102(41), 14931–14936.
Ryan, A. M. (2001). e peer group as a context for the develop-
ment of young adolescent motivation and achievement. Child
Development,72, 1135–1150.
Sadeh, S. S., Burns, M. K., & Sullivan, A. L. (2012). Examining an
executive function rating scale as a predictor of achievement
in children at risk for behavior problems. School Psychology
Quarterly,27, 236–246. doi:10.1037/spq0000012
Schiebener, J., Wegmann, E., Pawlikowski, M., & Brand, M. (2012).
Anchor effects in decision making can be reduced by the inter-
action between goal monitoring and the level of the deci-
sion maker’s executive functions. Cognitive Processing,13,
321–332. doi:10.1007/s10339-012-0522-4
Schiebener, J., Zamarian, L., Delazer, M., & Brand, M. (2011).
Executive functions, categorization of probabilities, and
learning from feedback: What does really matter for decision
making under explicit risk conditions? Journal of Clini-
cal and Experimental Neuropsychology,33, 1025–1039.
doi:10.1080/13803395.2011.595702
Sesma, H. W., Mahone, E. M., Levine, T., Eason, S. H., & Cut-
ting, L. E. (2009). e contribution of executive skills to
reading comprehension. Child Neuropsychology,15, 232–246.
doi:10.1080/09297040802220029
Soltész, F., Goswami, U., White, S., & Sz˝
ucs, D. (2011). Exec-
utive function effects and numerical development in chil-
dren: Behavioural and ERP evidence from a numerical Stroop
paradigm. Learning and Individual Differences,21, 662–671.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.10.004
Spinella, M. (2005). Self-rated executive function: development of
the executive function index. International Journal of Neuro-
science,115, 649–667. doi:10.1080/00207450590524304
St Clair-ompson, H. L., & Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Exec-
utive functions and achievements in school: Shifting,
updating, inhibition, and working memory. Quar-
terly Journal of Experimental Psychology,59, 745–759.
doi:10.1080/17470210500162854
Steinberg, L. (2007). Risk taking in adolescence new per-
spectives from brain and behavioral science. Cur-
rent Directions in Psychological Science,16(2), 55–59.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00475
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.
Journal of Experimental Psychology,18, 643–662.
32 Volume 10—Number 1
Peter Baggetta and Patricia A. Alexander
ibaut, J. P., French, R., & Vezneva, M. (2010). e development
of analogy making in children: Cognitive load and execu-
tive functions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,106,
1–19. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.01.001
orell, L. B., Lindqvist, S., Nutley, S. B., Bohlin, G., & Kling-
berg, T. (2009). Training and transfer effects of executive
functions in preschool children. Developmental Science,12,
106–113.
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Practi-
tioner review: Do performance-based measures and ratings
of executive function assess the same construct? Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry,54, 131–143. doi:10.1111/
jcpp.12001
Traverso, L., Viterbori, P., & Usai, M. C. (2015). Improving executive
function in childhood: evaluation of a training intervention for
5-year-old children. Frontiers in Psychology,6, 1–14.
Tregay, J., Gilmour, J., & Charman, T. (2009). Childhood rituals and
executive functions. British Journal of Developmental Psychol-
ogy,27, 283–896. doi:10.1348/026151008X299737
Unsworth, N., Miller, J. D., Lakey, C. E., Young, D. L., Meeks, J.,
Campbell, W., & Goodie, A. S. (2009). Exploring the rela-
tions among executive functions, fluid intelligence, and per-
sonality. Journal of Individual Differences,30(4), 194–200.
doi:10.1027/1614-0001.30.4.194
Van der Elst, W., Ouwehand, C., van der Werf, G., Kuyper,
H., Lee, N., & Jolles, J. (2012). e Amsterdam execu-
tive function inventory (AEFI): Psychometric properties
and demographically corrected normative data for ado-
lescents aged between 15 and 18 years. Journal of Clin-
ical and Experimental Neuropsychology,34, 160–171.
doi:10.1080/13803395.2011.625353
vanderVen,S.H.,Kroesbergen,E.H.,Boom,J.,&Leseman,P.
P. (2013). e structure of executive functions in children:
A closer examination of inhibition, shifting, and updating.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology,31, 70–87.
Vaughan, L., & Giovanello, K. (2010). Executive function in daily
life: Age-related influences of executive processes on instru-
mental activities of daily living. Psychology and Aging,25,
343–355. doi:10.1037/a0017729
Vestberg, T., Gustafson, R., Maurex, L., Ingvar, M., &
Petrovic, P. (2012). Executive functions predict the
success of top-soccer players. Plos One,7(4), 1–5.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034731
Vetter, N. C., Altgassen, M., Phillips, L., Mahy, C. V., & Kliegel,
M. (2013). Development of affective theory of mind
across adolescence: Disentangling the role of executive
functions. Developmental Neuropsychology,38, 114–125.
doi:10.1080/87565641.2012.733786
Wellman, H. M., Fang, F., & Peterson, C. C. (2011). Sequen-
tial progressions in a theory-of-mind scale: Longitu-
dinal perspectives. Child Development,82, 780–792.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01583
Welsh, M. C., & Pennington, B. F. (1988). Assessing frontal
lobe functioning in children: Views from developmental
psychology. Developmental Neuropsychology,4, 199–230.
doi:10.1080/87565648809540405
Welsh, M., Pennington, B. F., & Groisser, D. B. (1991). A
normative-developmental study of executive function: A
window on prefrontal function in children? Developmental
Neuropsychology,7, 131–14. doi:10.1080/87565649109540483
Welsh,M. C ., Pennington, B. F., Ozonoff, S., Rouse, B., & McCabe, E.
R. (1990). Neuropsychology of early-treated phenylketonuria:
Specific executive function deficits. Child Development,61,
1697–1713. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb03560
Wechsler, D. (1944). e measurement of adult intelligence (3rd ed.).
Baltimore, MD: e Williams and Wilkins Company.
Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale (4th ed.). San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wiebe,S.A.,Sheffield,T.,Nelson,J.,Clark,C.C.,Chevalier,N.,
& Espy, K. (2011). e structure of executive function in
3-year-olds. JournalofExperimentalChildPsychology,108,
436–452. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.008
Willoughby, M. T., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Voegler-Lee, M. E.
(2012). Is preschool executive function causally related to
academic achievement? Child Neuropsychology,18, 79–91.
doi:10.1080/09297049.2011.578572
Zelazo, P. D., Anderson, J. E., Richler, J., Wallner-Allen, K., Beau-
mont, J. L., & Weintraub, S. (2013). NIH Toolbox Cogni-
tion Battery (CB): measuring executive func tion and attention.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
78(4), 16–33. doi:10.1111/mono.12032
Zelazo, P. D., Carlson, S. M., & Kesek, A. (2008). e development
of executive function in childhood. In C. Nelson & M. Luciana
(Eds.), Handbook of developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd
ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zelazo, P. D., Carter, A., Reznick, J., & Frye, D. (1997). Early devel-
opment of executive functions: A problem-solving framework .
Review of General Psychology,1, 198–226.
Zelazo, P. D., Müller, U., Frye, D., Marcovitch, S., Argitis, G.,
Boseovski, J., …Sutherland, A. (2003). e development of
executive function in early childhood. Monographs of the Soci-
ety for Research in Child Development,68(3), vii–137.
Volume 10—Number 1 33
