Language-Related Abilities and Visual-Spatial Abilities: Their Relations with Measures of Executive Functioning

Abstract

Executive functioning is hypothesized to involve the control and coordination of cognitive operations. Despite the centrality of executive functions in current psychological research, they have been a source of confusion since a number of researchers have speculated that a close relation might exist between executive functioning and fluid intelligence. Therefore this study investigated the pattern of relations between some commonly used measures of executive functioning and established cognitive abilities.

Full text

BAOJ Psychology
Language-Related Abilies and Visual-Spaal Abilies: Their Relaons with Measures
of Execuve Funconing
Evangelia Foutsitzi1, Georgia Papantoniou1* and Despina Moraitou2
1University of Ioannina, Greece
2Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Evangelia Foutsitzi, et al, BAOJ Psychol 2016 1: 2
1: 008
*Corresponding author: Georgia Papantoniou, Department of Early
Childhood Educaon, School of Educaon, University of Ioannina, 451
10 Ioannina, Greece, Tel: 0030 265100 5889; Fax: 0030 265100 5802;
E-mail: gpapanto@uoi.gr
Sub Date: October 3, 2016, Acc Date: October 17, 2016, Pub Date:
October 19, 2016.
Citaon: Evangelia Foutsitzi, Georgia Papantoniou and Despina Moraitou
(2016) Language-Related Abilies and Visual-Spaal Abilies: Their
Relaons with Measures of Execuve Funconing. BAOJ Psychology 1:
008.
Copyright: © 2016 Evangelia Foutsitzi, et al. This is an open-access
arcle distributed under the terms of the Creave Commons Aribuon
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribuon, and reproducon
in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
BAOJ Psychology, an open access journal Volume 1; Issue 2; 008
Research
Abstract
Introduction
Executive functioning is hypothesized to involve the control and
coordination of cognitive operations. Despite the centrality of
executive functions in current psychological research, they have
been a source of confusion since a number of researchers have
speculated that a close relation might exist between executive
functioning and uid intelligence. erefore this study investigated
the pattern of relations between some commonly used measures of
executive functioning and established cognitive abilities.
Methods
e total sample consisted of 279 healthy adults, 83 men and 196
women. eir age ranged between 29-59 years. All participants
were tested with a battery of four tasks (two verbal and two visual-
spatial) tapping general cognitive ability (g): language-related
abilities measured through the Synonyms and Opposites Tests and
visual-spatial abilities measured through the Toothpicks Test and
Paper Folding Test. Executive functioning was measured through
the Verbal Fluency Test and the Design Fluency Test of the D-KEFS
neuropsychological battery.
Results
Structural equation modeling analysis showed that the executive
functioning measured variables were moderately related to the
cognitive abilities constructs. In specic, the Verbal Fluency Test
measured variables were related to the Language-related Ability
factor and the Design Fluency Test measured variables were related
to the Visual-Spatial Ability factor.
Conclusion
e results of this study suggest that there are similarities in terms
of constructs measured across intelligence and neuropsychological
test batteries.
Keywords: Executive functioning; Language-related cognitive
abilities; Visual-spatial cognitive abilities
Introducon
Executive functioning has become an important concept in
contemporary neuropsychology and is hypothesized to involve
the control and coordination of cognitive operations [1]. However,
there is little consensus on what executive functioning actually
means because of the diversity of the description of its nature.
Executive function was dened as the dimension of human behavior
that deals with how behavior is expressed and was conceptualized as
having four components: the abilities of goal formation, planning,
carrying out goal-directed plans, and eective performance [2,3].
ey are generally also described as high-level cognitive functions
believed to be mediated by frontal lobes [4].
Certainly, executive functions appear to include an expansive and
varied set of component processes namely, formulating goals and
plans of action, solving new problems, planning strategic thinking,
decision–making, monitoring appropriate sequences of action
[5-10], which aect adaptive behaviors and allow the individual to
impose organization and structure upon his or her environment
[11-13].
Since several of the descriptions of the term executive functioning
refer to rather general aspects of thinking, it is thus not surprising
that a number of researchers have speculated that a close relation
might exist between executive functioning and the concept of uid
intelligence [1], or according to others, both tests of executive func-
tions and tests of cognitive abilities tap a general construct [14-17].
In addition, research has suggested that decits demonstrated
during tests of executive functions are associated with a number
of psychological or medical disorders, such as attention-decit/
hyperactivity disorder, oppositional deant disorder, learning
disabilities and Alzheimer’s disease. ese results raise questions
about the extent to which executive functions and cognitive
abilities are distinct constructs or one term subsumes the other
and whether some methods of assessing these constructs most
accurately represent them.

BAOJ Psychology, an open access journal Volume 1; Issue 2; 008
Page 2 of 8
Citaon: Evangelia Foutsitzi, Georgia Papantoniou and Despina Moraitou (2016) Language-Related Abilies and Visual-Spaal
Abilies: Their Relaons with Measures of Execuve Funconing. BAOJ Psychology 1: 008.
e Relationship between Cognitive Abilities and Executive
Functions
It has been found that child and adult versions of the Wechsler
intelligence scales [18] contain subtests that measure the same
factors as subtests from neuropsychological test batteries designed
to assess components of executive functions, such as working
memory [19-21], nonverbal or spatial reasoning [20-22] and
attention and concentration [21]. e typically uniform positive
relations between measures of cognitive abilities and measures
of executive functions as well as the similarities between the
descriptions of executive functions, some specic cognitive
abilities, and the general factor have led researchers to suggest a
conuence of these constructs.
Floyd, Bergeron, Hamilton & Parra [23] examined the relations
among executive functions, the general factor, and specic
cognitive abilities consistent with the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC)
theory of cognitive abilities. Delis-Kaplan Executive Function
System (D-KEFS) [24] was employed to obtain measures of
executive functions and Woodcock-Johnson III Tests (WJ III) [25]
were employed to assess a broad range of cognitive abilities. e
results of their study suggest that measures of executive functions
and measures of CHC theory’s cognitive abilities are not easily
distinguished. Instead, results reveal that every D-KEFS test or
condition measures the general factor as well as broad ability
factors outlined in CHC theory, suggesting that it is possible that
true executive function factor is the CHC theory’s general factor, as
postulated by several other scholars as well [26, 27].
Furthermore, Salthouse [1] examined the pattern of relations
among a variety of variables hypothesized to assess executive
functioning, reasoning ability and perceptual speed, nding them
being strongly correlated. e outcomes of these analyses suggest
that measures used of neuropsychologists to assess executive
functioning reect the same dimensions of dierences assessed by
traditional cognitive tests.
Similarly, analyses on performance on other traditional measures
of executive functioning and on measures of intelligence have
concluded that both groups of tests essentially measure general
intellectual abilities [28].
According to the ndings of Du, Schoenberg, Scott, Russell
& Adams [29] there is a strong relation between executive
functioning and memory capacity as measured by standardized
neuropsychological tests. eir analyses indicated that the two
cognitive domains shared more than 50% of variance, revealing
that intellectual functioning is strongly related to both executive
functioning and memory.
ese suggestions, however, have been challenged by researchers
who propose that there exists a distinction between psychometric
g-factor and executive functions. Ardila, Pineda & Rosselli [30]
found that psychometric intelligence tests are not sensitive to
frontal lobe decits (“executive dysfunctions”), enhancing the
assumption that traditional intelligence tests do not appropriately
evaluate executive functions. is nding is also enhanced by
the results of Ardila, Galeano & Rosselli [31] previous study,
presenting no correlation between Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
(WCST) and Verbal Performance tests or Full Scale IQ, with
the exception of Verbal Fluency tests which presented a low, but
signicant correlation, with some verbal subtests of the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS).
Research has associated frontal damage with executive dysfunction
resulting in evident decits in self-regulation and control of
cognition [30]. However, it was somehow surprising to be observed
that patients with ventrolateral and dorsolateral frontal lesions
constantly preserved the cognitive abilities required to perform
the various intellectual tasks (WAIS-R) [18,32], indicating that
psychometric intelligence tests are not sensitive to frontal lobe
decits. is nding supports the assumption that psychometric
intelligence tests are not appraising abilities (concept formation, act
purposefully) that, from a neuropsychological perspective, should
be understood as the most important elements in cognition.
e idea of the independence of executive functions from
psychometric intelligence may also be conjectured by the results
of Welsh, Pennington & Groisser’s [33] study. Analyzing the
association between executive function measures and psychometric
intelligence test scores, they found that most of the executive
function tasks (Visual Search [34], Verbal Fluency [35], Motor
Planning [36], Tower of Honoi [37], Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
[38], Matching Familiar Figures test [39] administrated to children
were uncorrelated to IQ.
Despite the lack of clarity concerning either the denition or the
possible subcomponents and the variables that measure executive
functions, there is a relative agreement in terms of the importance
of executive functioning. Executive abilities allow us to shi our
mind set quickly and adapt to diverse situations while at the same
time inhibit inappropriate behaviors. ey mediate the ability
to organize our thoughts in a goal-directed way and therefore
are essential for success in school and work situations, as well as
everyday living [40].
e Present Study
e primary goal of the present study was to investigate the
pattern of relations between some commonly used measures of
executive functioning and established cognitive abilities, using
Conrmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). With reference to the
results of the investigation of the construct validity of several
commonly used measures of executive functioning including the
tests of verbal and design uency [20,21,23,41], where the variance
common to the executive functioning variables was very strongly
related to other cognitive ability constructs, we assumed that there
should be relationships between measured variables which reect
executive functioning to cognitive abilities latent factors (H1).
More specically we formulated the hypothesis that part of the
variance of Verbal Fluency Test measured variables would be also
explained by the Verbal Ability latent variable (factor) (H1a) and
respectively, part of the variance of Design Fluency Test measured
variables would be also explained by the Visual-Spatial latent
variable (factor) (H2b).

BAOJ Psychology, an open access journal Volume 1; Issue 2; 008
Page 3 of 8
Citaon: Evangelia Foutsitzi, Georgia Papantoniou and Despina Moraitou (2016) Language-Related Abilies and Visual-Spaal
Abilies: Their Relaons with Measures of Execuve Funconing. BAOJ Psychology 1: 008.
Methods
Participants
e present study was conducted as a part of the doctoral thesis
of the rst author. e aim of the thesis was the investigation of
the relationships among cognitive abilities, executive functioning,
tacit knowledge, and eectiveness of Greek teachers of Secondary
Education. erefore, all participants were senior high-school
teachers varied in amount of experience teaching, ranging from 5
to 15 years and, collectively, represented all subject areas. e total
sample consisted of 279 adults, 83 men (29.7%) and 196 women
(70.3%). Participants’ age ranged between 29-59 years.
Instruments
Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS)
Executive functioning was measured through D-KEFS [24]. In
particular, D-KEFS provides a new set of standardized tests for
assessing higher-level cognitive functions, such as inhibition,
exibility, and switching ability, in both children and adults. It is
composed of nine tests that measure a wide spectrum of verbal
and non verbal executive functions, two of which are the Verbal
Fluency Test and the Design Fluency Test. Each test is a stand-
alone instrument, which can be administered individually or with
other D-KEFS tests.
(a) e D-KEFS Verbal Fluency Test is composed of three
conditions. For the Letter Fluency condition, the examinee is asked
to rapidly generate words that begin with a particular letter. In
the Category Fluency condition, the examinee is asked to generate
words that belong to a designated semantic category as quickly as
possible. In the Category Switching condition the examinee is asked
to generate words, alternating between two dierent semantic
categories as quickly as possible. For each trial of each condition,
the examinee is allowed 60΄΄ (seconds).
Verbal Fluency Test measures the ability to generate words uently
in an eortful, phonemic format (Letter Fluency), from over-
learned concepts (Category Fluency) while simultaneously shiing
between over-learned concepts (Category Switching).
(b) e Design Fluency Test is also composed of three conditions.
For each condition the examinee is presented rows of boxes each
containing an array of dots that the examinee must connect, with
four lines only, to make a dierent design. For Condition 1, Filled
Dots, the response boxes contain only lled dots, and the examinee
is asked to draw as many dierent designs as possible, in 60΄΄
(seconds) by connecting those dots. For Condition 2, Empty Dots,
the response boxes contain lled and unlled dots; the examinee
is required to connect only the unlled dots so as to inhibit the
previous response of connecting the lled dots, producing as many
dierent designs as possible, again in 60΄΄ (seconds). In Condition
3, Switching, the response boxes contain both lled end empty
dots; the examinee is asked to draw the designs by alternately
connecting lled and empty dots. Design Fluency Test measures
design uency (Filled Dots), response inhibition (Empty Dots) and
cognitive exibility (Switching).
Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests
To assess cognitive abilities we employed Kit of Factor-referenced
Cognitive Tests [42], which provides a reference basis for dierent
researchers in their combined eorts to conceptualize and develop
a theory and structure of human abilities and temperament. It is
consisted of 72 tests that can serve as markers for well established
factors.
Both e Synonyms and e Opposites Tests, administered at
present study, are measuring language related abilities (associational
uency), while the Paper Folding Test and the Toothpicks Test
are measuring visual-spatial abilities (visualization and gural
exibility, respectively).
(a) e Synonyms Test measures the ability of the examinee to
produce rapidly words which share a given area of meaning or
some other common semantic area. e task is to write as many
synonyms as possible for each of the 10 words given in 3΄ (minutes)
time. e score is the number of the words written that are related
to the stimulus word.
(b) e Opposites Test has a similar structure to the one of the
Synonyms Test. e examinee is asked to write up to as many
antonyms as possible for each of the 10 words given, in 3΄ (minutes).
e score is the number of the correct antonyms written.
It seems likely that participants will score higher on both the
aforementioned tests if they have more associations tied to a word
and more exibility in interpreting similarity or dierence.
(c) e Paper Folding Test is measuring visual-spatial abilities. More
specically, it measures the ability of the examinee to manipulate
or transform the image of spatial patterns into other arrangements.
For each of the 10 items of the test, successive drawings illustrate 2
or 3 folds made in a square sheet of paper. e nal drawing of the
folded paper shows where a hole is punched in it. e examinee
selects one of the ve drawings to show how the punched sheet
would appear when fully reopened. e length of the task is 3΄
(minutes).
(d) e Toothpicks Test is measuring gural exibility. More
specically, it measures the ability to change set in order to generate
new and dierent solutions to gural problems. e examinee
is asked to present up to 5 dierent arrangements of toothpicks
according to sets or specied rules. e length for the total of the
10 items of the task is 3΄ (minutes).
Procedure
Participants were recruited from 50 dierent schools of the islands
of Creta and Cyclades, and the town of essaloniki, in Greece,
aer being explained that their participation in the survey was
voluntary. Participants were informed about the aim of the study
and were reassured about condentiality of all results. For all the
participants written informed consent was obtained and then
they completed an individual–demographics form. ey were
examined by the rst author, either individually or in groups of 3-4
persons, in a quite environment –in the area of the school building
(school library, teachers’ oce) where each participant teacher

BAOJ Psychology, an open access journal Volume 1; Issue 2; 008
Page 4 of 8
Citaon: Evangelia Foutsitzi, Georgia Papantoniou and Despina Moraitou (2016) Language-Related Abilies and Visual-Spaal
Abilies: Their Relaons with Measures of Execuve Funconing. BAOJ Psychology 1: 008.
served– so as to minimize the presence of any disruptions and
disturbances. Tests were administered in a randomized order and
testing was typically conducted in 30΄ (minutes). No incentives or
compensation were oered to participants.
Statistical Analysis
We used Conrmatory Factor Analysis to investigate the pattern of
relations between Verbal Fluency Test measured variables, Design
Fluency Test measured variables, Synonyms and Opposites tests
as well as Toothpicks and Paper Folding tests measured variables.
Structural equation models were conducted in EQS 6.1. and
performed on covariance matrix using the Maximum Likelihood
(ML) estimation procedure. e Wald test was used to suggest
more restricted models [43].
e classic goodness-of-t index is χ2. A statistically signicant χ2
(latent variable soware programs provide the exact probability
value of the model χ2) indicates that the model estimates do not
suciently reproduce the sample variances and co-variances
(i.e., the model does not t the data well) [44]. A non-statistical
signicance of the χ2-test indicates that the implied theoretical
model signicantly reproduces the sample variance-covariance
relationships in the matrix. Since this test is sensitive to sample
size, model t was also evaluated by using the root mean squared
error of approximation (RMSEA). e RMSEA tests how well the
model would t the population covariance matrix. A rule of thumb
is that RMSEA < .06 indicates close approximate t [44]. e
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) which is one of the indexes assessing
the relative improvement in t of the researcher’s model compared
with a baseline model was also used. A rule of thumb for the CFI is
that values close to .95 or greater may indicate reasonably good t
of the researcher’s model [44]. In addition, model t was evaluated
by using the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR).
e SRMR is a measure of the mean absolute correlation residual,
the overall dierence between the observed and the predicted
correlations. Values of the SRMR less than .08 are generally
considered favorable [44].
Results
Initially, CFA veried a three-factor (latent variable) structure for
executive functioning: a Verbal Fluency factor, a Category Switching
factor, and a Design Fluency factor.
Both performance on condition 1 (Letter Fluency), and condition
2 (Category Fluency), loaded on Verbal Fluency factor (Cronbach’s
α = .80). Performance on both conditions of Category Switching
loaded on Category Switching factor (Cronbach’s α = .94). Finally,
performance on all three Design Fluency Conditions loaded on
Design Fluency factor (Cronbach’s α = .64). e estimated three-
factor model (Model A) is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The underlying structure for the Execuve Funconing measured variables (Model A)

BAOJ Psychology, an open access journal Volume 1; Issue 2; 008
Page 5 of 8
Citaon: Evangelia Foutsitzi, Georgia Papantoniou and Despina Moraitou (2016) Language-Related Abilies and Visual-Spaal
Abilies: Their Relaons with Measures of Execuve Funconing. BAOJ Psychology 1: 008.
e gure of the aforementioned model includes (a) performance
on D-KEFS tests and conditions, which are measured variables
represented by rectangles on the le side of the gure. e
numbers next to the longer straight, single-headed arrows are the
standardized factor loadings; (b) the squared error terms, which
are the unexplained variance for each task attributable to unique
aspects of the task as well as measurement error, represented by the
numbers at the ends of the shorter straight, single-headed arrows;
(c) the rst order executive functioning factors (latent variables),
which are represented by ellipses to the right of the rectangles. e
numbers next to the double-headed arrows are the estimated inter-
correlations between the three factors.
e t indices for Model A were excellent. In addition to a non
signicant chi-square χ2 (12, Ν = 279) = 11.33, p = .50, the CFI
value of 1.00 was above the criterion of .95, the SRMR value of .04
was well below the criterion of .08, and the RMSEA value of .00
was also well below the criterion of .06 with the condence interval
[CI] of .00 to .06. [44]. According to the suggestions of the Wald
test, all the parameters of this model were statistically signicant,
except for the residual of one of the measured variables, namely the
residual of the total score for Category Fluency (p = .05).
en, scores of performance on cognitive tests (Synonyms and
Opposites tests as well as Toothpicks and Paper Folding tests) were
added, as measured variables, to the aforementioned Model A in
order for us to be able to estimate their factor structure as well as
the part of the common variance between them and the Executive
Functioning measured variables. e nal model (Model B)
reecting the structure of both executive functioning and cognitive
abilities tasks is illustrated in Figure 2.
e construction of Model B is based on model A, with the addition
Figure 2: The underlying structure for both the Executive Functioning and the Cognitive Ability measured variables
(Model B)
VF: Verbal Fluency; V/SF: Verbal Semanc Fluency; EF:VF1: Execuve Funcons: Verbal Fluency/Leer Category
Factor; EF:VF2: Execuve Funcons: Verbal Fluency/Category Switch Factor; EF:DF: Execuve Funcons: Design
Fluency Factor; L-R abilies: Language-Related Ability Factor; V-S abilies: Visual-Spaal Ability Factor.

BAOJ Psychology, an open access journal Volume 1; Issue 2; 008
Page 6 of 8
Citaon: Evangelia Foutsitzi, Georgia Papantoniou and Despina Moraitou (2016) Language-Related Abilies and Visual-Spaal
Abilies: Their Relaons with Measures of Execuve Funconing. BAOJ Psychology 1: 008.
of four measured variables (scores on four cognitive ability tests)
and two cognitive ability factors (latent variables), namely, the
Language-related Ability factor and the Visual-Spatial Ability factor,
respectively.
As shown in Figure 2, CFA veried a two-factor structure of the
cognitive abilities: a Language-related Ability factor (Cronbach’s α =
.79), and a Visual-Spatial Ability factor (Cronbach’s α = .61).
According to the predictions outlined earlier, part of the variance
of Letter Fluency and Category Switching measured variables was
also explained by the Language-related Ability factor, indicating
that language abilities are clearly involved in the performance of
Verbal Fluency Executive Functioning tasks.
Moreover, part of the variance of the Design Fluency measured
variables was also explained by the Visual–Spatial Ability factor,
indicating the involvement of visual-spatial abilities in the
performance of Design Fluency Executive Functioning tasks.
e t statistics indicated that Model B, which is illustrated in
Figure 2, provided an excellent t to the data: χ2 (35, Ν = 279) =
30.51, p = .68, CFI = 1.00, SRMR = .04, and RMSEA = .00 (CI90% .00
to .03) [44]. According to the suggestions of the Wald test, all the
parameters of this model were statistically signicant, except for
the residual of one of the measured variables, namely the residual
of the total score for Category Fluency (p = .33).
Discussion
e study reported in this article examined the relationships among
executive functioning, in terms of verbal uency and design uency,
language-related abilities and visual-spatial abilities. Since, a part of
the variance of both D-KEFS Verbal Fluency and Design Fluency
tests was found to be explained by cognitive ability factors as well,
the results of this study appear to indicate that measures from both
tests of executive functions and tests of cognitive abilities measure,
in some extension, the same types of abilities.
According to prior research, scores from tests like D-KEFS
Category Fluency and D-KEFS Letter Fluency have been shown to
load on factors associated with verbal or knowledge-related factors
and to correlate with related measures [1,45,46]. It is not surprising
though, since performance on Category Fluency and Letter Fluency
tasks depends on several fundamental cognitive components,
including vocabulary knowledge and rapid systematic retrieval
of lexical items. Both processes are necessary for the satisfactory
execution of either Category Fluency and Letter Fluency tasks or
other Language-related abilities tests, like the ones used in present
study (Synonyms and Opposites tests).
When marker tests of Long-term Storage and Retrieval have also
been included in research, it has been shown that Category Fluency
and Letter Fluency tests also loaded on these factors [23], which
is also no surprise as Category Fluency requires the examinee
to retrieve multiple words from a semantic category. Word
retrieval entails search of a major portion of a long-term memory
lexicosemantic store, namely a process similar to associational
uency [47], which strengthens the performance in Synonyms or
Opposites tests.
Design uency requires fundamental component skills, including
visual attention, motor speed and visual-perceptual skills, as well
as higher-level executive functions, such as uency in generating
visual patterns. Similarly, according to Carroll [47,48], gural
exibility requires imagining a gure in relation to a surrounding
visual-representational eld with the addition of the performance
of serial operations and visualization includes spatial ability, gural
adaptive exibility and speed of closure [49]. e similarity of skills
aecting the performance on both D-KEFS Design Fluency tasks
and spatial abilities tests of Paper Folding and Toothpicks indicates
that the visuo-spatial domain is related to executive functioning.
As far as the relationships between executive functioning and
spatial abilities are concerned, research has shown that Spatial-
Visualization factor and Spatial Relations factor are similar and
hence correlated with one another, in the sense that they rely on
both executive functioning and visuo-spatial storage [50].
e contribution of the results of this study is that they oer
insight into the relations among executive functions and cognitive
abilities, enhancing the conclusions of previous studies suggesting
that there are similarities in terms of constructs measured across
intelligence and neuropsychological test batteries [1,23,29].
However, it is possible that some results would not be replicated
using other samples (e.g. samples of children and adolescents or
clinical samples of adults). Furthermore for our sample, the Visual-
Spatial Ability factor –the measured variables of which were the
performance on the Paper Folding Test and the Toothpicks Test–
has indicated low reliability. Similarly to many D-KEFS measures
[23], the Design Fluency Test has also demonstrated, in the present
study, low level of reliability. erefore, future research should
include measures of visual-spatial abilities and executive functions
with better reliability as well as more carefully selected samples.
References
1. Salthause T (2005) Relaons between cognive abilies and execu-
ve funconing. Neuropsychology 19(4): 532-545.
2. Lezak MD (1982) The problem of assessing execuve funcons. Int J
Psychology 17(1-4): 281-297.
3. Lezak MD (2004) Neuropsychological assessment. Oxford University
Press NewYork.
4. Stuss DT, Alexander MP (2000) Execuve funcons and the front lo-
bes: A conceptual view. Psychol Res 63(3-4): 289-298.
5. Ellio R (2003) Execuve funcons and their disorders. Brit Med Bull
65: 49-59.
6. Royall DR, Lauterbach EC, Cummings JL, Reeve A, Rummans TA, et al.
(2002) Execuve control funcon: A review of its promise and chal-
lenges for clinical research. A report from the Commiee on Research
of the American Neuropsychiatric Associaon. J Neuropsychia Clin
Neurosci 14(4): 377-405.
7. Tranel D, Anderson SW, Benton A (1994) Development of the concept
of “execuve funcon” and its relaonship to the frontal lobes. In
F. Boller, & J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook of Neuropsychology 8: 125-
148. Elsevier Amsterdam.

BAOJ Psychology, an open access journal Volume 1; Issue 2; 008
Page 7 of 8
Citaon: Evangelia Foutsitzi, Georgia Papantoniou and Despina Moraitou (2016) Language-Related Abilies and Visual-Spaal
Abilies: Their Relaons with Measures of Execuve Funconing. BAOJ Psychology 1: 008.
8. Troyer AK, Graves RE, Cullum KM (1994) Execuve funconing as a
mediator of the relaonship between age and episodic memory in
healthy aging. Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognion 1(1): 45-53.
9. Tuokko H, Hadjistavropoulos T (1998) An assessment guide to geria-
tric neuropsychology. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
10. West RL (1996) An applicaon of prefrontal cortex funcon theory to
cognive aging. Psychol Bull 120(2): 272-292.
11. Banich MT (2004) Cognive neuroscience and neuropsychology.
Houghton Miin Boston 81(3).
12. Anderson PG, Reidy N (2012) Assessing execuve funcons in
preschoolers. Neuropsychol Rev 22(4): 345-360.
13. van der Ven SH, Kroesbergen EH, Boom J, Leseman PP (2013) The
structure of execuve funcons in children: A closer examinaon of
inhibion, shiing, and updang. Brit J Dev Psychol 31(pt 1): 70-87.
14. Del Missier F, Mantyla T, De Bruin WB (2012) Decision-making compe-
tence, execuve funconing, and general cognive abilies. J Behav
Dec Making 25(4): 331-351.
15. Yates DB, Zibe MR, Pawlowski J, Salles JF, Parente MAMP, et al.
(2013) WCST and NEUPSILIN: Relaonships among execuve func-
ons, aenon, memory and language. Psicologia: Reexão e Críca
26(3): 506-515.
16. Lee T, Mosing MA, Henry JD, Trollor JN, Ames D, et al. (2012) Genec
inuences on four measures of execuve funcons and their covaria-
on with general cognive ability: The Older Australian Twins Study.
Behav Genet 42(4): 528-538.
17. Kelly MD, Arceneaux JM, Dean RS, Anderson JL (1994) Neuropsychologi-
cal signicance of IQ summary scores. Int J Neurosci 75(3-4): 175-179.
18. Wechsler D (1981) WAIS-R manual. Psychological Corp New York.
19. Chiooran MM, D’Amato RC, Lassiter KS, Dean RS (1993) Factor struc-
ture of psychoeducaonal and neuropsychological measures of lear-
ning-disabled children. Psychology in the Schools 30(2): 109-118.
20. Leonberger FT, Nicks SD, Goldfader PR, Munz DC (1991) Factor analy-
sis of the Wechsler Memory Scale. Revised and the Halstead. Reitan
Neuropsychological Baery. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 5(1): 83-
88.
21. Leonberger FT, Nicks SD, Larrabee GJ, Goldfader PR (1992) Factor
structure of the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised within a compre-
hensive neuropsychological baery. Neuropsychology 6(3): 239-249.
22. Sherman E, Strauss E, Spellacy F, Hunter M (1995) Construct validity
of WAIS.R factors: Neuropsychological test correlates in adults refer-
red for evaluaon of possible head injury. Psychological Assessment
7(4): 440-444.
23. Floyd R, Bergeron R, Hamilton G, Parra G (2010) How do execuve
funcons t with Caell-Horn-Carroll Model? Some evidence from a
Joint Factor Analysis of the Dellis-Kaplan Execuve Funcons System
and Woodcock-Johhnson III tests of Cognive Abilies. Psychology in
the Schools 47(7): 721-738.
24. Delis DC, Kaplan E, Kramer JH (2001) Delis-Kaplan Execuve Funcon
System. Psychological Corporaon San Antonio.
25. Woodcock RW, McGrew KS, Mather N (2001) Woodcock-Johnson III
Tests of Cognive Abilies. Itasca IL Riverside.
26. Crinella FM, Yu J (2000) Brain mechanisms and intelligence psycho-
metric g and execuve funcons. Intelligence 27(4): 299-327.
27. Sternberg RJ, Gardner MK (1983) Unies in inducve reasoning. J Exp
Psychol: General 112(1): 80-116.
28. Obonsawin ΜC, Crawford JR, Page J, Chalmers P, Cochrane R, et al.
(2002) Performance on test of frontal lobe funcon reect general
intellectual ability. Neuropsychologia 40(7): 970-977.
29. Du K, Schoenberg M, Sco J, Adams R (2005) The relaonship bet-
ween execuve funconing and verbal and visual learning and me-
mory. Arch Clin Neuropsych 20(1): 111-122.
30. Ardila A, Pineda D, Rosseli M (2000) Correlaon Between Intelligen-
ce Test Scores and Execuve Funcons. Arch Clin Neuropsych 15(1):
31-36.
31. Ardila A, Galeano LM, Rosselli M (1998) Toward a model of neuropsy-
chological acvity. Neuropsychol Rev 8(4): 171-190.
32. Damasio AR, Anderson SW (1993) The frontal lobes. In K M Heilman,
& E Valenstein (Eds) Clinical Neuropsychology Oxford University Press
New York 3rd ed 409-460.
33. Welsh MC, Pennington BF, Groisser DB (1991) A normave-develop-
mental study of execuve funcon: A window on prefrontal funcon
in children. Developmental Neuropsychology 7(2): 131-149.
34. Teuber HL, Baersby WS, Bender MB (1955) Changes in visual sear-
ching performance following cerebral lesions. Am J Physiol 159: 592-
600.
35. McCarthy D (1972) Manual for the McCarthy Scales for Children’s Abi-
lies. Psychological Corp New York.
36. Golden CJ (1981) The Luria-Nebraska Children’s Baery: Theory and
formulaon In: GW Hynd & JE Obrzut (Eds) Neuropsychological as-
sessment and the school-aged child. Grune & Straon New York
277–302.
37. Simon HA (1975) The funconal equivalence of problem solving skills.
Cognive Psychology7(2): 268-288.
38. Heaton R (1981) Wisconsin Card Sorng Test: Manual. Psychological
Assessment Resources Odessa FL.
39. Kagan J, Rosman BL, Day L, Albert J, Phillips W (1964) Informaon pro-
cessing in the child: Signicance of analyc and reecve atudes.
Psychological Monographs 78(1): 1-37.
40. Jurado MB, Rosseli M (2007) The Elusive Nature Of Execuve Func-
on: A Review of our Current Understanding. Neuropsychol Rev
17(3): 213-233.
41. Salthouse TA, Atkinson TM, Berish DE (2003) Execuve funconing as
a potenal mediator of age-related cognive decline in normal adults.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132(4): 566-594.
42. Ekstrom RB, French JW, Harman HH (1976) Manual for kit of Factor-
referenced cognive tests. Educaonal Tesng Service Princeton N.J.
43. Bentler PM (2005) EQS 6.1. Mulvariate Soware Inc Encino CA.
44. Brown TA (2006) Conrmatory factor analysis for applied research.
Guilford New York.
45. Larrabee GJ (2000) Associaon between IQ and neuropsychological
test performance: Commentary on Tremont, Homan, Sco, and
Adams (1998). The Clinical Neuropsychologist 14(1): 139-145.

BAOJ Psychology, an open access journal Volume 1; Issue 2; 008
Page 8 of 8
Citaon: Evangelia Foutsitzi, Georgia Papantoniou and Despina Moraitou (2016) Language-Related Abilies and Visual-Spaal
Abilies: Their Relaons with Measures of Execuve Funconing. BAOJ Psychology 1: 008.
46. Salthouse TA, Davis HP (2006) Organizaon of cognive abilies and
neuropsychological variables across the lifespan. Developmental Re-
view 26(1): 31-54.
47. Carroll JB (1974) The aptude- achievement disncon: The case of
foreign language aptude and prociency. In DR Green (Ed) The ap-
tude- achievement disncon. Monterey. CTB/McGraw-Hill Calif.
48. Carroll JB (1995) Human cognive abilies: a survey of factor analyc
studies. Cambridge University Press 38(5): 1074.
49. Caell RB (1971) Abilies: Their structure, growth and acon. Boston:
Houghton-Miin.
50. Miyake A, Friedman NP, Renger DA, Shah P, Hegarty M (2001) How
are visuospaal working memory, execuve funconing, and spa-
al abilies related? A latent variable analysis. J Exp Psychol General
130(4): 621-640.