Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2012

Executive Function Among Preschool

Children: Unitary versus Distinct Abilities
Matthew Daniel Lerner

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu
 THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

EXECUTIVE FUNCTION AMONG PRESCHOOL CHILDREN:

UNITARY VERSUS DISTINCT ABILITIES

By

MATTHEW DANIEL LERNER

A Thesis submitted to the

Department of Psychology
in partial fulfillment of the
reqiurements for the degree of
Master of Science

Degree Awarded:
Fall Semester, 2012
Matthew Lerner defended this thesis on September 12, 2012.
The members of the supervisory committee were:

Christopher Lonigan

Professor Directing Thesis

Janet Kistner

Committee Member

Michael Kaschak

Committee Member

Carol Connor

Additional Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and
certifies that the thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables v

Abstract vi

INTRODUCTION 1

Correlates of Executive Functions in School-Age Children 1

Correlates of Executive Functions in Preschool Children 3

Types of Inhibitory Control Tasks 4

Factor Analytic Studies of EFs in Young Children 5

Current Study 7

METHODS 9

Participants, Procedures, Measures 9

RESULTS 13

Descriptive and Preliminary Analyses 13

Socioeconomic Status 13

Confirmatory Factor Analyses 13

DISCUSSION 17

Dimensionality of EF 17

Measurement and Structural Invariance of EFs Among Subgroups 21

Subtypes of Inhibitory Control 22

Importance of Executive Functions During Preschool 23

Limitations 24

Future Directions 24

iii
TABLES 26

APPENDICES 32

A. PARENT CONSENT LETTER 32

B. FLORIDA STATE HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE APPROVAL 35

REFERENCES 37

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 45

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

1 Descriptive statistics for executive function tasks 26

2 Pairwise correlations between working memory tasks 27

3 Percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch in the

nearest public elementary school 28

4 Indices of absolute and relative model fit for each model included
in the comparisons 29

5 Standardized factor loadings for EF tasks on the unitary

(Model 1) and two-factor models (WM and IC, Model 2),
allowing correlated residuals for BD & PI only 30

6 Indices of absolute and relative model fit for tests of measurement

invariance between older and younger children, boys and girls, and
children from higher or lower SES preschools 31

v
 ABSTRACT

Working memory (WM) and inhibitory control (IC) are considered related but separable
executive functions (EFs) among adults and adolescents. Although available evidence seems to
suggest that these two constructs have not yet diverged among preschool children, aspects of
previous studies of preschool populations leave open questions regarding findings indicating a
unitary factor structure. To address limitations of previous studies, this study used well-defined
tasks to examine the extent to which EF in preschool children was best represented by a single
factor or by separate but correlated WM and IC factors. Confirmatory factor analysis was used
to test for the presence of a 2-factor structure of EF among preschool children. Additionally, two
types of inhibitory tasks, conflict and suppression, were examined in an attempt to extend
evidence that suppression tasks differ more from working memory tasks than do response
conflict tasks. Based on evidence that WM and IC measured during preschool relate differently
to a variety of academic and behavioral outcomes, it was hypothesized that a model including
separate latent factors for each executive function would fit the observed data better than a
single-factor model. The model that included separate but related factors for WM and IC
provided a significantly better fit to the data than a single-factor model, indicating the presence
of separate WM and IC factors in this sample.
Keywords: executive function, inhibitory control, working memory, preschool children.

vi
 INTRODUCTION

Executive functions (EFs) are the fundamental capacities that underlie purposeful use of
attention and make goal-driven behaviors possible. The most frequently studied EFs among
adults are (a) working memory (WM), the updating and active use of information held in
memory, (b) inhibitory control (IC), the intentional suppression of a previously learned response,
and (c) shifting (SH), mentally disengaging from one set of rules and applying another instead.
Confirmatory factor analysis has demonstrated three distinct but interrelated EF domains among
adults (Miyake et al., 2000). Specifically, a model in which EF tasks formed three separate but
correlated factors was a significantly better fit to the data than a unitary model, any two-factor
model, or the model including three uncorrelated factors. In the same study, tasks that loaded
onto each hypothesized EF factor also showed predicted patterns of variance accounted for in
complex tasks requiring one or two component EFs, providing further evidence of
distinguishable EF domains among adults (Miyake et al., 2000).
In the past decade, an increasing emphasis has been placed on understanding the nature,
development, and correlates of EF among progressively younger populations. Confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) indicated that EF among 9- to 13-year-old children was best represented
by the same factor structure observed among adults, namely, interrelated but separable latent
factors representing WM, SH, and IC (Lehto et al., 2003). By contrast, prior to school entry,
evidence regarding the dimensionality of EFs is less clear, with some evidence--especially
among very young children--suggesting a unitary factor (Willoughby, Blair, Wirth & Greenberg,
2010; Wiebe et al., 2011) and other evidence pointing to important differences between WM and
IC, such as findings of differential prediction of concurrent and subsequent levels of skill in
mathematics and reading (Bull, Espy, & Weibe, 2008), internalizing (Rhoades, Greenberg, &
Domitrovitch, 2009), and externalizing (Brocki, Eninger, Thorell, & Bohlin, 2010) behavior
problems among preschool populations.
Correlates of Executive Functions in School-age Children
Behavioral correlates. EFs are implicated strongly in the development of appropriate
social behavior as well as internalizing and externalizing symptoms in grade school. Kooijmans,
Scheres, and Oosterlaan (2000) demonstrated that IC was positively associated with internalizing

1
symptoms and negatively associated with externalizing symptoms among 6-to-12-year-old
children. In a two-year longitudinal study of 235 children, Nigg, Quamma, Greenberg, and
Kusche (1998) reported that a measure of IC in first grade positively predicted social competence
and negatively predicted externalizing symptoms measured in third grade, even after controlling
for initial levels of the outcome variables and IC measured in the third grade. Also using a
longitudinal design, Thorell (2004) provided further support for the negative relation between IC
at age 5 and hyperactivity at age 8 but did not replicate the positive relation between IC and
social competence. The difference between these two studies with regard to IC as a predictor of
subsequent social competence could be attributable to the use of a more comprehensive social
competence measure by the former, differences in social norms between the countries from
which children were sampled, or measure-specific variance in the predictor or outcome.
Riggs, Blair, and Greenberg (2003) examined direct measures of IC among seven-year-
old children as predictors of internalizing and externalizing symptoms two years later. After
controlling for IQ and child sex, IC at age five predicted both parent and teacher report of
externalizing problems and parent report of internalizing problems. Despite the significant
predictive relations, no relation was observed between IC and current symptoms, suggesting that
IC may exert particular influence on change in internalizing and externalizing symptoms during
early grade school years.
When multiple components of EF are included as predictors, the relation between EF and
behavior appears to be specific to IC. Brocki, Eninger, Thorell, and Bohlin (2010) used WM and
IC measured at age five years as predictors of age seven ADHD symptoms. IC at age five years
uniquely predicted age seven years hyperactive/impulsive behaviors after controlling for IQ, but
WM performance was not related to subsequent ADHD symptoms.
Academic correlates. Among school-age children, component EFs are uniquely related
to academic outcomes, including reading and mathematics. The relation between WM and
academic outcomes appears to be independent of the link connecting well-established predictors
such as IQ and specific reading-related skills with academic performance. For example, second
grade WM contributes significantly to the prediction of third grade reading comprehension, after
controlling for second grade reading comprehension, vocabulary, and nonword reading
(Seigneuric & Ehrlich, 2005). Although the increase in the ability to predict reading
comprehension provided by WM was modest, it remained statistically significant after

2
controlling for initial reading comprehension score as well as the two strongest predictors of
reading comprehension--decoding and vocabulary (Hoover & Gough, 1990). Using a
standardized battery of WM measures, Alloway and Gathercole (2009) reported that WM
predicted significant additional variance in math and reading performance among both six- and
eleven-year-old children, after controlling for IQ and receptive vocabulary.
Using a latent variable to represent WM among boys age six to eleven years, Savage,
Cornish, Manly, and Hollis (2006) provided further evidence that predictions of academic
performance based on WM are independent from those based on IQ. Both the phonological and
central executive components of WM were significantly and independently related to concurrent
reading scores after controlling for age, IQ, and teacher-rated inattentive behavior. Bull and
Scerif (2001) also demonstrated a relation between EF and mathematics skills that was specific
to WM, by including measures of IC in addition to measures of WM. Among seven-year-old
children, WM accounted for unique variance in mathematics performance after controlling for
IQ and IC. Taken together, these findings indicate that direct measures of WM represent a
construct that plays a role in mathematics and reading skills and that this role is not better
accounted for by general intelligence, IC, or observed classroom behavior.
Correlates of Executive Functions in Preschool Children
Behavioral correlates. Studies examining a range of classroom behaviors, as well as
internalizing and externalizing symptoms, suggest that, similar to results with grade-school
children, EFs are significantly associated with child behavior during preschool. Bierman and
Torres (2009) reported positive associations between an aggregate score derived from a battery
of EF tasks completed by a sample of 356 four-year-olds in Head Start and both class
participation and prosocial behavior, in addition to negative associations between this aggregate
EF score and aggressive behavior. Hughes, Sharpen, and Dunn (2000) demonstrated concurrent
relations between complex EF tasks, (i.e., tasks known to tap multiple EFs among adults) and
observer-rated social behavior among four-year-old preschool children. Low EF performance
was associated with higher levels of observer-rated negative social behaviors (e.g., refusing to
share, threats or acts of violence), and high EF performance was associated with higher levels of
observer-rated prosocial responses to a peer (e.g., expression of concern, offer to help a
distressed peer). These relations remained significant after first entering verbal IQ and maternal
education as predictors of child social behavior. Although not specific to any one component

3
EF, these findings suggest that concurrent relations between EF performance and both positive
and negative social behavior are significant, independent of verbal ability and key demographic
factors.
Using component EF measures and a broader range of behavioral outcomes, Rhoades,
Greenberg, and Domitrovitch (2009) tested IC as a predictor of internalizing, externalizing, and
social competence among preschool children. IC was found to relate to both internalizing
symptoms and social skills but not to externalizing symptoms. Raaijmakers et al. (2008)
compared four-year-old children who scored at or above the 93rd percentile on the aggressive
behavior subscale of the Children’s Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000)
with control children, matched for age and IQ, who scored below the 50th percentile on the same
scale to examine patterns of EF performance between the two groups. High scores for
aggression were significantly related to the IC cluster of tasks, but not to other EF tasks, again
suggesting that when both WM and IC are measured, IC relates uniquely to behavioral outcomes.
Academic correlates. Two separate studies of preschool children of have demonstrated
the specificity of WM as a predictor of academic outcomes. Bull, Espy, and Wiebe (2008) used
a longitudinal design to examine preschool predictors of age seven reading and math
performance. Preschool nonverbal WM significantly predicted math but not reading
performance at age seven, whereas preschool IC significantly predicted age seven performance
in reading but not math. Alloway and Alloway (2010) used a longitudinal design to examine
WM, IQ, and memory span, each measured at age five, as predictors of reading and math
performance at age 11. Although nonverbal and verbal IQ accounted for significant variance in
both math and literacy skills at posttest, WM entered subsequently into the same model
accounted for an additional 12% of the variance in literacy skills and an additional 10% of the
variance in mathematics skills, demonstrating that the relation between WM and academic
outcomes is independent of general intelligence.
Types of Inhibitory Control Tasks
Open questions about the specific demands posed by IC tasks complicate the
interpretation of findings regarding IC in preschool children. Friedman and Miyake (2004)
demonstrated a distinction, among adults, between tasks that require only the inhibition of a
response (i.e., response suppression tasks) and tasks that require the inhibition of one response
and also the performance of another (i.e., response conflict tasks). Espy and Bull (2005)

4
reported that, among three- to six-year-old children, memory span tasks correlated significantly
with the response conflict type IC tasks but were unrelated to response suppression type IC tasks.
Given the considerable overlap between memory span and WM, response conflict tasks might
more specifically index the part of IC that overlaps with WM, whereas response suppression
tasks might be expected to index the portion of IC that is separate from WM. For that reason,
tasks selected for this study included both response conflict IC tasks and response suppression IC
tasks.
Factor Analytic Studies of EFs in Young Children
At this time, the dimensionality of WM and IC among preschool children has been
examined in five studies using factor analytic methods. Each has concluded that the two
constructs, as measured, were not separable among preschool children. Each of these studies
represented an advance in the understanding of how these EFs operate among preschool
children; however, one or more methodological limitations leaves the findings of each of each of
these studies open to plausible alternative explanations.
Results of exploratory factor analytic studies (Hughes & Ensor, 2007; Welsh et al., 2010)
have been cited as indicating the unitary nature of EF during preschool. First, because single
tasks or weakly correlated pairs of tasks (rs = .10 - .30) were used to represent each component
EF, the extent to which task- or construct-specific variance might be responsible for observed
results is unclear. Next, even if IC and WM were adequately represented, the same or greater
amounts of overlap between IC and WM have been reported among adults (Miyake et al., 2000)
and adolescents (Lehto et al., 2003) in studies that did recover distinct component EFs. If studies
demonstrating multi-dimensional models report significantly correlated factors, it is not clear
why similar--and sometimes lower--levels of correlation have been interpreted as indicative of a
unitary factor among preschool children. Finally, exploratory factor analysis cannot be used to
determine if the inclusion of additional factors would result in a significantly better fit to the
observed data.
Results of three confirmatory factor analytic studies seem to converge on two key points:
(a) among preschool children, a unitary model provides acceptable fit, and (b) the introduction of
separate factors for WM and IC does not result in significant improvement in model fit
(Willoughby et al., 2010; Wiebe, Espy, & Charak, 2008; Wiebe et al., 2011). As in the
exploratory factor analytic studies, methodological limitations suggest questions regarding the

5
conclusions drawn from each of these studies. For instance, Willoughby et al. reported that a
model including two component EFs did not provide a significant improvement in model fit
compared to a one-factor model. However, in this study, a single task was used to index WM.
As a result, measure- and construct-specific variance were confounded, which prevents an
examination of the boundary between the constructs themselves because any difference or
similarity between single tasks could plausibly be due to the tasks themselves rather than the
constructs they represent. Two additional issues complicate the model comparison reported by
Willoughby et al. First, the two-factor model included one latent IC factor and a second factor
comprised of a single WM task and a single SH task. A latent variable comprised of two tasks
intended to index different constructs cannot be considered a reliable indicator of either
construct, especially if there is reason to expect a negative relation between the two tasks.
Indeed, WM and SH have been shown to correlate negatively among very young children--
perhaps because if a previous rule cannot be held in mind, systematic perseverative errors cannot
occur (Jones, Rothbart, & Posner, 2003). In light of this evidence, any overlap between WM and
SH would likely be due to non-executive task demands. Given that two of the three constructs of
interest were indexed by single measures and that one latent variable was comprised of tasks
expected to correlate negatively, the precise meaning of the unidimensional finding is difficult to
determine.
In other cases, memory span tasks, which require recall but neither manipulation nor
updating, have been nominally considered WM tasks (Wiebe, Espy, & Charak, 2008).
Considering that the act of manipulating information has been demonstrated as the essential
component of WM (Gathercole & Pickering, 2000; Miyake et al., 2000), tasks requiring only
memory span would be expected to share only non-executive variance with WM tasks. The
findings of Wiebe et al. (2008) were consistent with this expectation. Specifically, visual
inspection of zero-order correlations revealed that span tasks (memory span & delayed
alternation) were not more closely related to one another than they were to IC tasks. The use of
span tasks to create the nominal WM variable precludes the use of these findings to describe the
relation between WM and other constructs. Inconsistencies regarding how EF components have
been defined also complicate the interpretation of available evidence (Willoughby et al., 2010,
Wiebe et al., 2008). In general, these inconsistencies either prevent the meaningful comparison
of findings across studies or add elements of one EF to a task labeled as an index of another,

6
making the detection of any distinction that might exist between EFs extremely unlikely. For
example, the delayed alternation task--used by Wiebe et al. (2011) as a WM task--is most similar
to tasks typically used to index IC, in that it establishes a prepotent response that the child must
inhibit to answer correctly. When one or more of the latent variables used in a model
comparison includes measures typically used to assess other constructs, the failure of more
complex models to improve model fit is not surprising, but the meaning of such a failure of more
complex models to result in improved model fit remains unclear.
Current Study
EFs exert both concurrent and longitudinal impact on a wide range of important child,
adolescent, and adult outcomes. In addition to their predictive significance, EFs are known to
undergo rapid development between three and six years of age (Carlson, 2005). Therefore,
understanding the nature of these skills prior to school entry is particularly important. Studies of
adults and adolescents have demonstrated distinct but interrelated component EFs; however, the
structure EFs among children is less clear. Although previous studies have examined the
distinction between WM and IC in preschool populations, no study to date with a preschool
population has utilized multiple, well-defined measures of each component EF and used
confirmatory factor analyses to examine the dimensionality of EFs. A clearer understanding of
the dimensionality of EFs immediately prior to formal school entry might provide increased
precision in identifying causal mechanisms responsible for the acquisition of academic and
socio-emotional skills.
Another difficulty in interpreting the findings regarding IC is that many IC tasks require a
child to refrain from a dominant response and simultaneously perform a competing, sub-
dominant response, whereas other IC tasks require the child simply to refrain from responding.
Consistent with evidence that tasks requiring the inhibition of one response but not the
performance of another are more distinct from memory tasks (Friedman & Miyake, 2004; Espy
& Bull, 2005), separate sets of IC measures were used to construct factors that required response
suppression and the resolution of response conflict, respectively. This study extends the results
of Espy and Bull (2005) by utilizing latent variables.
The purpose of this study was to examine the dimensionality of EFs among preschool
children. Only IC and WM were evaluated in this study. SH was not included because, at
present, there are no validated and commonly-used measures of SH for use with preschoolers. In

7
line with previous studies of EF among preschool children in which WM and IC but not SH were
examined (Blair & Razza, 2007; Bull, Espy, & Weibe, 2008; Raaijmakers et al., 2008; Welsh et
al., 2010), it was determined that the absence of a validated SH measure appropriate for four-
year-olds precluded the measurement of SH at this age.
Multiple indicants hypothesized to represent each EF component were used, and
competing models were examined to determine (a) if the EF constructs were measured
adequately, (b) if response suppression was distinguishable from response conflict among IC
tasks and (c) if a multi-factor EF model provided a significantly better representation of child
performance than a unitary model. In light of evidence that WM and IC relate differently to a
variety of academic and behavioral outcomes among preschool children, it was hypothesized that
these two EF components would form separable but correlated constructs among preschool
children, as they do among adults and older children. In an attempt to further evaluate evidence
that response conflict tasks are more closely related to memory span whereas response
suppression tasks are more uniquely related to IC, subsets of IC tasks were used to explore
possible differences between these variants of IC tasks.

8
 METHODS

Participants
The sample included 289 children (53% female), and demographic data were available
for 84% of the sample, among whom 31% were African-American, 56.5% Caucasian, 2.6%
Hispanic, 3.4% Asian, and 6.5% other). Children were primarily four years of age (i.e., 45 to 63
months of age, M = 55.74, SD = 5.24) and attending prekindergarten.
Procedures
Directors of preschools in north Florida were invited to participate, and an emphasis was
placed on recruiting schools with demographic profiles that were representative of the
surrounding community. Informed, written consent was obtained from parents before data
collection began. Testing took place in a quiet area within each child’s preschool. Assessments
were administered either by clinical psychology graduate students or by undergraduates who
were pursuing a degree in psychology and were trained to criterion and supervised by the
primary investigator. Before administering assessments, undergraduate research assistants were
trained and tested by the primary investigator to ensure that tasks were administered correctly
and consistently across examiners. To prevent systematic order effects, tasks were randomly
assigned to two orders of administration, and each participant was randomly assigned to one
order. EF tasks were administered on three separate days during 30- to 45-minute sessions, and
children were given breaks upon request or if fatigue became apparent to the tester. To obtain an
approximate measure of school-level socioeconomic status (SES), the nearest public elementary
school to each participating preschool was identified. The percentage of children in the
corresponding elementary school eligible for free or reduced price lunch and that school’s Title 1
status were used as proxy measures of school-level SES.
Measures
Working memory. Consistent with the Miyake et al. (2000) definition of WM, each
task required children to monitor and actively manipulate information held in memory in
response to newly presented stimuli. WM is often tested among adults by requiring strings of
letters or numbers to be repeated in a different order than they were presented (e.g., backward,

9
alphabetical). To prevent the confounding of WM with letter or number knowledge, tasks used
in this study were conceptually similar without using letters or numbers.
Word span reversed. This task was similar in demands and administration to the digit
span reversed subtest of the WISC-IV (Weschler et al., 2004) but did not require children to
know the names of numbers. Instead of lists of digits, children were presented with lists of
common words and asked to repeat them in reverse order. Word lists ranged in length from two
to eight words, with three trials at each of seven levels. The dependent variable was the total
number of trials in which all words were repeated in the correct order, resulting in a maximum
possible score of 21. Chronbach’s alpha for Word Span Reversed was .72 in this sample.
Size ordering. This task was modeled after the Children’s Size Ordering Task
(McInerney et al., 2005) using simpler vocabulary commonly found in measures of vocabulary
developed for three and four-year-olds. Children were presented orally with lists of common
objects (e.g., car, house, bird) and asked to repeat them in order from the smallest to the largest
object (e.g., bird, car, house). Word lists ranged in length from two to eight words, with three
trials at each level. The dependent variable was the total number of trials in which all words
were repeated in the correct order, resulting in a maximum possible score of 21. Chronbach’s
alpha for Size Ordering was .61 in this sample.
Object span. Children were presented with two cards face down on the table. After
being shown the first card, children were asked to name the objects displayed on it before it was
turned face down. Next, children were shown the second card and asked to name the objects on
it before it was turned face down. Last, children were asked to name the objects on the first card,
while it remained face down. The number of objects on each card increased from two to eight,
with three trials at each level. The dependent variable was the number of trials in which all
objects were correctly named from the first card, resulting in a maximum possible score of 21.
Chronbach’s alpha for Object Span was .27 in this sample.
Listening span. Children were asked to respond to simple questions (e.g., Do dogs bark?
Can cats fly?). After giving a response, they were asked to recall the last words of each question.
This task is similar to the listening recall subtest of the Working Memory Test Battery for
Children (Pickering & Gathercole, 2001), but uses questions with vocabulary appropriate for
preschool children. Questions were asked in sets of two to four, with three trials at each level.
The dependent variable was the total number of words from the non-last sentences (i.e., those

10
subject to the updating demand posed by the last sentence) recalled correctly, resulting in a
maximum possible score of 60. Chronbach’s alpha for Listening Span was .89 in this sample.
Inhibitory control, response suppression. Children completed three IC tasks reflecting
situations in which IC was measured with suppression. In suppression tasks, children were
required to refrain from performing a dominant response by simply doing nothing.
Bird and dragon. On this task, adapted from Reed et al. (1984) and Kochanska et al.
(1996), children completed five practice trials, during which they learned to obey simple
commands from the bird (a puppet who speaks in a high voice) and to ignore simple commands
from the dragon (another puppet who speaks in a low voice). A total of 25 trials included 12
randomly-ordered critical (dragon) trials, in which the child received a score from 0-3 (0 points
for full movement, 1 point for wrong movement, 2 for self-correction, 3 for no movement). The
dependent variable was the average score across 12 dragon trials, resulting in a maximum
possible score of 3. Chronbach’s alpha for Bird and Dragon was .95 in this sample.
Luria’s hand game. On this task, adapted from Hughes (1996), children learned in five
practice trials to imitate the examiner’s gesture, either a fist or one finger pointing. To directly
target response suppression, as opposed to response conflict, in test trials children were
instructed to imitate only the pointing gesture but to do nothing when the examiner showed a fist.
Before each trial, children were required to place their hands on a flat surface. A total of 25
trials included 12 randomly-ordered critical (fist) trials, with scores of 0-3 derived identically to
Bird and Dragon. The dependent variable was average score across 12 critical trials, resulting in
a maximum possible score of 3. Chronbach’s alpha for Luria’s Hand Game was .76 in this
sample.
Picture imitation. During practice trials, children learned to imitate black-and-white line
drawings of animals and children shown touching their heads or toes. After the dominant
response was established during imitate trials, children were instructed to continue imitating
animals but to do nothing when they saw a (same-gender) child. Children were shown 12 cards,
one at a time, half of which represented randomly-ordered critical (child image) trials. Before
each trial, children were required to place their hands on a flat surface. Scores of 0-3 were
derived identically to Bird and Dragon. The dependent variable was average score across 6
critical trials, resulting in a maximum possible score of 3. Chronbach’s alpha for Picture
Imitation was .91 in this sample.

11
 Inhibitory control, response conflict. Children completed three IC tasks reflecting
situations in which IC was measured with response conflict. In response conflict tasks, children
were required to refrain from a dominant response and also perform a sub-dominant response.
Block sorting. On this task, children first learned to sort red and white blocks into red
and white bowls, respectively. After the dominant response was established, children were
instructed to place red blocks in the white bowl and white blocks in the red bowl. Children were
given 12 blocks, one at a time, in a randomized order. Children received scores from 0-3 (0
points for a block in the same colored bowl, 1 point for a block anywhere else, 2 points for a self-
correction and 3 points for a block in the opposite color bowl). The dependent variable was
average score across 12 trials, resulting in a maximum possible score of 3. Chronbach’s alpha
was .83 for Block Sorting in this sample.
Day-night. (Gerstadt et al., 1994) Children were shown cards with cartoon drawings, one
depicting the sun and another the moon. First, examiners established that the child knew that the
sun is seen during the day and the moon is seen during the night. Then, examiners asked the
child to point to the sun card when the examiner said “night” and to point to the moon card when
the examiner said “day.” Answers on a total of 12 trials were scored 0-3 (0 for pointing
incorrectly, 1 for pointing to anything but the wrong answer, 2 for self-correction, and 3 for
pointing correctly), and the dependent variable was average score across these 12 trials, resulting
in a maximum possible score of 3. Chronbach’s alpha was .81 for Day-Night in this sample.
Knock-tap. (NEPSY; Korkman, Kirk, & Kemp, 1998) During practice trials, children
learned to imitate the examiner’s hand gestures, either knocking on the table with the knuckles or
tapping on the table with an open palm. After the dominant response had been established,
children were instructed to perform the opposite of the examiner’s gesture (i.e., knock when
examiner tapped). Responses on a total of 12 trials were scored 0-3 (0 for imitating the
examiner, 1 for performing some other gesture, 2 for self-correction, and 3 for a correct
response), and the dependent variable was average score across these 12 trials, resulting in a
maximum possible score of 3. Chronbach’s alpha was .90 for Knock-Tap in this sample.

12
 RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics for performance on each EF task are displayed in Table 1, along
with the number of children with missing data on each task. Zero-order correlations among all
10 tasks, shown in Table 2, revealed that correlations between pairs of EF tasks were generally
modest and significant. Significant outliers were defined as scores with a z-score greater than
3.29 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) on a given task and were replaced with the next most extreme
score. Performance on WM tasks was normally distributed, but skewness and kurtosis were
detected for IC scores. Inverse transformations were used to normalize scores on IC tasks. As a
result, kurtosis was reduced on five of the six tasks, with four reaching levels of non-
significance. Skew was reduced for all six IC tasks, and the average skew value was reduced
from -1.81 to -.92. Wiebe et al. (2011) reported skew values of similar magnitude (M = .99,
range = .62 -1.36), indicating that the transformed skew values in this study were similar in
magnitude to those reported previously. Compared to analyses performed with raw data, those
performed with outliers corrected and those performed with transformed data yielded the same
results for model comparisons and tests of multigroup invariance, with one exception as noted
below.
Socioeconomic Status
School-level data, shown in Table 3, indicated that the elementary schools nearest each
participating preschool ranged widely in the percentage of children eligible for free or reduced
price lunch and that eight of the 19 participating preschools were located in neighborhoods
districted for a Title 1 elementary school.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Model comparisons. Five different models were evaluated to examine the
dimensionality of EF performance1. Model 1 was a one-factor model in which all 10 EF tasks
defined a single latent variable. Model 2 was a two-factor model in which the six IC tasks (i.e.,
Bird & Dragon, Luria’s Hand Game, Block Sorting, Day-Night Stroop, Knock-Tap, and Picture
Imitation) defined an IC latent variable, and the four WM tasks (i.e., Word Span Reversed,

13
Listening Span, Size Ordering, Object Span) defined a WM latent variable. Model 3 was a two-
factor model in which the three IC-suppression tasks (i.e., Bird & Dragon, Luria’s Hand Game,
Picture Imitation) defined an IC-suppression latent variable and the four WM tasks along with
the three IC-conflict tasks (i.e., Day-Night Stroop, Knock-Tap, Block Sorting), defined a
combined IC-conflict/WM latent variable. Model 4 was a two-factor model in which the three
IC-conflict tasks defined an IC-conflict latent variable and the four WM tasks along with the
three IC-suppression tasks, together defined a combined IC-suppression/WM latent variable.
Model 5 was a three-factor model in which the WM tasks, IC-suppression tasks, and IC-conflict
tasks each defined a separate latent variable. Across all models, the latent variables were
allowed to correlate.
CFAs were performed with MPlus 6.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010) using full information
maximum likelihood to account for missing data. The Satorra-Bentler chi-squared difference
test (S-B χ2 difference) was used to test the significance of any improvement in model fit
provided by the inclusion of additional factors. The Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square (S-B χ2)
was used to correct standard errors for non-normal distributions and as an index of overall model
fit. Non-significant values for the S-B χ2 statistic represent the most stringent test of absolute
model fit. Models with comparative fit index (CFI) greater than or equal to .95 and root mean
squared error of approximation (RMSEA) less than or equal to .06 are considered to fit the data
well (Hu & Bentler, 1999); lower values for Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) and the
Bayesian information criterion (BIC) are generally considered to indicate better model fit
(Miyake et al., 2000; Raftery, 1993). Preliminary analyses indicated that allowing correlated
residuals between the Bird Dragon and Picture Imitation tasks resulted in improved model fit.
Although including this correlation in the model improved overall model fit statistics, the results
of the model comparison were the same with and without it.
Indices of absolute and relative model fit for Models 1-5 (shown in Table 4) indicated
that Model 1 provided a reasonable fit to the data, and Model 2 provided a significant
improvement in model fit over Model 1. As shown in Table 4, despite demonstrating acceptable
absolute model fit, neither of the other two-factor models provided better fit than the unitary
model, nor did the three-factor model provide improved model fit, relative to Model 2. Indices
of improvement in model fit uniformly indicated that Model 2 provided significant improvement
in fit, relative to Model 1. Identical results were found in analyses using transformed data. All

14
factor loadings for each task on the hypothesized latent variables were significant (p < .001), as
shown in Table 5.
Tests of measurement and structural invariance. Multi-sample models were used to
evaluate possible differences in construct representation and factor structure between younger
versus older children, boys versus girls, and children from lower versus higher socioeconomic
status (SES) preschools. Significant decrease in model fit as a result of the imposition of
constraints of factor loadings to equality across groups would indicate differences between
groups in the construct being assessed, and differences in the correlation between factors would
indicate inconsistency in the degree of divergence between factors when comparing one half of
the sample to another. The absence of such decreases in model fit across all constraints would
indicate equivalent measurement properties and structure of EF between the two groups being
compared. Constraints were imposed hierarchically and included (a) factor loadings, (b)
correlations between factors and the correlation between residuals, and (c) the residuals of each
observed variable. Together, these three sets of constraints resulted in the fully constrained
model, in which no parameter was estimated separately for the two groups. For age, a median
split based on age was used to create two groups. For SES, Title 1 status of the nearest public
elementary school was used to create two groups.
Results of the multi-sample analyses are shown in Table 6. For younger versus older
children (top panel of Table 6), the addition of each set of constraints resulted in uniformly non-
significant decrements in model fit, and the fully constrained model did not provide a
significantly worse fit than did the fully unconstrained model, ∆ S-B χ2 = 27.32, (p > .10). When
this comparison was performed with transformed data, loadings and factor correlations were still
found to be equivalent between groups, but residuals were found to differ significantly, with
some tasks showing larger residuals among older children and other tasks showing larger
residuals among younger chidlren. For boys versus girls (middle panel of Table 6), the addition
of each set of constraints resulted in non-significant decreases in model fit, and results were
identical using either raw or transformed data. When the sample was divided with regard to SES
(bottom panel of Table 6), the fully constrained model provided significantly worse fit than the
model in which parameters were freely estimated for each group, ∆ S-B χ2 = 65.70, (p < .001).
The constraints on factor loadings and residuals--but not the constraint on the correlation
between WM and IC factors--resulted in significant decrease in model fit. Thus, the same degree

15
of divergence between WM and IC was obtained when comparing children from higher and
lower SES schools. Both of these results were replicated using transformed data.

16
 DISCUSSION

The two-factor model in which tasks designed to measure WM and tasks designed to
measure IC defined separate but correlated factors provided the best fit to the data, and this
model provided a significant improvement in model fit relative to the unitary model. None of
the other two-factor models provided significant improvement in model fit, nor did the three-
factor model. The significant improvement in model fit provided by including separate WM and
IC factors indicates multidimensional EF performance among four-year-old children, as
measured by the tasks included in the current study. This result represents the first evidence of
divergence between component EFs among preschool children, and it indicates that the structure
of EF in preschool children is similar to that of the WM and IC components included in models
of adult EF performance.
Dimensionality of EF
The observed pattern of separation between WM and IC replicates that observed in
previous studies of adults and older children. Specifically, the uniformly significant and
moderate-to-high loadings of EF tasks on separate factors closely parallels findings reported by
Miyake et al. (2000) among adults and by Lehto et al. (2003) among older children. The
correlation between WM and IC factors in the current study was similar to, though slightly
higher than, the correlation between these factors reported by Miyake et al. (2000) and Lehto et
al. (2003), indicating greater divergence among component EFs among older children and adults
than preschool children. It could be that a higher correlation between WM and IC factors was
observed among the present sample because the amount of divergence between EF dimensions is
greater among older populations. This would suggest that although WM and IC have separated
significantly by age four, the constructs become increasingly distinct with development. For
example, the observed two-factor structure may be due to sampling older children than those
included in previous studies of EF dimensionality among preschoolers; however, the structural
invariance between the younger and older halves of this sample indicates that the two-factor
structure present among the older half of this sample was replicated in the younger half.
Although a number of studies have examined the dimensionality of EF in preschool-age
populations, none has produced evidence of multidimensionality. In contrast, results of this

17
study support WM and IC as distinct dimensions of EF. There are a number of possible reasons
for the differences between the findings of this and prior studies, including improvements in
construct specification, task selection, number of tasks utilized, and limitations of particular
analytic methods.
Improved construct specification is among the most likely explanations for the novel
finding of this study. In a number of studies, the relation between established construct
definitions and selected tasks has been unclear, perhaps due in part to the difficulty of finding EF
tasks appropriate for young children and also to the use of tasks that include elements of more
than one component EF (i.e., task impurity problem; Burgess, 1997; Phillips, 1997). Imprecise
construct specification leads to findings that do not pertain to the construct of interest by creating
a mismatch between the constructs specified in the hypothesis and those represented by the data.
One frequent example of an inadequately specified construct is WM, which is
distinguished definitionally from Memory Span by the requirement of updating or manipulating
information held briefly in memory. This distinction has been supported empirically, using CFA
(Gathercole & Pickering, 2000). Evidence from studies that intend to examine WM but use tasks
that fit the definition of Memory Span (e.g., Aunio & Hautamaki, 2010; Hughes & Ensor, 2007;
Kyttala, Nevo, & Breznitz, 2011; Noel, 2009; Savage et al., 2006; Weibe, Espy, & Charak,
2008), by definition, does not pertain directly to WM. By contrast, the findings of this study
directly parallel previous investigations of EF dimensionality among older populations (Miyake
et al., 2000; Lehto et al., 2003) by strictly applying the same construct definitions for component
EFs, thus making possible a direct comparison between the dimensionality of EF observed
among preschool children and that observed previously among older populations.
Improvements in task selection also offer a plausible explanation of this divergent
finding. The present study included tasks that closely paralleled those used previously to
measure WM and IC among adults and older children. To that end, tasks used to index WM in
this study fit a strict definition of requiring recall and either updating or manipulation of
information held briefly in memory, as opposed to including span tasks, which require recall but
neither updating nor manipulation. Observed convergent and divergent patterns between tasks
intended to index component EFs are consistent with the theoretical model of separate but related
component EFs. Because this study used the same definitions as studies of EF among adults, the
finding of the same pattern of divergence between WM and IC indicates the presence of two of

18
the same component EFs among preschool children that had previously been demonstrated only
among older populations.
Findings from studies based on factors comprised of tasks that did not fit the definitions
of component EFs are difficult to interpret with regard to the constructs of interest. For example,
in a previous report of unitary EF among preschool children, Willoughby et al. (2010) reported
that one factor comprised of IC tasks was not significantly distinguishable from another factor
including a combination of WM and SH tasks, concluding that a unidimensional model of EF
provided the best fit. A single factor including tasks that fit definitions of multiple component
EFs (in this case, WM and SH) would not be expected to adequately index either component EF.
By contrast, this study indexed WM using four tasks, each of which required either updating or
manipulation of information held in memory, resulting in a latent WM variable directly
comparable to those used with older populations.
Another potential problem with task selection is the use of tasks that, despite meeting
definitional requirements, do not adequately index the divergent aspects of two EF components.
For instance, a visual examination of pairwise correlations in a study reporting unitary EF in
preschoolers (Wiebe et al., 2008) reveals that correlations between pairs of tasks intended to
index the same component EF were generally smaller than correlations between pairs of tasks
intended to index different components. This pattern suggests a lack of divergence between
tasks intended to represent distinct factors. As a result, the unidimensional finding could either
be attributable to the actual absence of a boundary between these EF components in the target
population, or to the selection of tasks that indexed the overlapping but not the divergent aspects
of WM and IC. The present findings address this concern by using groups of tasks chosen a
priori based on construct definitions and shown in preliminary analyses to correlate more
strongly within than across groups.
Another possible reason for differences between the results of this study and the results of
prior studies of EF dimensionality in preschoolers is the number of tasks used to measure each
construct. Some reports of unidimensional EF among preschool children, (e.g., Welsh et al.,
2010; Willoughby et al., 2010) caution that the evidence of unidimensionality could be
attributable to the use of a range of tasks that is too limited in number of tasks or variety of task
demands. When single tasks or simple composite scores are considered to represent a construct
of interest, task- and construct-specific variance cannot be separated. As a result, the presence or

19
absence of a boundary between observed measures could either be attributable to the measures
themselves or to the construct of interest. In some cases, the difficulty of identifying a
comprehensive and sufficiently varied range of EF tasks that can be completed by young
children or concerns regarding fatigue effects likely to be caused by such an extensive battery of
tasks have been cited as reasons for using a limited number or range of EF tasks.
This study addressed concerns about insufficient range of tasks by including a
comprehensive selection of 10 EF tasks to index two possible component EFs. Further, fatigue
effects were minimized by the use of three separate testing sessions, and systematic order effects
were minimized by random assignment of tasks to two different, randomly-determined task
orders. In this study, both WM and IC were represented by only the variance shared among a
group of tasks (four tasks for WM and six for IC) chosen a priori to fit the respective constructs.
As a result, EF was examined in a comprehensive manner that provides a more powerful test of
its dimensionality among preschool children. By using latent variables defined by only the
variance shared among tasks that included a variety of extraneous characteristics, this study
avoids the confounding of task with construct.
With regard to analytic methods, several prior studies have used EFA to explore the
dimensionality of EF in preschool children (e.g., Hughes & Ensor, 2007; Welsh et al., 2010). As
suggested by Welsh et al. (2010), EFA studies can identify clusters of tasks that share variance
but cannot provide a direct test of dimensionality; therefore, EFA findings do not provide
grounds on which to accept or reject competing models. By contrast, CFA results quantify both
the degree of divergence between the a priori model and the observed data and the increase in
that divergence that would occur if tasks intended to represent two or more hypothesized
component EFs were combined into a single factor. In addition, confirmatory models allow for
tests of the significance of the increase in divergence between the specified model and the
observed data when two factors are considered as one (i.e., combining WM and IC into a single
factor). Such tests can be used to determine whether increasingly complex models are warranted
by a proportional increase in model fit.
Finally, it is possible that the two-factor solution resulted, at least in part, from negative
skew present among the IC tasks but not the WM tasks. Differences in distribution shape can
limit the maximum possible correlation between two variables (Shih & Huang, 1992).
Performance on each of the IC tasks was negatively skewed, but performance on each WM was

20
normally distributed, resulting in a reduction in the maximum possible correlation between
factors. Therefore, the observed divergence between factors could be influenced by differences
in distribution shape. This possibility would be of particular concern if (a) transformations did
not reduce the skew to a level similar to those reported in previous studies or (b) if results had
differed significantly depending on whether raw or transformed data had been used. However,
the consistency of results between raw and transformed data suggests that differences in
distribution shape alone present an unlikely explanation of the divergence between factors. Only
one CFA study of EF dimensionality in preschool chidlren both used similarly-defined tasks and
reported skew values (Wiebe et al., 2011). These values were nearly identical in magnitude in to
the transformed skew values in the present study. Given the similarities in the distributions of IC
measures between this study and the study by Wiebe et al., who reported that IC and WM were
best represented as a single factor, it seems unlikely that the departures from normality of the
distributions of IC tasks in this study could explain the emergence of the two-factor model.
Measurement and Structural Invariance of EFs Among Subgroups
Tests of measurement invariance were used to determine if the tasks indexed WM and IC
in the same way for the older versus younger halves of the sample, boys versus girls, and
children enrolled in lower versus higher SES preschools. Tests of structural invariance were
used to determine if the preferred two-factor model was equally applicable across these
subgroups. In the fully constrained model, both measurement and structural invariance were
imposed. The 10 factor loadings, the correlation between latent variables, the correlation
between residuals allowed to correlate in the model, and the unique variance of each of the 10
tasks were constrained to equality between groups. This model did not result in significantly
decreased model fit when the sample was divided by age or sex, which indicates both
measurement and structural invariance when comparing older versus younger children and boys
versus girls in this sample. In contrast, when the sample was divided with regard to SES,
significant differences arose: both the loading of individual tasks on hypothesized factors and the
task-specific variance differed for children from higher and lower SES preschools. The exact
meaning of these differences is difficult to determine, particularly because they were not
predicted, but examination of the differences in loadings of tasks on hypothesized factors
indicated greater cohesion among IC tasks in the higher SES schools. This difference may have
been caused by the significantly greater variability in the performance of children attending

21
higher SES schools compared to the performance of children attending lower SES schools. With
regard to the primary hypothesis, namely the boundary between WM and IC factors, children in
higher- and lower-SES centers showed the same degree of divergence between component EFs,
as evidenced by the absence of decrease in model fit when the constraint on the correlation
between WM and IC factors was imposed.
Although the difference between younger and older children with regard to the
correlation between WM and IC was not statistically significant, it was consistent in direction
with a pattern of divergence between component EFs increasing with age (i.e., the observed
trend was a lower correlation between factors with the older half of the sample than with the
younger half of the sample). Given that the younger half of the sample showed a smaller--but
still significant--degree of divergence between factors, these children may represent the youngest
age at which multiple component EFs are detectable. As such, a sample of children ages 36 to
60 months might be particularly useful in helping to determine the age at which separate
component EFs emerge. For example, if a single study, using the same set of tasks and the same
model comparisons among older and younger preschoolers, could demonstrate a unitary factor
among younger preschoolers and separable factors among older preschoolers, such a study
would provide strong evidence regarding the developmental timing of the emergence of
separable component EFs. To date, no factor analytic study of EF dimensionality in preschool
children has included the entire range of three to five years of age.
Subtypes of Inhibitory Control
In contrast to evidence for a distinction between IC and WM, this study did not provide
support for the hypothesis predicting a distinction between IC tasks involving response
suppression versus IC tasks involving response conflict. The hypothesis that two types of IC
tasks might be separable was based in part on the findings of Espy and Bull (2005) that tasks
involving response conflict (i.e., choosing between a previous and a current rule) were
significantly related to Memory Span performance whereas tasks requiring the suppression of a
naturally predisposed response were not. Further, in light of the apparent WM demand involved
in considering two separate sets of rules instead of just one, tasks requiring only suppression
were expected to differ more clearly from WM tasks. The absence of such a pattern indicates
that response conflict, as measured in this study, does not differ significantly from response
suppression, as measured in this study.

22
Importance of Executive Functions During Preschool
An increasing body of evidence supports the connection between EF deficits and a range
of behavioral problems, including aggressive behavior (Bierman & Torres, 2009), maladaptive
social behavior (Hughes, Sharpen, & Dunn, 2000), and internalizing as well as externalizing
symptoms (Rhoades, Greenberg, & Domitrovitch, 2009). Preliminary evidence of the
importance of examining component EFs separately was provided by Raaijmakers et al. (2008)
who reported that children rated high in aggressive behaviors differed from their peers on IC
tasks but not WM tasks. As suggested by Blair, Zelazo and Greenberg (2005), an improved
understanding of early EFs would provide a basis for more direct examination of the differences
between WM and IC as predictors of a range of outcomes and more precise identification of the
causes of poor behavioral regulation in general and externalizing symptoms in particular. Such
examination can extend and clarify the meaning of findings that currently suggest WM and IC
relate strongly, and in some cases differently, to a range of academic and socioemotional
outcomes.
Substantial evidence indicates that EF is developing rapidly prior to school entry,
including some evidence of IC during the first year of life (Johnson, 2005; Pelphrey et al., 2004;
Reznick, Morrow, Goldman, & Snyder, 2004). Although tasks intended to index WM have been
administered to children younger than 36 months (Corrigan, 1981), the extent to which these
tasks fit the definition of WM (i.e., manipulation or updating of information held in memory) is
unclear; it appears that before about age three, children cannot reliably complete tasks that fit the
definition of WM. Therefore, age three would be the earliest age at which the divergence
between WM and other component EFs can be examined. Studies of EF dimensionality among
three-year-old children have not provided evidence of separable components, but by age seven or
eight years, children demonstrate nearly the same separable but interrelated EF structure
documented among adults. Thus, the emergence and development of these skills must take place
almost entirely during preschool and early grade school years. Therefore, this time span is
critically important to understanding the nature of EF. To that end, examining EFs in
progressively younger children is the key to an improved understanding of the nature and
developmental trajectory of these skills as well as their influence on other outcomes. To the
extent that distinct component EFs can be accurately measured in younger children, evidence
regarding the influence of these skills on a range of outcomes will become more useful in

23
identifying and explaining observed deficits in self-regulation. Such explanation could
potentially inform efforts to remediate deficits in EF component skills and related behaviors,
especially if such deficits were identified while still undergoing rapid change.
Limitations
The findings of this study should be interpreted with regard to a number of limitations.
Scores on several of the IC tasks approached the ceiling for a number of children.
However, despite this, substantial and statistically significant correlations between tasks as well
as highly significant factor loadings were obtained. Still, the observed scores suggest that these
tasks may be insufficiently difficult to capture the high end of IC task performance among four-
and five-year-old children. These tasks might be revised to include a wider range of difficulty so
as to remain sensitive to individual differences among very young children while also including
items that could be administered to children with more developed IC skills. The single pair of
correlated residuals included in the preferred model was not specified a priori, but this
correlation was justified for at least two reasons. First, Bird and Dragon and Picture Imitation
are highly similar tasks with regard to non-executive demands that could lead to the observed
correlated residuals (in fact, the only difference is verbal versus visual stimulus presentation).
Further, because the inclusion of this single correlated residual resulted in improved model fit
(higher CFI and lower RMSEA) without changing the outcome of the model comparison (Model
2 was preferred with and without this pair of correlated residuals), its inclusion provides a clearer
hypothesis test. An additional possible limitation was that the responses required for all WM
tasks were verbal, whereas the responses required for all IC tasks were motor. It is possible that
the emergence of two factors was due to these different response requirements; however, the fact
that studies reporting a single EF factor had tasks with similar response differences makes it
unlikely that this difference between tasks alone can account for the findings of this study. The
operationalization of SES provided a general estimate of neighborhood SES for the preschool
center, but a more direct measure including parental education and level of income as well as
other relevant factors might have been more sensitive to differences in SES.
Future Directions
Performance on EF tasks relates closely to both academic and socioemotional outcomes
among preschool children and has also been linked to the development of psychopathology
(Nigg & Casey, 2005), but the nature of these relations is not well understood. A clearer

24
understanding of the dimensionality of EF may help to elucidate the mechanism connecting EF
components to a wide range of outcomes. For example, some evidence suggests that among
grade school children, IC relates more closely to internalizing and externalizing symptoms
(Kooijmans, Scheres, & Oosterlaan, 2000) but WM relates more closely to the development of
academic skills (Seigneuric & Ehrlich, 2005). Any test of such component-specific relations
using preschool EF as a predictor would require the measurement of separate component EFs
during preschool. Otherwise, such predictive relations could only begin at later stages of
development, during which outcomes of interest may be less malleable and maladaptive
behaviors may have already become more pervasive. Although divergence between WM and IC
was observed among preschool children, this evidence cannot be used to specify the
developmental timing of such divergence. Future studies should seek to determine the
developmental timing of this divergence by including a wider age range, thus allowing for some
preliminary statements about the timing of the divergence between WM and IC.

25
 TABLES

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Executive Function Tasks

Task Name Chronbach’s α Mean SD Range Skew Kurtosis Missing

Min Max

WM Tasks

Object Span .27 1.19 1.11 .00 5.00 .70 -.09 16

Size Ordering .61 2.42 1.73 .00 7.00 .73 .09 15

Word Span Reversed .72 2.12 1.97 .00 7.00 .31 -1.08 15

Listening Span .89 6.61 4.08 .00 12.00 -.19 -1.29 20

IC Tasks

Knock Tap .90 2.57 .55 .67 3.00 -1.72 2.15 16

Block Sorting .83 2.71 .36 1.17 3.00 -1.95 3.58 17

Day Night .81 2.55 .52 .30 3.00 -1.47 1.86 16

Picture Imitation .91 2.51 .86 .00 3.00 -1.94 2.52 19

Bird Dragon .95 2.70 .77 .00 3.00 -2.73 6.08 18

Luria’s Hand Game .76 2.15 .88 .00 3.00 -1.06 -.03 16

Note. N = 289. * p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001, WM = Working Memory, IC = Inhibitory
Control.

26
Table 2

Pairwise Correlations Between Working Memory Tasks

Task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Object Span --
2. Size Ordering .05 --
3. Word Span Reversed .20** .38*** --
4. Listening Span .27*** .27*** .24*** --
5. Knock-Tap .12* .21*** .32*** .20** --
6. Block Sort .14* .16* .25*** .07ns .18** --
7. Day Night .15* .32*** .30*** .30*** .33*** .16* --
8. Picture Imitation .11+ .28*** .31*** .29*** .35*** .20** .35*** --
9. Bird Dragon .08ns .22*** .23*** .29*** .39*** .13* .39*** .61*** --
10. Luria’s Hand Game .20** .19** .29*** .16** .46*** .15* .25*** .30*** .34***

Note. Ns range from 264 to 274. * p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

27
Table 3

Percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch in the nearest public elementary school

Nearest Elementary School Title 1 FRPL

Non-Title 1 Schools

Killearn Kids No 9%

Epiphany No 16%

Annsworth Academy No 16%

Creative Child No 19%

CCN 116 No 19%

Kinderschool No 19%

Timberlane Church No 19%

Kid's World Academy No 42%

Mahan Preschool No 44%

Kidz Academy No 44%

Great Beginnings No 58%

Title-1 Schools

Little Lambs Yes 76%

MY1 Yes 78%

Toya Center Yes 78%

BHP Yes 78%

MY4 Yes 85%

Kid's Club Yes 90%

Little Red Yes 90%

Dick Howser Yes 90%

Note. FRPL = percentage of children eligible for free or reduced price lunch in the nearest public
elementary school.

28
Table 4

Indices of absolute and relative model fit for each model included in the comparisons

Model S-B χ2 df CFI RMSEA AIC BIC ∆ S-B χ2

Model 1 (Unitary EF) 71.67 34 .94 .06 7570 7683 ---
Two-Factor Models
Model 2: WM, IC 55.60 33 .97 .05 7554 7671 10.55**
Model 3: ICs+WM, ICc 72.10 33 .94 .07 7572 7689 .19 ns
Model 4: ICc+WM, ICs 69.75 33 .95 .06 7571 7687 1.92 ns
Three-Factor Model

Model 5: ICc, ICs, WM 55.88 31 .96 .05 7558 7682 .23 ns

Note. Two-factor models were compared to the unitary model, and the three-factor model was
evaluated against the preferred two-factor model. WM = Working Memory, ICs = Inhibitory
Control, suppression subtype, ICc = Inhibitory Control, response conflict subtype. S-B χ2 =
Satorra-Bentler Chi-Square, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Squared Error
of Approximation, AIC = Akaike’s Information Criterion, BIC = Bayesian Information
Criterion. * p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

29
Table 5

Standardized Factor loadings for EF tasks on the unitary (Model 1) and Two-Factor Models
(WM and IC, Model 2), Allowing Correlated Residuals for BD & PI Only

Standardized
R-square
Loadings
Task WM Factor EF
Object Span .34 .29 .08†
Size Ordering .55 .46 .29***
Span Reversed .60 .50 .36***
Listening Span .53 .46 .26***
IC Factor
Knock Tap .74 .73 .30***
Block Sorting .57 .57 .07†
Day-Night .71 .71 .30***
Picture Imitation .64 .64 .55***
Bird & Dragon .68 .67 .55***
Luria’s Hand Game .60 .59 .23**

Note. All p’s for factor loadings were significant at p < .001.; † p = .05; p < .05; **p < .01; ***p
< .001. * = correlated residuals included in the model. OS = Object Span, SO = Size Ordering,
WS = Word Span Reversed, LS = Listening Span, KT = Knock-Tap, BS = Block Sorting, DN =
Day Night Stroop, PI = Picture Imitation, BD = Bird and Dragon, LH = Luria’s Hand Game,
WM = Working Memory, IC = Inhibitory Control, EF = Executive Function.

30
Table 6
Indices of absolute and relative model fit for tests of measurement invariance between older and
younger children, boys and girls, and children from higher or lower SES preschools

Model S-B χ2 df CFI RMSEA AIC BIC ∆ S-B χ2

Older vs. Younger Children
No Constraints 114.91 74 .93 .07 7210 7412 ---
Loadings 142.72 84 .93 .07 7218 7384 14.34ns
Loadings & r’s 143.46 86 .94 .06 7215 7373 .33ns
Loadings, r’s, residuals 163.22 96 .93 .06 7214 7337 13.05ns

Boys vs. Girls

No Constraints 121.67 74 .90 .07 7265 7469 ---
Loadings 138.16 84 .90 .06 7262 7430 11.55ns
Loadings & r’s 140.32 86 .90 .06 7261 7421 1.31ns
Loadings, r’s, residuals 171.87 96 .88 .06 7273 7396 18.17†

Children from Higher vs. Lower SES Preschools

No Constraints 117.79 74 .95 .06 7508 7712 ---
Loadings 144.81 84 .93 .07 7515 7683 23.64**
Loadings & r’s 145.68 86 .93 .07 7512 7672 .52ns
Loadings, r’s, residuals 204.92 96 .88 .08 7551 7675 41.19***

Note. p < .001.; † p = .05; p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. S-B χ2 = Satorra-Bentler Chi-Square,
CFI = Comparative Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation, AIC =
Akaike’s Information Criterion, BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion. Loadings refers to
loadings of all 10 observed variables, r’s refers to correlations between latent variables and one
pair of correlated tasks, residuals refers to residual variance for all tasks.

31
 APPENDIX A

PARENT CONSENT LETTER

Title: DEVELOPMENT OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN’S COGNITIVE & REGULATORY

SKILLS (PARENT CONSENT)
Investigator: CHRISTOPHER J. LONIGAN, PH.D. Telephone: (850) 644-7241
The purpose of the research project in which we are asking you and your child to
participate is to learn more about how children’s attention skills and abilities to regulate their
behavior develop and are related to their developing skills related to later reading and math. This
project will provide important information that will help researchers and educators to understand
better key signs of preschool children’s growing competencies related to later school success.
This will allow educators to create better methods of preventing academic problems in young
children.
If you decide to participate in this project, your part in the project may include:
1. Completing questionnaires that ask about your child's participation in educational activities,
developmental history, and characteristics of your family, such as number of children, reading
habits, and amount of education completed. These questionnaires will also ask about your child’s
preference for different day-to-day activities, and general characteristics about your child, like
his or her activity level, moods, and ability to interact with others.

Should you decide to participate and allow your child to participate, her or his part will include:
1. Being assessed from time-to-time with measures of pre-reading skills, language skills, and
early math skills, and with measures of memory, attention, and self-regulation. Trained research-
project staff at your child’s preschool will conduct these assessments. Many of these assessments
are commonly used educational measures of vocabulary, reading-related skills, general
knowledge, and math skills. Other assessments include measures of how well children can
follow directions, solve problems, or involve looking at pictures on a computer screen and
responding when a specific picture (a fish) appears. Children typically enjoy these assessments.
Many of the tasks are similar to common childhood games, like Simon Says. We will not
continue a test or task if your child indicates that he or she does not want to participate.
For this project, assessments will be conducted at the beginning, in the middle, and at the
end of the preschool year. Assessments for this project will be conducted in 20 to 30 minute
sessions, based on your child’s interest and other activities ongoing in the preschool. We expect
that all assessments for the project will take no more than a total of 90 minutes. We will arrange
sessions with your child’s teacher to limit disruption of ongoing activities. In coming years, we
may contact you to request permission to again assess you child to see how they are doing in
terms of academic skill development, at which time you may decline continued participation.
2. We will ask your child’s teacher to complete rating forms on behavior in the school setting.

32
Your participation may result in the following benefits:
1. If you request, we will tell you about your child's assessment results. These results will let
you know how your child's language and reading-related skills are developing.
2. Parents who complete the questionnaires for this study will receive a gift card to a local
retailer (e.g., Publix, Target) worth between 10 and 20 dollars (depending on the number and
length of questionnaires completed).
3. The information that we gather from this project will be used to understand better how to
help children get the most from their school experiences. This information may be used to help
children who are having problems with their language, reading-related, and math-related skills.

We know of no risks associated with your or your child's participation in this project.
Your participation is completely voluntary. You do not have to participate if you do not want to.
Your decision whether to participate or not will have no effects on any other treatment or
services for which you are eligible from Florida State University or your child’s preschool. You
may change your mind and withdraw from this project at any time without penalty. There are no
risks associated with withdrawal from this project.
All information collected for this project will be kept confidential to the extent allowed
by law. Confidentiality will be ensured in the following ways: In public reports of the results of
this project, we will only report results that have been averaged over large numbers of children.
No child or family will ever be identified publicly. Assessments of your child's skills are solely
for research purposes. These assessments and other information gathered on your family and
child will be kept in a locked file storage area in project offices at the Department of Psychology
at Florida State University, identified only by a code, and will not be available to your child's
preschool or to any other person or institution unless you ask us in writing to provide this
information to someone. Identifying information will be retained for a period of up to 2 years
following completion of this project. It is expected that the project will end by 09/01/14. Data
from this project, with all identifying information removed, will be retained indefinitely.

33
 If at any time you have questions about this project, please contact Dr. Christopher
Lonigan (phone: 850-644-7241; email: lonigan@psy.fsu.edu) at the Department of Psychology,
Florida State University. A description of the group results of this project will be sent to you
upon request. If you have questions about your rights as a participant in this project, or if you
feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Committee,
Institutional Review Board, through the Office of the Vice President for Research, at (850) 644-
8633.

If you agree to participate in this research project and allow your child to participate, please sign
and print your name and the name of your child below (next page). Your signature indicates that
you have read the information provided above, or have had it read to you, and that you have
decided to participate. A copy of this consent form has been offered to you.

_____________________________________________________ __________________
Signature and printed name of parent or legal guardian Today’s Date

_____________________________________________________ __________________
Printed name of child Child's Date of Birth

Please include the following information so that we can contact you regarding project results.

____________________________________________________________________________
Street Address City State Zip

Home Phone: ________________________ Work Phone: ______________________

Email Address: ________________________________

34
 APPENDIX B

FLORIDA STATE HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE

APPROVAL LETTER

35
Office of the Vice President For Research
Human Subjects Committee
P. O. Box 3062742
Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742
(850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392

RE-APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 07/16/2012

To: Christopher Lonigan <lonigan@psy.fsu.edu>

Address: 4301

Dept.: PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Re-approval of Use of Human subjects in Research:

Development of Cognitive and Regulatory Skill of Preschool Children

Your request to continue the research project listed above involving human subjects has been
approved by the Human Subjects Committee. If your project has not been completed by
07/102013, you are must request renewed approval by the Committee.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your renewal request, the approved stamped
consent form is attached to this re-approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent
form may be used in recruiting of research subjects. You are reminded that any change in
protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to
implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is
required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require
that the Principal Investigator promptly report in writing, any unanticipated problems or adverse
events involving risks to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chairman of your department and/or your major professor are
reminded of their responsibility for being informed concerning research projects involving
human subjects in their department. They are advised to review the protocols as often as
necessary to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and
with DHHS regulations.

Cc:
HSC No. 2012.8609
07/16/2012

36
 REFERENCES

Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms
and profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for
Children, Youth & Families.

Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of working memory
and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106, 20-29.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003

Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Kirkwood, H., & Elliott, J. (2009). The cognitive and
behavioral characteristics of children with low working memory. Child Development, 80,
606-621. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01282.x

Bierman, K. L., Torres, M. M., Domitrovich, C. E., Welsh, J. A., & Gest, S. D. (2009).
Behavioral and cognitive readiness for school: Cross-domain associations for children
attending head start. Social Development, 18, 305-323. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2008.00490.x

Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief
understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development,
78, 647-663. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x

Brocki, K. C., Eninger, L., Thorell, L. B., & Bohlin, G. (2010). Interrelations between executive
function and symptoms of hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattention in preschoolers: A
two year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 163-171.
doi:10.1007/s10802-009-9354-9

Brown, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen & J.
Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models, (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Bull, R., Espy, K. A., & Wiebe, S. A. (2008). Short-term memory, working memory, and
executive functioning in preschoolers: Longitudinal predictors of mathematical
achievement at age 7 years. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 205-228.
doi:10.1080/87565640801982312

Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive functioning as a predictor of children's mathematics
ability: Inhibition, switching, and working memory. Developmental Neuropsychology,
19, 273-293. doi:10.1207/S15326942DN1903_3

Burgess, P. W. (1997). Theory and methodology in executive function research. In P.

Rabbitt (Ed.), Methodology of frontal and executive function (pp. 81–116). Hove,
UK: Psychology Press.

37
Carlson, S. M., Davis, A. C., & Leach, J. G. (2005). Less is more: Executive function and
symbolic representation in preschool children. Psychological Science, 16, 609-616.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01583.x

Carlson, S. M., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Bilingual experience and executive functioning in
young children. Developmental Science, 11, 282-298. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
7687.2008.00675.x

Corrigan, R. (1981). The effects of task and practice on search for invisibly
displaced objects. Developmental Review, 1, 1–17.

Espy, K. A., & Bull, R. (2005). Inhibitory processes in young children and individual variation in
short-term memory. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 669-688.
doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2802_6

Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control
functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133,
101-135. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101

Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2000). Assessment of working memory in six- and seven-
year-old children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 377-390. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.92.2.377

Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J., & Diamond, A. (1994). The relationship between cognition and
action: Performance of children 3 1/2-7 years old on a stroop-like day-night test.
Cognition, 53, 129-153. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90068-X

Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2,
127-160. doi:10.1007/BF00401799

Hughes, C. (1996). Control of action and thought: Normal development and dysfunction in
autism: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 229-236.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01396.x

Hughes, C., & Ensor, R. (2007). Executive function and theory of mind: Predictive relations
from ages 2 to 4. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1447-1459. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.43.6.1447

Hughes, C., White, A., Sharpen, J., & Dunn, J. (2000). Antisocial, angry, and unsympathetic:
"hard-to-manage" preschoolers' peer problems and possible cognitive influences. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 169-179. doi:10.1017/S0021963099005193

Jacques, S., & Zelazo, P. D. (2001). The flexible item selection task (FIST): A measure of
executive function in preschoolers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20, 573-591.
doi:10.1207/875656401753549807

38
Johnson, M. H. (2005). Developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed.). Oxford, England:
Blackwell Publishers.

Jones, L. B., Rothbart, M. K., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Development of executive attention in
preschool children. Developmental Science, 6, 498-504. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00307

Kochanska, G., Murray, K., Jacques, T. Y., & Koenig, A. L. (1996). Inhibitory control in young
children and its role in emerging internalization. Child Development, 67, 490-507.
doi:10.2307/1131828

Kooijmans, R., Scheres, A., & Oosterlaan, J. (2000). Response inhibition and measures of
psychopathology: A dimensional analysis. Child Neuropsychology, 6, 175-184.
doi:10.1076/chin.6.3.175.3154

Korkman, M., Kirk, U., & Kemp, S. (1998). NEPSY: A developmental neuropsychological
assessment. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation

Kyttälä, M., Aunio, P., & Hautamäki, J. (2010). Working memory resources in young children
with mathematical difficulties. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 1-15.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00736.x

Lehto, J. E., Juujärvi, P., Kooistra, L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Dimensions of executive
functioning: Evidence from children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21,
59-80. doi:10.1348/026151003321164627

McInerney, R. J., Hrabok, M., & Kerns, K. A. (2005). The children's size-ordering task: A new
measure of nonverbal working memory. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 27, 735-745. doi:10.1081/13803390490918633

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., & Howerter, A. (2000). The unity
and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "frontal lobe"
tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49-100.
doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734

Nevo, E., & Breznitz, Z. (2011). Assessment of working memory components at 6 years of age
as predictors of reading achievements a year later. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 109, 73-90. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.09.010

Nigg, J. T., & Casey, B. J. (2005). An integrative theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity

disorder based on the cognitive and affective neurosciences. Development and
Psychopathology, 17, 785–806.

Nigg, J. T., Quamma, J. P., Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche, C. A. (1999). A two-year longitudinal
study of neuropsychological and cognitive performance in relation to behavioral
problems and competencies in elementary school children. Journal of Abnormal Child

39
 Psychology: An Official Publication of the International Society for Research in Child
and Adolescent Psychopathology, 27, 51-63. doi:10.1023/A:1022614407893

Noël, M. (2009). Counting on working memory when learning to count and to add: A preschool
study. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1630-1643. doi:10.1037/a0016224

Passolunghi, M. C., & Siegel, L. S. (2001). Short-term memory, working memory, and inhibitory
control in children with difficulties in arithmetic problem solving. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 80, 44-57. doi:10.1006/jecp.2000.2626

Pelphrey, K., Reznick, S., Goldman, B., Sasson, N., Morrow, J., Donahoe, A., et al. (2004).
Development of visuospatial short-term memory in the second half of the 1st year.
Developmental Psychology, 40, 836–851.

Phillips, L. H. (1997). Do ‘‘frontal tests’’ measure executive function? Issues of assessment and
evidence from fluency tests. In P. Rabbitt (Ed.), Methodology of frontal and executive
function (pp. 191–213). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Ponitz, C. E. C., McClelland, M. M., Jewkes, A. M., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., & Morrison, F.
J. (2008). Touch your toes! developing a direct measure of behavioral regulation in early
childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 141-158.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.01.004

Raaijmakers, M. A. J., Smidts, D. P., Sergeant, J. A., Maassen, G. H., Posthumus, J. A., van
Engeland, H., & Matthys, W. (2008). Executive functions in preschool children with
aggressive behavior: Impairments in inhibitory control. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology: An Official Publication of the International Society for Research in Child
and Adolescent Psychopathology, 36, 1097-1107. doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9235-7

Raftery, A. E. (1993). Bayesian model selection in structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen &
J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 163-180). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Reed, M. A., Pien, D. L., & Rothbart, M. K. (1984). Inhibitory self-control in preschool children.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30, 131-147.

Reznick, J., Morrow, J., Goldman, B., & Snyder, J. (2004). The onset of working memory in
infants. Infancy, 6, 145–154.

Rhoades, B. L., Greenberg, M. T., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2009). The contribution of inhibitory
control to preschoolers' social-emotional competence. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 30, 310-320. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.012

Riggs, N. R., Blair, C. B., & Greenberg, M. T. (2003). Concurrent and 2-year longitudinal
relations between executive function and the behavior of 1st and 2nd grade children.
Child Neuropsychology, 9, 267-276. doi:10.1076/chin.9.4.267.23513

40
Savage, R., Cornish, K., Manly, T., & Hollis, C. (2006). Cognitive processes in children's
reading and attention: The role of working memory, divided attention, and response
inhibition. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 365-365-385.
doi:10.1348/000712605X81370

Seigneuric, A., & Ehrlich, M. (2005). Contribution of working memory capacity to children's
reading comprehension: A longitudinal investigation. Reading and Writing, 18, 617-656.
doi:10.1007/s11145-005-2038-0

Shih, W.J. & Huang, W-M. (1992). Evaluating correlation with the proper bounds. Biometrics,
48, 1207-1213.

Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). New York:
Allyn and Bacon

Thorell, L. B., Bohlin, G., & Rydell, A. (2004). Two types of inhibitory control: Predictive
relations to social functioning. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28,
193-203. doi:10.1080/01650250344000389

Welsh, J. A., Nix, R. L., Blair, C., Bierman, K. L., & Nelson, K. E. (2010). The development of
cognitive skills and gains in academic school readiness for children from low-income
families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 43-53. doi:10.1037/a0016738

Wiebe, S. A., Espy, K. A., & Charak, D. (2008). Using confirmatory factor analysis to
understand executive control in preschool children: I. latent structure. Developmental
Psychology, 44, 575-587. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.575

Wiebe, S. A., Sheffield, T., Nelson, J. M., Clark, C. A. C., Chevalier, N., & Espy, K. A. (2011).
The structure of executive function in 3-year-olds. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 108, 436-452. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.008

Willoughby, M. T., Blair, C. B., Wirth, R. J., & Greenberg, M. (2010). The measurement of
executive function at age 3 years: Psychometric properties and criterion validity of a new
battery of tasks. Psychological Assessment, 22, 306-317. doi:10.1037/a0018708

Yu, C.-Y. (2002). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and
continuous outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles. Retrieved August 26, 2011, from Mplus website
http://www.statmodel.com/download/Yudissertation.pdf

41
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Matthew Lerner

Matthew Lerner was born in Marietta, Georgia. He attended The University of Georgia where

he completed Bachelor’s degrees in Spanish and Psychology. Matthew is currently a predoctoral

fellow at Florida State University’s Center for Reading Research and is enrolled in the Clinical

Psychology program. He plans to continue his interdisciplinary training in Florida State

University’s Clinical Psychology program and the Florida Center for Reading Research.

42