Journal of Cognition and Development

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjcd20

How Executive Functions Correlate with

Intelligence in Children and Adolescents in Autism
Spectrum Disorders

Sara Cruz, Raquel Cruz, Alicia Alcón, Adriana Sampaio, Jessica Merchan-
Naranjo, Elisa Rodríguez, Mara Parellada, Ángel Carracedo & Montse
Fernández-Prieto

To cite this article: Sara Cruz, Raquel Cruz, Alicia Alcón, Adriana Sampaio, Jessica
Merchan-Naranjo, Elisa Rodríguez, Mara Parellada, Ángel Carracedo & Montse Fernández-
Prieto (2022): How Executive Functions Correlate with Intelligence in Children and
Adolescents in Autism Spectrum Disorders, Journal of Cognition and Development, DOI:
10.1080/15248372.2022.2104283

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2022.2104283

Published online: 31 Jul 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjcd20
JOURNAL OF COGNITION AND DEVELOPMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2022.2104283

How Executive Functions Correlate with Intelligence in Children

and Adolescents in Autism Spectrum Disorders
Sara Cruz a, Raquel Cruzb,c,d,e, Alicia Alcónf, Adriana Sampaiog, Jessica Merchan-
Naranjof,h, Elisa Rodríguezf,i, Mara Parelladaf, Ángel Carracedoj,k, and Montse Fernández-
Prietol,m,n,o
a
The Psychology for Positive Development Research Cente], Lusíada University Porto, Porto, Portugal; bCentro
Nacional de Genotipado (CEGEN), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15706 Santiago de Compostela,
Spain; cCentre for Biomedical Network Research on Rare Diseases (CIBERER), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, 28029
Madrid, Spain; dInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago (IDIS), 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain;
e
Centro Singular de Investigacion en Medicina Molecular y Enfermedades Crónicas (CIMUS), Universidade de
Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain; fChild and Adolescent Psychiatry Department,
Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, School of Medicine, Universidad Complutense, IiSGM,
CIBERSAM, Madrid, Spain; gPsychological Neuroscience Laboratory, Research Center in Psychology (CIPsi), School
of Psychology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal; hNetwork Centre for Biomedical Research in Mental Health
(CIBERSAM), Madrid, Spain; iExperimental Psychology Department, School of Psychology, Universidad
Complutense, Madrid, Spain; jFundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica - IDIS, SERGAS, Santiago de
Compostela, Spain; kGrupo de Medicina Xenómica, CIMUS, CIBERER, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela,
Santiago de Compostela, Spain; lGenomics and Bioinformatics Group, Centre for Research in Molecular Medicine
and Chronic Diseases (CiMUS), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela, Spain;
m
Fundación Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela (FIDIS), Santiago de Compostela,
Spain; nGrupo de Medicina Xenómica, U-711, Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Raras (CIBERER),
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela, Spain; oGrupo de Genética, Instituto de
Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain

ABSTACT
Dysexecutive syndrome has been consistently reported in children and
adolescents with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Particularly, impair­
ments have been documented in working memory, inhibition, and
mental flexibility. However, the relationship between executive impair­
ments and intellectual functioning is far from clear in this population.
This study aimed to investigate how executive functions (EF) are asso­
ciated with intelligence in ASD. Children and adolescents with ASD
(N = 69) were compared to typically developing (TD) individuals
(N = 68), matched in chronological age and sex. The Wechsler
Intelligence Scales were used to assess participants’ intelligence quoti­
ent (estimated IQ). EF – working memory, shifting, and inhibition – were
assessed using the Digit Span, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test and Stroop
Test, respectively. TD individuals outperformed ASD in all cognitive
assessment measures. Correlation analysis showed that while for the
ASD group intelligence was associated with shifting abilities, in the TD
group the association was observed for working memory measures.
Linear regression analysis supported that the association between intel­
ligence and EF domains differed between groups, particularly regarding
shifting abilities (interaction term significant), whereas working memory
showed a similar trend in both groups (difference in effect size is non-
significant). Results suggest that specific executive function domains are
associated with ASD intellectual functioning and differ from TD indivi­
duals, which may be related to adaptive behavior outcomes.

CONTACT Sara Cruz saracruz@por.ulusiada.pt The Psychology for Positive Development Research Cente], Lusíada
University Porto, Porto, Portugal
© 2022 Taylor & Francis
2 S. CRUZ ET AL.

Introduction
Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by
a range of impairments in different areas of development, including social interaction and
communication, and by a restricted and repetitive pattern of behaviors, interests or activities
(America Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). Distinct factors seem to be related to the ASD
phenotype, with neurocognitive functions having a great impact in ASD individuals’ beha­
vioral outcomes. Among them, executive functions (EF) and intellectual functioning deficits
have been largely investigated (Charman et al., 2011; Demetriou et al., 2018).
EF refer to a set of higher-order cognitive abilities encompassing response inhibition,
action planning, cognitive flexibility, and behavior regulation that allow goal-directed
responses to novel and challenging situations (Diamond, 2013). Conceptual models attempted
to integrate this multidimensional theoretical construct into different cognitive processes
(Cunningham & Zelazo, 2007; Miyake et al., 2000). For example, Miyake et al. (2000)
conceptualized EF as a three-factor model, i.e., a collection of three partially independent
latent variables – inhibition, shifting and working memory (i.e., updating abilities) – con­
sidered important dimensions that allow individuals to control their thoughts and behaviors
in order to act over situations in adaptive ways. A systematic review (Karr et al., 2018)
endorsed this three-factor EF model in children and adolescents, suggesting that “a gradual
differentiation of executive function” (p. 22) emerges in school-age children to adolescents.
Deficits in EF have been largely described in ASD and proposed as a potential endophe­
notype (Zhang, Peng, & Zhang, 2020). Two different reviews evidenced that executive impair­
ments in ASD are observed in planning, flexibility (Hill, 2004), response inhibition, working
memory, and attention (O’Hearn, Asato, Ordaz, & Luna, 2008), and are positively correlated
with the severity of ASD-like behaviors, quality of life and social behavior (Baez et al., 2020;
Demetriou et al., 2018; De Vries, Verdam, Prins, Schmand, & Geurts, 2017). In accordance, the
number of symptoms of ASD has been significantly related to ratings of difficulty with
emotional control, metacognition, emotion recognition, motivation, and general behavioral
regulation (Torske, Naerland, Øie, Stenberg, & Andreassen, 2018; Yeung & Chan, 2020).
Empirical evidence revealed difficulties in EF in ASD, such as cognitive flexibility, response
inhibition, task shifting (Merchan-Naranjo et al., 2016; Semrud-Clikeman, Walkowiak,
Wilkinson, & Butcher, 2010; Sinzig, Morsch, Bruning, Schmidt, & Lehmkuhl, 2008;
Solomon et al., 2020), working memory and response selection/monitoring (Gonzalez-Gadea
et al., 2013; Happe, Booth, Charlton, & Hughes, 2006). Furthermore, some authors suggest that
EF difficulties are associated with ASD cognitive and adaptive behavior (Dajani, Llabre, Nebel,
Mostofsky, & Uddin, 2016; McLean, Johnson Harrison, Zimak, Joseph, & Morrow, 2014),
which has been observed with real-world executive functions assessment (Wallace et al., 2016).
However, a meta-analysis indicated a lack of an “overall framework of the executive
dysfunction profile” in ASD (Demetriou et al., 2018, p. 1198). The authors documented
a moderate effect size for reduced executive functions in this population, a result that was
observed for each executive function domain, highlighting several moderator variables that
could influence the mixed evidence observed for the relationship between executive dys­
function and ASD – comparison samples, the executive function task under analysis (lab or
ecological executive functions tasks as informant-based measures), type of tasks, symptom
severity, emotional states, or comorbidities. This may justify the heterogeneous evidence on
 JOURNAL OF COGNITION AND DEVELOPMENT 3

deficits in executive functions in ASD (Solomon et al., 2020; Van Eylen et al., 2011) and the
high inter-individual variability among the different EF sub-processes observed in ASD
(Dajani et al., 2016; McLean et al., 2014).
A possible factor that is likely related to phenotypic heterogeneity within the ASD is the level
of intellectual disability (Mottron, Belleville, Rouleau, & Collignon, 2014). Intellectual disabil­
ities are understood as below-average intellectual functioning, as well as constrains in adaptive
behavior (McKenzie, Milton, Smith, & Ouellette-Kuntz, 2016, but see Katusic et al.,
2021). Children and adolescents with ASD frequently exhibit intellectual deficits,
usually presenting lower verbal than performance scores and worse general intelligence
quotient, than typically developing individuals (Charman et al., 2011; Hedvall et al.,
2013; Soulieres, Zeffiro, Girard, & Mottron, 2011). Of note, the IQ of children and
adults with ASD have been underestimated by the Wechsler scales of intelligence
(Dawson et al., 2007).
Although the association between EF and intelligence has been widely documented in
typically developing (TD) children and adolescents, this has not been systematically
addressed in ASD. In TD children and adolescents, processes such attention control (i.e.,
inhibition) and working memory were positively associated with intelligence (Demetriou,
Mougi, Spanoudis, & Makris, 2022; Demetriou, Spanoudis, Makris, Golino, & Kazi, 2021).
In children with ASD, some types of EF are more associated with intelligence quotient (IQ)
than others, as above-average intelligent children with ASD presented increased cognitive
problems (e.g., social cognition), when compared to IQ-matched control group, which was
not observed for below-average intelligence participants with ASD (Rommelse et al., 2015).
Equally, previous studies showed that specific executive tasks, such as shifting abilities (e.g.,
the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test), were correlated with the full-scale intelligence quotient
(FSIQ) and Verbal IQ in high-functioning autism (Liss et al., 2001). Indeed, altered shifting
abilities were associated with reduced cognitive flexibility, indicating that difficulties in
changing from a previously learned response pattern or failure to maintain a new response
set may be relate to intellectual functioning in children (Valeri et al., 2020) and adults
(Miller, Ragozzino, Cook, Sweeney, & Mosconi, 2015) with ASD. Working memory was
also found to be correlated with performance, verbal and FSIQ in a sample of children and
adolescents with ASD (Merchan-Naranjo et al., 2016). However, a differential relation
between intelligence and EF was observed when comparing TD (Miyake et al., 2000) and
ASD adolescents. Whereas working memory tasks were highly correlated with intelligence
in TD individuals, the correlation with inhibiting and shifting domains were less significant
(Duan, Wei, Wang, & Shi, 2010). In ASD, shifting abilities, measured through report
inventory (Blijd-Hoogewys, Bezemer, & Van Geert, 2014; Kalbfleisch & Loughan, 2012)
or experimental tasks (Miller et al., 2015; Ozonoff et al., 2004), were more related to IQ than
others, which seems to imply that segregated and different EF domains may relate differ­
entially to intellectual functioning in ASD and TD individuals. These differences may be
due to a) different statistical analytical methods; b) different models for assessing EF; c)
different age ranges (children, adolescents, adults); d) ceiling effect on specific tests; and e)
restricted IQ ranges (Arffa, 2007).
This study further explores the relationship between EF and intelligence in a group of
children and adolescents with ASD without intellectual disabilities. Specifically, it aimed to
understand how the three core dimensions of EF – working memory, inhibiting, and
shifting – were associated with intelligence in ASD and TD groups. We expect that the
4 S. CRUZ ET AL.

distinct core dimensions of EF would differently relate to IQ in both groups (Duan et al.,
2010; Miller et al., 2015). Particularly, working memory would be significantly associated
with intelligence in TD individuals, whereas shifting abilities would be significantly asso­
ciated with intelligence in ASD.

Methods
Participants
Sixty-nine children and adolescents with ASD without intellectual disability were
compared with sixty-eight TD individuals, matched by chronological age and sex
(Table 1). A psychiatrist and a psychologist performed the ASD diagnosis according
to the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) criteria. Children and adolescents’ clinical history and the
Autism Diagnosed Interview (ADI-R) and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule
(ADOS) were used to complement the diagnosis (Lord et al., 2000; Volkmar et al.,
2014). Exclusion criteria were intelligence level below to 70, the presence of any
neurological symptom or known genetic condition, other impairments associated
with ASD diagnosis and comorbidity with other disorders. Written informed consent
was obtained in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethics Committees of the
two participating sites approved the study protocol.

Table 1. Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) values for all measures, for the ASD and TD groups.
ASD (n = 69) TD (n = 68)
N % N %

Sex (female) 5 7.2 8 11.8

M (SD) Range M (SD) Range
Age 12.22 (3) 7–18 12.36 (3.5) 6–18
Intellectual functioning
Estimated FSIQ 101.52 (22.08) 75–153 109.69 (16.01) 74–153
Digit Span
Direct order 5.33 (1.08) 4–9 5.85 (1.42) 3–9
Reverse order 4.04 (1.15) 2–6 4.39 (1.46) 2–7
Total 14.64 (4.68) 9–27 16.75 (6.18) 8–38
WCST
Number of trials administered 105.23 (21.59) 71–128 101.24 (22.80) 64–128
Total number correct responses 71.52 (10.34) 32–88 72.12 (12.03) 43–103
Total number of errors 34.72 (21.30) 8–96 28.82 (20.00) 6–85
Perseverative responses 19.98 (17.21) 3–101 16.29 (14.19) 3–78
Perseverative errors 17.38 (13.64) 3–77 14.43 (11.53) 3–58
Non-perseverative errors 16.61 (12.27) 1–63 14.94 (12.52) 0–61
Conceptual level responses 61.94 (14.25) 1–85 63.22 (14.61) 13–92
Number of categories completed 4.91 (1.61) 0–6 5.28 (1.24) 2–6
Trials to complete first category 17.41 (16.64) 10–128 13.03 (5.01) 10–35
Failure to maintain set .95 (1.06) 0–4 .68 (1.03) 0–4
Stroop test
Word reading 85.91 (30.84) 0–135 110.07 (17.87) 68–159
Color reading 64.14 (14.04) 29–92 75.76 (13.84) 48–112
Word-Color reading 36.51 (13.71) 0–66 51.05 (12.87) 14–80
Interference effect 2.09 (6.16) −11.70–17 5.44 (9.17) −27-27
 JOURNAL OF COGNITION AND DEVELOPMENT 5

Measures of cognitive assessment

General cognitive functioning
The general cognitive functioning was assessed with the Wechsler Intelligence scales.
The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children IV (WISC-IV) (Wechsler, 2003) was used
for children aged between 7 and 15 years. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III
(WAIS-III) (Wechsler, 1997) was used to assess older adolescents, aged 16 and
17 years. Because the participants enrolled in this study derived from two research
projects, the cognitive functioning assessment differed between them. While the full
WISC/WAIS was applied to some participants with ASD, a short form (Vocabulary
and Block Design subtests) was applied to other participants with ASD and to the TD
group. However, for an accurate comparison of the IQ scores between groups, the
estimate IQ was computed for all participants. Therefore, the estimated FSIQ was
obtained using the Vocabulary and Block Design subtests for the ASD and TD groups
and used in the analyses.

Executive functions
Working memory abilities were assessed using the Digit Span Test of the Wechsler
Intelligence Scales. The raw scores of the total, direct and reverse Digit Span subtests
were used to characterize the participants. Then, the direct and reverse orders were
used as an indicator of working memory abilities. In the direct order participants are
asked to repeat each sequence as it is said, whereas in the reverse order they are asked
to repeat the sequence in the reverse order. The reverse task is highly associated with
verbal working memory, as it requires the ability to retain and manipulate online
verbal information. Lower scores in both subtests reflect greater working memory
difficulties.
Shifting abilities were assessed using the Wisconsin card sorting test (WCST,
Heaton, Chelune, Talley, Kay, & Curtiss, 1981). The WCST allows assessing cognitive
abilities such as abstract reasoning, cognitive flexibility, concept formation and impul­
sive responding modulation. In this task, participants are required to match stimulus
and response cards according to three alternative criteria – color, quantity, or shape.
Then, they are asked to allocate each response card under one of the four reference
cards according to these criteria. During the test, changes in the matching rule are
verbalized to the participant, as he/she is expected to change his/her strategy. The test
assesses “set-shifting,” that is the participant’s ability to display flexibility when faced
with changing schedules of reinforcement, perseveration, and abstract thinking. It
includes ten scores: total of number of trials administered (i.e., number of cards
used) total number of correct responses (i.e., success in combining cards according
to the current category), total number of errors (i.e., incorrect responses despite
feedback), perseverative responses (i.e., correct and incorrect responses maintaining
the same response pattern), perseverative errors (i.e., incorrect responses maintaining
the same response pattern incorrectly), conceptual level responses (i.e., consecutive
correct responses occurring in a number of three or more), number of completed
categories (i.e., ten consecutive correct responses according to the classification criteria
occurring along the test), trials to complete the first category (i.e., attempts needed to
complete the first category successfully), non-perseverative errors (i.e., errors that do
6 S. CRUZ ET AL.

not occur according to the maintained response pattern), and failure to maintain set
(i.e., five or more consecutive correct responses but making an error before completing
the category). Specifically, and considering this study objective, the perseverative errors
score, related to using the same response pattern incorrectly thus maintaining the
previous rule (i.e., suggesting difficulties in changing the rule), was used as an
indicator of shifting abilities. Higher scores reflect worse performance and greater
shifting difficulties.
Inhibition abilities were assessed using the Stroop task (Stroop, 1935). With this task,
participants are required to inhibit an automatic, over-learned response with respect to
a more controlled one. It is composed by three conditions, each lasting 45 seconds. In the
first condition, participants must read words printed in black (word reading condition –
W); in the second, they must name the color of the Xs printed in green, red or blue (color
naming condition – C); and in the third they should inhibit reading the word, and instead
name the color of the letter, i.e., they must read the color of words (CW) regardless
matching its meaning (e.g. the word green is written in red and the participant should
say red – word-color condition). Afterward, the interference score was computed [CW CW-
((W*C)/(W+C))] and used as an indicator of inhibition abilities. Lower scores indicate
greater difficulties in this domain.

Procedure
Families were contacted and invited to participate in this study. Objectives were
explained and those who agreed to participate gave written informed consent. Data
collection started by obtaining socio-demographic and clinical information. It contin­
ued with the cognitive assessment, which was conducted individually and lasted
approximately 2 hours. The cognitive assessment was performed and scored by experi­
enced psychologists (three from Madrid and the other three from Santiago de
Compostela, Spain). Psychologists ensured that children and adolescents clearly under­
stood the instructions before starting each test.

Statistical data analysis

We used IBM SPSS Statistics 22 to compute the descriptive statistics and to perform
between-group comparisons and correlation analyses between all measures. Given that
the data was not normally distributed (Shapiro-Wilk test was statistically significant for
most of the measures), we performed non-parametric tests. However, we also com­
puted the equivalent parametric tests as suggested by Fife-Schaw (2006), as it has been
shown that parametric tests can perform well with nonnormal continuous data that
satisfies the sample size guidelines (two groups with more than 15 participants) (Banga
& Fox, 2013). Given that the pattern of results remained unchanged, the results of the
parametric tests are presented because these are more robust and decrease the prob­
ability of Type I error.
 JOURNAL OF COGNITION AND DEVELOPMENT 7

To characterize the ASD and TD groups, descriptive statistics were computed for all the
scores of all the measures included in this study (Digit span test – total and direct and
reverse orders –, WCST scores, and Stroop scores). Equally, Pearson correlation analysis
was computed to examine the pattern of associations between all measures for the ASD and
TD groups separately.
Then, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed to test
group differences regarding the estimated FSIQ and the selected EF domains – direct
and reverse digit span (working memory), perseverative errors (shifting), and Stroop
interference score (inhibiting), controlling for age effects, given the age-associated
improvements in all cognitive competencies (Demetriou et al., 2021, 2022). Linear
regression analysis examined the relationship between the estimated FSIQ and each EF
domain. To test for effect size differences between groups, the regression analysis was
computed for all participants, including in the model each EF domain (direct and
reverse digit span, perseverative errors, and Stroop interference score), the factor
“group” and the interaction term “group*EF.” To simultaneously test for the effect
of shifting, working memory and inhibition on the estimated FSIQ, and considering
the possible existence of interactions, a multiple regression analysis was performed
including in the regression model the three EF domains, the factor “group” and the
group interaction terms.

Results
Correlation between intellectual and executive function measures
Table 2 depicts the correlation values between all assessment measures scores for both
groups, separately. In the ASD group, the estimated FSIQ was negatively correlated with
WCST perseverative errors (i.e., shifting abilities). In addition, FSIQ was positively corre­
lated with the Stroop color reading condition, whereas WCST perseverative errors was
negatively correlated with the same condition.
In the TD group, the estimated FSIQ was positively correlated with total Digits Span, the
direct and reverse orders (indicators of working memory abilities), and the Stroop word, color,
and word-color reading conditions. In addition, a negative correlation was observed between
the estimated FSIQ with the category “number of categories completed” of the WCST.

Intellectual functioning and executive functions

The MANCOVA analysis revealed significant differences between ASD and TD groups in the
estimated FSIQ, shifting, working memory and inhibition indicators, after controlling for
age, F (5, 87) = 2.73, p < .05, Wilks’ Λ = .86, partial η2 = .14. Pairwise comparisons indicated
group differences in the estimated FSIQ (β = −10.62; t = −2.76, p < .05), digits direct order
(β = −.51; t = −2.07, p < .05) and Stroop interference score (β = −3.68; t = −2.41, p < .05). In
all measures, the ASD group revealed greater difficulties than the TD group (see Table 1).
 8

Table 2. Correlation matrix between EF domains and intelligence scores for ASD and TD groups.
FSIQ DD RD TD W#ta W#tc W#te Wpr Wpe Wnpe Wclr W#cc Wcfc Wfms Swr Scr Swcr Sint
ASD FSIQ 1
DD .26 1
RD −.02 .37** 1
TD .14 .58** .65** 1
S. CRUZ ET AL.

W#ta −.20 −.006 −.29* −.29* 1

W#tc −.06 .12 −.22 −.02 .28* 1
W#te −.23 −.08 −.08 −.25 .81** −.20 1
Wpr −.29* −.10 −.10 −.21 .67** −.28* .77** 1
Wpe −.30* −.11 −.10 −.20 .71** −.25* .80** .99** 1
Wnpe −.02 −.01 −.17 −.25 .76** −.15 .78** .42** .44** 1
Wclr .06 .08 .07 .13 −.36** .64** −.65** −.67** −.68** −.50** 1
W#cc .18 .10 .20 .24 −.73** .22 −.81** −.74** −.77** −.68** .78** 1
Wcfc −.12 −.14 .09 −.02 .27* −.36** .43** .66** .61** .25* −.50** −.43** 1
Wfms −.06 .20 −.09 .007 .52** .63** .23 .09 .12 .23 .24 −.30* −.07 1
Swr .15 .33* .02 .21 −.10 .07 −.14 −.19 −.16 −.09 .04 .03 −.31* .14 1
Scr .37** .28* .04 .27* −.11 .17 −.22 −.28* −.26* −.08 .17 .25 −.16 .09 .71** 1
Swcr .26 .31* .14 .39** −.27* −.11 −.24 −.22 −.21 −.17 .04 .15 −.23 .00 .85** .81** 1
Sint .13 −.08 .13 .20 −.32* −.31* −.18 −.07 −.06 −.21 −.17 .06 .01 −.26* −.13 .01 .49** 1
TD FSIQ 1
DD .29* 1
RD .34* .69** 1
TD .39** .61** .66** 1
W#ta .12 −.01 −.10 −.15 1
W#tc −.24 −.008 −.01 −.08 .47** 1
W#te .28* −.005 −.05 −.12 .84** −.07 1
Wpr .19 −.05 −.05 −.11 .70** −.11 .86** 1
Wpe .20 −.05 −.05 −.11 .72** −.11 .89** .99** 1
Wnpe .19 .01 −.06 −.13 .66** −.05 .77** .46** .50** 1
Wclr −.20 .12 −.03 .02 .04 .74** −.41** −.39** −.40** −.31* 1
W#cc −.36** −.02 −.04 .02 −.62** .23 −.86** −.77** −.80** −.60** .53** 1
Wcfc −.18 −.06 −.12 −.13 .30* .43** .07 −.05 −.04 .19 .36** .07 1
Wfms .15 .01 .05 −.16 .46** .58** .17 .09 .12 .11 .44** −.23 .22 1
Swr .29* .26 .20 .31* .07 −.07 .12 .09 .11 .20 −.04 −.13 .23 .12 1
Scr .37** .17 .17 .35** .05 −.12 .12 .09 .09 .26* −.03 −.13 .12 .04 .79** 1
Swcr .32* .02 .09 .40** −.11 −.15 −.04 −.03 −.03 .05 −.11 .004 .10 −.13 .68** .70** 1
Sint .15 −.07 .009 .32* −.15 −.13 −.10 −.07 −.08 −.09 −.15 .09 −.05 −.26* .24 .21 .77** 1
*p < .05; ** p < .01
FSIQ – Estimated FSIQ; DD – Direct digits order; RD – Reverse digits order; TD – Total Digits; W#ta – WCST Number of trials administered; W#tc – WCST Total number correct; W#te – WCST Total
number of errors; Wpr – WCST Perseverative responses; Wpe – WCST Perseverative errors; Wnpe – WCST Non-perseverative errors; Wclr – WCST Conceptual level responses; W#cc – WCST
Number of categories completed; Wcfc – WCST Trials to complete first category; Wfms – WCST Failure to maintain set; Swr – Stroop Word reading; Scr – Stroop Color reading; Swcr – Stroop
Word-Color reading; Sint – Stroop Interference effect
 JOURNAL OF COGNITION AND DEVELOPMENT 9

Association between executive functions and intelligence

To examine the association between the indicators of EF domains with the estimated FSIQ,
first a univariate linear regression analysis was performed separately for each group. Then,
possible differences in the effect size were tested using the complete dataset (i.e., not
splitting by group), including an interaction term “group*EF.”
Table 3 shows the results regarding the association between working memory, shifting,
and inhibition with the estimated FSIQ, stratified by group, and the results for the inter­

Table 3. Results for the univariate regression analysis for the ASD and TD groups and for the interaction
term “group*EF” in a global analysis.
ASD TD Interaction
beta SE prob beta SE prob beta SE prob

Perseverative errors (shifting) −.50 0.24 .04* .28 0.17 .10 .78 0.28 .01*
Digits Span direct order (working memory) 5.79 3.22 .08 3.35 1.51 .03* −2.44 3.30 .46
Digits Span reverse order (working memory) −.36 2.81 .90 3.74 1.41 .01* 4.1 2.93 .17
Stroop interference score (inhibiting) .44 0.49 .38 .30 0.25 .24 −.14 0.52 .79

Table 4. Multiple regression analysis for all participants and the interaction analysis.
beta SE prob
Perseverative errors (shifting) −.89 0.49 .07
Digits Span direct order (working memory) 13.1 6.47 .05*
Digits Span reverse order (working memory) −8.75 5.60 .12
Stroop interference score (inhibiting) 1.07 0.94 .26
Group effect 6.70 21.2 .75
“Group * Perseverative errors” .65 0.31 .04*
“Group * digits direct order” −5.85 3.87 .13
“Group * digits reverse order” 5.71 3.43 .10
“Group * Stroop interference score” −.40 0.54 .45
*p < .05

action term “EF*group.” In the ASD group, a negative significant effect was found for
perseverative errors (i.e., shifting abilities) (β = −.5, p < .05), whereas in the TD group
a significant positive effect was found for digits span direct and reverse orders (i.e., working
memory) (β = 3.35 and β = 3.74, respectively, p < .05 for both direct and reverse orders).
The effect size was only significantly different between groups for shifting abilities (p < .05
for interaction “group*shifting”).
To analyze the relationship between each EF domain and the estimated FSIQ but
considering the intercorrelations between these variables, a multiple regression analysis
was performed. Table 4 shows the partial regression coefficients and the significance for
each EF indicator, the factor “group” and the interaction term “group*EF.” A significant
positive effect was observed for working memory (i.e., digits direct order), as expected
because of the similar trend found for this variable in both groups (Table 3). Again, the only
significant interaction term was “group*shifting” (p < .05).
10 S. CRUZ ET AL.

Discussion
This study explored the association between three core executive function dimensions –
working memory, shifting, and inhibiting (Miyake et al., 2000) – and intellectual function­
ing of children and adolescents with ASD and TD individuals. Overall, results indicated that
shifting, working memory, and inhibition were differently associated to the estimated FSIQ,
in TD and ASD groups.
Considering the intellectual functioning, after controlling for age effects, it was observed
that the estimated FSIQ significantly differed between groups, with TD participants scoring
higher than the ASD group. These results are in accordance with empirical findings
showing that, generally, children and adolescents with ASD present worst intelligence
quotient compared to typically developing individuals (Charman et al., 2011; Hedvall
et al., 2013; Solomon et al., 2020; Soulieres et al., 2011, but see Katusic et al., 2021).
Regarding performance in specific EF measures, results showed that the ASD group
displayed generalized difficulties in working memory, response inhibition, attention, set-
shifting, and mental flexibility, compared to the TD group. This supports other studies
showing that individuals with ASD without intellectual disabilities experience difficulties in
EF domains compared to TD (Chen et al., 2016; Dajani et al., 2016; Demetriou et al., 2018;
Lai et al., 2017). Difficulties in problem solving (De Vries et al., 2017; McLean et al., 2014;
Solomon et al., 2020), response inhibition, task shifting (Hill, 2004; Semrud-Clikeman et al.,
2010; Sinzig et al., 2008), response selection/monitoring (Gonzalez-Gadea et al., 2013;
Happe et al., 2006), planning and attention (O’Hearn et al., 2008) are commonly observed
in ASD. These results seem to corroborate that mental rigidity, set-shifting impairments,
updating, and problem-solving difficulties are likely to be associated with the heterogeneous
intellectual profile observed in ASD (Rommelse et al., 2015). Considering these difficulties,
we examined the association between intelligence and executive functions, separately for
ASD and TD groups.
Shifting abilities were associated with intellectual functioning in ASD individuals.
Particularly, a negative association was observed between perseverative errors and the
estimated FSIQ. Difficulties in mental flexibility have been reported in individuals with
ASD (Hill, 2004), which are related to the severity of ASD-like behaviors (Valeri et al.,
2020), quality of life and social behavior (Baez et al., 2020; Demetriou et al., 2018; De Vries
et al., 2017; McLean et al., 2014). Therefore, this result may suggest that children and
adolescents with ASD that exhibit lower perseverative patterns of response, which reflects
increased mental flexibility, contribute to improved intellectual functioning in this popula­
tion. Thus, children and adolescents with ASD seem to rely on their shifting abilities to
successfully update their behavior, which is consistent with the negative correlation
observed between shifting and working memory abilities. Although the association is
weak, is possible that those who are more successful in changing from a previously learned
response pattern, are more competent in attending, manipulating, and monitoring relevant
information (McLean et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2015).
In TD participants, working memory abilities (i.e., updating) was associated with
intellectual functioning, which is in accordance with previous literature (Demetriou et al.,
2021; Miyake et al., 2000). This is in accordance with other findings, suggesting that
working memory may be a facet of intelligence (Demetriou et al., 2022, 2021; Tourva,
Spanoudis, & Demetriou, 2016). Nevertheless, a meta-analysis suggested that IQ and
 JOURNAL OF COGNITION AND DEVELOPMENT 11

working memory are distinct constructs (Ackerman, Beier, & Boyle, 2005). Our results
seem to suggest that in TD individuals, working memory abilities are positively related to
intellectual functioning (Duan et al., 2010). Yet, in clinical populations, such as ASD, the
relationship between EF and IQ seems to be more related to shifting abilities.
Altogether these findings support the hypothesis of a global executive dysfunction in
ASD (Demetriou et al., 2018) and that differences in the intellectual functioning between
ASD and TD individuals may be at least partly due to how distinct EF dimensions are
associated with IQ (Rommelse et al., 2015). It seems that the cognitive processes that are
related to intellectual functioning differ between ASD and TD individuals, possibly indicat­
ing that improved cognitive performance in ASD may require distinct neurocognitive
abilities (Liss et al., 2001).
However, no statistically significant differences were observed in the correlations between
FSIQ and working memory and FSIQ and perseverative errors across the two groups,
possibly indicating a lack of power rather than differences in the association between EF
and IQ in ASD and TD. Future studies should replicate these results with a larger sample.
Additionally, these findings may not necessarily apply to all individuals with ASD. A larger
sample is necessary to understand if different neurocognitive profiles (e.g., a range of
representative IQ scores) characterize different groups of ASD patients (despite we observed
that even with FSIQ above 70, participants with ASD score lower on a series of executive
function tasks). Other limitation is the use of a limited number of tests to assess EF. A more
extensive and comprehensive clinical evaluation would have allowed correlating specific
cognitive functioning with specific clinical profiles. In the same line, most tasks used in
this study pertain primarily to the verbal domain, in which ASD individuals exhibit more
difficulties. Therefore, future studies should consider ascertaining the relationship between
IQ and EF incorporating visuospatial tasks. Additionally, we did not control for reading
abilities of our participants, which can influence their performance on Stroop test. Finally,
future studies should consider psychiatric comorbidity associated with the ASD diagnosis
that may have an influence in the results of the neuropsychological tests.

Conclusion
This study extends the existing literature in exploring potential factors associated with
intellectual functioning in children and adolescents with ASD. While shifting abilities were
associated with intellectual functioning in ASD, working memory correlated with intelligence
in TD children and adolescents. The pattern of results observed may suggest that early in
development and in individuals with different developmental profiles (e.g., ASD), shifting
abilities may be important for dealing with complex tasks, whereas for typically developing
children and adolescents working memory abilities may take precedence. Equally, these
differences may indirectly relate to adaptive functioning (McLean et al., 2014) and should
be considered in interventional approaches with ASD population to improve their adaptive
behavior to cognitive, socioemotional, and environmental situations. The associations of EF
and intellectual functioning can be useful in clinical contexts, as this can be a valuable
approach to tackle the high inter-individual cognitive variability observed in ASD.
12 S. CRUZ ET AL.

Acknowledgments
We would like to express our most gratitude to all the children, adolescents and their families who
accepted participating in this study. This work was supported by Fundación María José Jove and by the
Spanish Ministry of science, Innovation and Universities, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, under grant
PI19/00809 and PI19/01024, co-financed by ERDF Funds from the European Commission, “A way of
making Europe,” CIBERSAM, European Structural Funds and European Union Seventh Framework
Program and H2020 program. This study was conducted at the Psychology Research Centre (PSI/
01662), School of Psychology, University of Minho, supported by the Foundation for Science and
Technology (FCT) through the Portuguese State Budget (Ref.: UIDB/PSI/01662/2020). Sara Cruz
acknowledges the Centro de Investigação em Psicologia para o Desenvolvimento [The Psychology
for Positive Development Research Center] (CIPD) (UID/PSI/04375), Lusíada University - North,
Porto, supported by national funds through the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, I.
P., and the Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education (UID/PSI/04375/2019).

Disclosure statement
Mara Parellada, MD, Ph.D., has received grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness, the European Union (Horizon 2020), consultancy fees from Servier and Exeltis,
and travel support from Otsuka, Janssen, Roche, and Servier. The remaining authors have no conflict
of interests to disclose.

Funding
This work was supported by Fundación María José Jove and by the Spanish Ministry of science,
Innovation and Universities, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, under grant PI19/00809 and PI19/01024,
co-financed by ERDF Funds from the European Commission, ”A way of making Europe”,
CIBERSAM, European Structural Funds and European Union Seventh Framework Program and
H2020 program.

ORCID
Sara Cruz http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0011-7746

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the finding of this study is available upon request to the corresponding author.
The data is not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

References
Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2005). Working memory and intelligence: The same or
different constructs? Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 30–60. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.30
America Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.(5th
ed.). Washington, DC. doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
Arffa, S. (2007). The relationship of intelligence to executive function and non-executive function
measures in a sample of average, above average, and gifted youth. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychololgy, 22(8), 969–978. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2007.08.001
 JOURNAL OF COGNITION AND DEVELOPMENT 13

Baez, A. C., Dajani, D. R., Voorhies, W., Parlade, M. V., Alessandri, M., Britton, J. C., . . . Uddin, L. Q.
(2020). Parsing heterogeneity of executive function in typically and atypically developing children:
A conceptual replication and exploration of social function. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 50(3), 707–718. doi:10.1007/s10803-019-04290-9
Banga, S. J., & Fox, G. D. (2013). Multiple comparisons method. White paper, Minitab Inc.
Blijd-Hoogewys, E. M., Bezemer, M. L., & Van Geert, P. L. (2014). Executive functioning in children
with ASD: An analysis of the BRIEF. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44,
3089–3100. doi:10.1007/s10803-014-2176-9
Charman, T., Pickles, A., Simonoff, E., Chandler, S., Loucas, T., & Baird, G. (2011). IQ in children
with autism spectrum disorders: Data from the Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP).
Psychological Medicine, 41(3), 619–627. doi:10.1017/S0033291710000991
Chen, S. F., Chien, Y. L., Wu, C. T., Shang, C. Y., Wu, Y. Y., & Gau, S. S. (2016). Deficits in executive
functions among youths with autism spectrum disorders: An age-stratified analysis. Psychological
Medicine, 46(8), 1625–1638. doi:10.1017/S0033291715002238
Cunningham, W. A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2007). Attitudes and evaluations: A social cognitive neu­
roscience perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(3), 97–104. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.005
Dajani, D. R., Llabre, M. M., Nebel, M. B., Mostofsky, S. H., & Uddin, L. Q. (2016). Heterogeneity of
executive functions among comorbid neurodevelopmental disorders. Scientific Reports, 6(1),
36566. doi:10.1038/srep36566
Dawson, M., Soulières, I., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Mottron, L. (2007). The level and nature of autistic
intelligence. Psychological Science, 18(8), e2020049899. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01954.x
De Vries, M., Verdam, M. G., Prins, P. J., Schmand, B. A., & Geurts, H. M. (2017). Exploring possible
predictors and moderators of an executive function training for children with an autism spectrum
disorder. Autism, 1362361316682622. doi:10.1177/1362361316682622
Demetriou, E. A., Lampit, A., Quintana, D. S., Naismith, S. L., Song, Y. J. C., Pye, J. E., . . .
Guastella, A. J. (2018). Autism spectrum disorders: A meta-analysis of executive function.
Molecular Psychiatry, 23(5), 1198–1204. doi:10.1038/mp.2017.75
Demetriou, A., Spanoudis, G., Makris, N., Golino, H., & Kazi, S. (2021). Developmental reconstruc­
tion of cognitive ability: Interactions between executive, cognizance, and reasoning processes in
childhood. Cognitive Development, 60, 101124. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2021.101124
Demetriou, A., Mougi, A., Spanoudis, G., & Makris, N. (2022). Changing developmental priorities
between executive functions, working memory, and reasoning in the formation of g from 6 to 12
years. Intelligence, 90, 101602. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2021.101602
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135–168. doi:10.1146/
annurev-psych-113011-143750
Duan, X., Wei, S., Wang, G., & Shi, J. (2010). The relationship between executive functions and
intelligence on 11-to 12-year-old children. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52(4),
419.
Fife-Schaw, C. (2006). Levels of measurement. Research Methods in Psychology, 3, 50–63.
Gonzalez-Gadea, M. L., Baez, S., Torralva, T., Castellanos, F. X., Rattazzi, A., Bein, V., . . . Ibanez, A.
(2013). Cognitive variability in adults with ADHD and AS: Disentangling the roles of executive
functions and social cognition. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(2), 817–830. doi:10.
1016/j.ridd.2012.11.009
Happe, F., Booth, R., Charlton, R., & Hughes, C. (2006). Executive function deficits in autism
spectrum disorders and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Examining profiles across
domains and ages. Brain and Cognition, 61(1), 25–39. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2006.03.004
Heaton, R. K., Chelune, G. J., Talley, J. L., Kay, G. G., & Curtiss, G. (1981). Wisconsin card sorting test
(WCST). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Hedvall, A., Fernell, E., Holm, A., Asberg Johnels, J., Gillberg, C., & Billstedt, E. (2013). Autism,
processing speed, and adaptive functioning in preschool children. Scientific World Journal, 2013,
158263. doi:10.1155/2013/158263
Hill, E. L. (2004). Executive dysfunction in autism. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 26–32. doi:10.
1016/j.tics.2003.11.003
14 S. CRUZ ET AL.

Kalbfleisch, M. L., & Loughan, A. R. (2012). Impact of IQ discrepancy on executive function in

high-functioning autism: Insight into twice exceptionality. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 42(3), 390–400. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1257-2
Karr, J. E., Areshenkoff, C. N., Rast, P., Hofer, S. M., Iverson, G. L., & Garcia-Barrera, M. A. (2018).
The unity and diversity of executive functions: A systematic review and re-analysis of latent
variable studies. Psychological Bulletin, 144(11), 1147–1185. doi:10.1037/bul0000160
Katusic, M. Z., Myers, S. M., Weaver, A. L., & Voigt, R. G. (2021). IQ in autism spectrum disorder: A
population-based birth cohort study. Pediatrics, 148(6), e2020049899. doi:10.1542/peds.2020-
049899
Lai, C. L. E., Lau, Z., Lui, S. S. Y., Lok, E., Tam, V., Chan, Q., . . . Cheung, E. F. C. (2017). Meta-
analysis of neuropsychological measures of executive functioning in children and adolescents
with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research, 10(5), 911–939. doi:10.1002/
aur.1723
Liss, M., Fein, D., Allen, D., Dunn, M., Feinstein, C., Morris, R., . . . Rapin, I. (2001). Executive
functioning in high-functioning children with autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
42(2), 261–270. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00717
Lord, C., Risi, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook, Jr, E. H., Leventhal, B. L., DiLavore, P. C., . . . Rutter, M. (2000).
The Autism diagnostic observation schedule—generic: A standard measure of social and commu­
nication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 30(3), 205–223. doi:10.1023/A:1005592401947
McKenzie, K., Milton, M., Smith, G., & Ouellette-Kuntz, H. (2016). Systematic review of the
prevalence and incidence of intellectual disabilities: Current trends and issues. Current
Developmental Disorders Reports, 3(2), 104–115. doi:10.1007/s40474-016-0085-7
McLean, R. L., Johnson Harrison, A., Zimak, E., Joseph, R. M., & Morrow, E. M. (2014). Executive
function in probands with autism with average IQ and their unaffected first-degree relatives.
Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(9), 1001–1009. doi:10.1016/
j.jaac.2014.05.019
Merchan-Naranjo, J., Boada, L., Del Rey-Mejías, Á., Mayoral, M., Llorente, C., Arango, C., &
Parellada, M. (2016). Executive function is affected in autism spectrum disorder, but does not
correlate with intelligence. Revista de Psiquiatría y Salud Mental, 9(1), 39–50. doi:10.1016/j.rpsm.
2015.10.005
Miller, H. L., Ragozzino, M. E., Cook, E. H., Sweeney, J. A., & Mosconi, M. W. (2015). Cognitive set
shifting deficits and their relationship to repetitive behaviors in autism spectrum disorder. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(3), 805–815. doi:10.1007/s10803-014-2244-1
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The
unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks:
A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
Mottron, L., Belleville, S., Rouleau, G. A., & Collignon, O. (2014). Linking neocortical, cognitive, and
genetic variability in autism with alterations of brain plasticity: The trigger-threshold-target model.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 47, 735–752. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.07.012
O’Hearn, K., Asato, M., Ordaz, S., & Luna, B. (2008). Neurodevelopment and executive function in
autism. Developmental Psychopathology, 20(4), 1103–1132. 10.1017/S0954579408000527
Ozonoff, S., Cook, I., Coon, H., Dawson, G., Joseph, R. M., Klin, A., . . . Wrathall, D. (2004).
Performance on Cambridge neuropsychological test automated battery subtests sensitive to frontal
lobe function in people with autistic disorder: Evidence from the collaborative programs of
excellence in autism network. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 139–150.
doi:10.1023/B:JADD.0000022605.81989.cc
Rommelse, N., Langerak, I., Van der Meer, J., De Bruijn, Y., Buitelaar, J., Buitelaar, J., . . . Gilbert, S.
(2015). intelligence may moderate the cognitive profile of patients with ASD. Plos One, 10(10),
1–17. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138698
Semrud-Clikeman, M., Walkowiak, J., Wilkinson, A., & Butcher, B. (2010). Executive functioning in
children with Asperger syndrome, ADHD-combined type, ADHD-predominantly inattentive
type, and controls. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(8), 1017–1027. doi:10.
1007/s10803-010-0951-9
 JOURNAL OF COGNITION AND DEVELOPMENT 15

Sinzig, J., Morsch, D., Bruning, N., Schmidt, M. H., & Lehmkuhl, G. (2008). Inhibition, flexibility,
working memory and planning in autism spectrum disorders with and without comorbid
ADHD-symptoms. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 2(4). doi:10.1186/1753-
2000-2-4
Solomon, M., Gordon, A., Iosif, A., Geddert, R., Krug, M. K., Mundy, P., & Hessl, D. (2020). Using the
NIH toolbox to assess cognition in adolescents and young adults with autism spectrum disorders.
Autism Research, 14(3), 500–511. 10.1002/aur.2399
Soulieres, I., Zeffiro, T. A., Girard, M. L., & Mottron, L. (2011). Enhanced mental image mapping in
autism. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 848–857. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.01.027
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 18(6), 643. doi:10.1037/h0054651
Torske, T., Naerland, T., Øie, M. G., Stenberg, N., & Andreassen, O. A. (2018). Metacognitive aspects
of executive function are highly associated with social functioning on parent-rated measures in
children with autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 11(258). doi:10.
3389/fnbeh.2017.00258
Tourva, A., Spanoudis, G., & Demetriou, A. (2016). Cognitive correlates of developing intelligence:
The contribution of working memory, processing speed and attention. Intelligence, 54, 136–146.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.12.001
Valeri, G., Casula, L., Napoli, E., Stievano, P., Trimarco, B., Vicari, S., & Scalisi, T. G. (2020).
Executive functions and symptom severity in an Italian sample of intellectually able preschoolers
with autism spectrum disoder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(9), 3207–3215.
doi:10.1007/s10803-019-04102-0
Van Eylen, L., Boets, B., Steyaert, J., Evers, K., Wagemans, J., & Noens, I. (2011). Cognitive flexibility
in autism spectrum disorder: Explaining the inconsistencies? Research in Autism Spectrum
Disorders, 5(4), 1390–1401. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2011.01.025
Volkmar, F., Siegel, M., Woodbury-Smith, M., King, B., McCracken, J., & State, M., & American
Academy of, C., & Adolescent Psychiatry Committee on Quality, I. (2014). Practice parameter for
the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Journal
of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(2), 237–257. 10.1016/j.jaac.2013.10.
013
Wallace, G. L., Kenworthy, L., Pugliese, C. E., Popal, H. S., White, E. I., Brodsky, E., & Martin, A.
(2016). Real-world executive functions in adults with autism spectrum disorder: Profiles of
impairment and associations with adaptive functioning and co-morbid anxiety and depression.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(3), 1071–1083. doi:10.1007/s10803-015-2655-7
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler adult intelligence scale-III. San Antonio: TX: The Psychological
Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-WISC-IV. Psychological Corporation.
Yeung, M. K., & Chan, A. S. (2020). Executive function, motivation, and emotion recognition in
high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 105. 10.1016/j.
ridd.2020.103730
Zhang, Z., Peng, P., & Zhang, D. (2020). Executive function in high-functioning autism spectrum
disorder: A meta-analysis of fMRI studies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(11),
4022–4038. doi:10.1007/s10803-020-04461-z