Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Comparative Study of the Development of EFs in Children: Transition from the First Cycle to the Second Cycle of Early Childhood Education

Altmetrics

Downloads

79

Views

48

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

25 October 2024

Posted:

29 October 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Antecedents. EFs (EFs) are the basis for establishing a goal and working towards that goal by coordinating thoughts and actions. EFs are fundamental to several aspects of daily life, specifically for academic performance. Aim. To analyze and compare the development of EFs in the transition period between the first and second cycles of Early Childhood Education. Methodology. Non-experimental methodology, ex post facto design, descriptive, cross-sectional evolution study. Participants. Preschoolers of different educational levels (first and second cycle of Infant Education). In this study the participants have been evaluated by different informants: 54.42% by parents and 45.58% by teachers. In relation to gender, 52.65% were male and 47.35% were female. In relation to age, 37.54% had a range of 2-3 years and 62.46% had a range of 4-5 years. Measurement. Instrument development of EFs were evaluated using BRIEF-P by key informants. Results. Preschoolers in the first cycle show significantly higher scores than preschoolers in the second cycle in BRIEP-P. Conclusions. The development of EF is key in these first key moments, having a special impact on later development and academic performance. It is necessary to work on EFs from the first cycle of Early Childhood Education, considering the evolutionary development of EFs.
Keywords: 
Subject: Social Sciences  -   Psychology

1. Introduction

Garon, Bryson, & Smith (2008) [1] consider that development of the brain involves a process of continuous construction, organisation and re-structuring of the connections of the brain in response to the input of the environment, thus producing in parallel an increase in the complexity of mental structures. These changes can be associated with and linked to the development of EFs (Miyake, Friedman, Emerson, Witzkim Howerter, & Wager, 2000) [2].

1.1. Dimensions and Development of EFs in Early Childhood

EFs (EFs) are the basis of the ability to set a goal and then work towards that goal, while coordinating thoughts and actions [3]. EFs are, therefore, fundamental to various aspects of daily life, such as mental and physical health, academic success and success in daily living, long with social and psychological development [4]. They include diverse dimensions, such as, cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control and working memory [5,6,7] for the functioning of the human being in society.
EFs include processes that involve intentionality in the control of other processes, such as impulse control, attention, thought and behaviour [2,8].
For Lezak [9], EFs are essential mental capacities for carrying out effective, creative and socially adapted behaviour. Sohlberg & Mateer [10] consider that EFs cover a series of cognitive processes, among which are anticipation, selection of objectives, planning, behaviour selection, self-regulation, self-control and the use of feedback. Tirapu [11], for example, focuses on predicting the consequences that can lead us to anticipated solutions. Funahashi (2001) [12] postulates that they are the result of the coordination of the processes which are necessary to meet a particular objective in a flexible way. Zelazo [13] focuses on the self-regulation skills involved in achieving a goal, that are modulated by thinking and emotion, while basically differentiating between executive and motivational executive processes or “hot EFs” and purely cognitive aspects or “cool EFs”.
We can say that the “EFs” construct does not really constitute a unitary concept, just like the prefrontal cortex, which area considered as the neuropsychological substrate of EFs.
In relation to the number of dimensions that constitute the EFs throughout the development in these first stages, the results are contradictory and inconclusive. According to Monette, Bigras, & Lafrenière [14], the results being more consistent at 3 years than at 4 - 5 years of age [15,16].
A solution with three factors implies a greater differentiation of dimensions, which would be the most appropriate for older children, between the ages of 8 and 13 years, for example [17] or 15 years of age [18].
Other studies point to the configuration of EFs by two factors for children aged 3 to 5 years [19] or 5 to 13 years [18].
Thus, some studies support a single factor for 5-year-old children [16], in the age ranges of 2.5 to 6 years [20] and 7 to 9 years [21]. Brydges, Fox, Reid, & Anderson [21] reviewed the body of literature and suggest that the solution of a single factor is the most appropriate for children under 9 years of age.
Dimensions that configure the executive function have been studied during the preschool stage using different techniques, mainly factorial analysis, that allows us to know the degree of dependence-independence of the executive function, by studying the construct underlying it [14,22,23].
There is growing evidence that EFs are key to academic success and key as a predictor of the development of academic skills [24,25,26,27,28,29,30].
Empirical studies of typical development show that EFs test performance increases at between 3 and 6 years of age [16,31].
The development of EFs is a crucial aspect of cognitive growth in children, especially during the early years of life. These skills, which include working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility, play a fundamental role in children's ability to plan, solve problems, and regulate their behavior. In the context of Early Childhood Education, analyzing the development of these functions can provide valuable insights into how children progress through different educational stages.

1.2. Evolution of Cognitive and Social Development Across Early Childhood Education Cycles

In terms of cognitive and psychological development, students in the first cycle (ages 0-3) are primarily engaged in sensory exploration and motor activities. Their learning is driven by direct experiences and free play, with a focus on developing basic skills such as fine and gross motor coordination, imitation, and emerging language abilities. At this stage, children are beginning to develop self-regulation and autonomy but still depend heavily on adults for guidance and decision-making. In contrast, during the second cycle (ages 3-6), students begin to acquire more advanced cognitive skills. They develop working memory, sustained attention, and problem-solving abilities. There is also a notable expansion in language use, allowing them to follow complex instructions and express their thoughts and emotions more clearly. Additionally, their capacity for emotional and social regulation improves, and they start engaging in more complex and cooperative social interactions.
The educational environment also evolves significantly between these two cycles. In the first cycle, the learning environment is highly stimulating and designed for safety, with an emphasis on exploration and free play. Educators act as guides, facilitating learning through interactive play. By the second cycle, the environment becomes more structured, incorporating daily routines and organized activities, including guided play and group tasks. The focus shifts toward preparing children for primary school with an introduction to pre-academic skills such as letter and number recognition and the ability to follow instructions and work in groups.
When considering development and learning expectations, the goals for the first cycle are centered around sensory-motor development, early socialization, and basic language skills. Evaluation during this period is more observational, focusing on progress in these fundamental areas. In the second cycle, learning goals become more formal, aiming at preparing children for primary education. This includes a focus on initial academic skills, understanding basic concepts, and working on structured tasks. Assessment methods become more formal, although still adapted to the child's age, to evaluate cognitive, linguistic, and social development.
Social interaction and behavior change notably between the two cycles. In the first cycle, social interactions are simpler, typically involving imitation and parallel play, with early development in understanding social norms and cooperative play. By the second cycle, children engage in more cooperative and group activities, showing improved understanding and adherence to social rules, as well as enhanced abilities to share and collaborate with peers.
These differences underscore a significant evolution in children's development as they advance from the first to the second cycle of Early Childhood Education, reflecting their cognitive, social, and emotional growth.
The first and second cycles of Early Childhood Education represent key phases in this developmental process. While the first cycle focuses on initial exploration and the acquisition of basic skills, the second cycle is oriented towards a greater consolidation and refinement of these abilities. The transition between these two cycles can be a critical period for the development of EFs, marking a significant change in how children manage their cognitive and emotional skills.
Given the potential impact that this transition may have on the development of EFs, it is essential to investigate how the level of development of these skills varies between children in the first and second stages of Early Childhood Education. Additionally, identifying the differences in development during the transition period between the two cycles is important for better understanding the needs and appropriate supports for children at this crucial stage of their development.

1.3. Aim

We set ourselves the objective of knowing, analyzing and comparing the level of development of the EFs of the infant of the first cycle of Infant Education versus the second cycle, the age of intercycle transition (first versus second).
The transition from the first stage to the second cycle in Early Childhood Education marks several significant changes in the developmental, educational, and behavioral aspects of students. These differences are crucial for understanding how children evolve as they move through these formative years.
How does the level of executive function development in children in the first stage of Early Childhood Education compare to that of children in the second stage, and what differences are observed in the development of these functions during the transition period between the two stages?

2. Materials and Methods

Non-experimental, ex post facto design, descriptive, cross-sectional development study.

2.1. Participants

The typing sample is constituted by 1042 boys and 937 girls who are the participants in the process of adaptation and validation of BRIEF-P (adapted from [32]). The inclusion criteria were to acceptance participation in the study, age range between 2 and 6 years and no signs or indications of any type of neurodevelopmental disorders and/or disability.
In this study the participants have been evaluated by different informants: 54.42% by parents and 45.58% by teachers. In relation to gender, 52.65% were male and 47.35% were female. In relation to age, 37.54% had a range of 2-3 years and 62.46% had a range of 4-5 years. 
Students grouped by education cycle and by age. Table 1 shows the distribution of the participants according to educational cycle.

2.2. Measurement

Executive function is assessment with BRIEF-P is an instrument that was recently validated in Spain by Bausela and Luque [32] with the aim of evaluating its development through the observation of key informants (teachers or other habitual caregivers of the child) (hetero research, self-investigation).
The BRIEF-P provides scores on various indices (Global Index of Executive Function, Inhibitory Self-Control Index, Flexibility Index, Emergent Metacognition Index) and scales related to EFs (Inhibition, Flexibility, Emotional Control, Working Memory, Planning and Organization).
BRIEF-P was completed by parents, legal guardians and teachers of children with ages from 2 years to 5 years and 11 months who have knowledge of the child for a minimum period of 6 months. The study was carried out using individual and collective applications.

2.3. Analysis of Data

The data were submitted to descriptive and inferential analyses (bivariate and multivariate). It was applied Student’s t-test was used to calculate the difference in the scales and clinical indices of BRIEF-P between the two age groups by age and educational cycle.

3. Results

The initial development includes descriptive statistical analyses, followed by inferential analyses.
The difference between 1st cycle versus 2nd cycle students was different depending on the informant: (i) When parents are informants there are no statistically significant differences in Planning and Organization, Inhibitory Self-Control and Emergent Metacognition. In all clinical scales and indices, except in Planning and Organization, scores are higher in 1st cycle participants compared to 2nd cycle participants (see Table 2).
Table 2 and Table 3 shows the distribution of the sample of participants evaluated according to the informants (parents versus teachers) in the two age groups (three years versus four years) and educational cycle (first cycle versus second cycle of Early Childhood Education) that were evaluated.
There are statistically significant differences in three clinical scales: Flexibility (t [1075] = 3.94, p = 0.000, d = 0.014), Emotional Control (t [1075] = 1.373, p = 0.17, d = 0.002) and Working Memory (t [1075] = 1.915, p = 0.056, d = 0.003); and in two clinical indexes: Flexibility (t [1075] = 3.049, p = 0.002, d = 0.009) and Global Executive Performance (t [1075] = 1.714, p = 0.087, d = 0.003) (see Table 4). (ii) When teachers are informants, there are statistically significant differences. These differences were found in all clinical scales and indices. In all clinical scales and indices, the scores are higher in participants in the first cycle compared to those in the second cycle (see Table 3). Statistically significant differences are obtained in: (a) Three clinical scales: Inhibition (t [900] = 3.127, p = 0.000, d = 0.000) (t [900] = 4.179, p = 0.000, d = 0.000), Emotional Control (t [900] = 3.668, p = 0.000, d = 0.000) and Planning and Organisation (t [900] = 4.381, p = 0.000, d = 0.000). (b) All clinical indices: Inhibitory Self-Control (t [900] = 3.622, p = 0.000, d = 0.000); Flexibility (t [900] = 5.249, p = 0.000, d = 0.000); Emergent Metacognition (t [900] = 4.377, p = 0.000, d = 0.000) and Global Executive Function (t [900] = 5.08, p = 0.000, d = 0.000).
Table 4 shows the results of the Levene test of equality of variances prior to the Student’s t-test for the equality of means (or medians) of independent samples of the two informants (parents - teachers).

4. Discussion

The objective of the present study was to analyse and compare the development of EFs among schoolchildren who are in the transition period between the first and second cycles of Early Childhood Education, in order to identify the executive dimensions that are developed in this educational period, which will mark the subsequent development and academic performance.
The choice of two groups of schoolchildren with very different ages, we have allowed us to know whether, in these first periods of development, EFs form a segment or set, or whether, on the contrary, the dimensions that make up this construct are already differentiated according to different rhythms in their trajectory.
When the comparison is made using educational cycles, the differences increase in the number of indexes and clinical scales within which there are statistically significant differences, particularly, in the case of parents, having significant differences in: Inhibition, Flexibility (Index and Scale) Emotional Control, Working Memory and Global Executive Composite. In the case of teachers, there are still statistically significant differences between schoolchildren of both cycles at all scales and clinical indexes. It can be affirmed that when the comparison is made by educational level, a greater number of dimensions are obtained in which there are statistically significant differences among school children in order to design intervention programs aimed at the development of EFs in Early Childhood Education.
The results obtained are in line with the results obtained by [15] who allude to the fact that at 3 years of age, more complex executive skills are developed (conflict resolution or active manipulation of information in working memory). At this same age, some 3-year-olds are flexible with respect to their attention in response to the demands of the situation and change, for example, their responses following clear verbal instructions. The foundations of planning and organisational skills have been evidenced in children aged 3 and 4 years [33].
In relation to inhibitory control, the results obtained take on the same direction as those obtained by Pérez, Carboni, & Capila [11] who conclude that in tasks requiring set change (e.g., Wisconsin Card Sorting Test) 3-year-olds are unable to inhibit the mental set in which they are currently engaged and redirect their attentional focus to the new set.
We can consider that the stage between 3 years and 5 years of age is the period in which there is improvement of the processes of memory and inhibitory control that have arisen in early childhood (0-2 years of age). These basic skills will be fully developed in the school year.
Regarding cognitive flexibility, the results also confirm what Diamond [4] pointed out earlier, which began to develop later in the period of 2 years 10 weeks to 3 years of age, showing a significant increase during the school years.
Concerning self-regulation abilities, the data obtained are consistent with what indicates that from 3 years 6 months of age, a new stage is reached in terms of the inhibitory properties of adult speech, which is intended to be the child’s own voice as the factor that achieves some voluntary control. This is achieved in children between the ages of 3 and 4 years as during this period the impulsive function of children’s speech continues to predominate, although it slowly gives way to a semantic control that in later stages will really be determinant.
Functions of the central executive (inhibitory control, working memory and cognitive flexibility) are especially important in this stage of Early Childhood Education. Conditioning subsequent development and access at the Primary Education stage. At the end of the first cycle of Early Childhood Education, it is expected that the child will be able to initiate skills in logical/mathematical intelligence and in reading/writing, among others.
In relation to the informant, we can state in general terms that parents and teachers are reliable sources for assessing development of EFs in Early Childhood Education. However, there are differences and similarities in their perception of the development of EFs, being in agreement with other authors [34,35]. These results may indicate that, when the teachers are the informants they are more sensitive to development compared to the parents. On the other hand, in children of 3 years of age and of the first cycles present more difficulties in EFs, but these difficulties are reduced in the following year as a result of their own neurological maturation and their own educational intervention, that is developed in Infantile Education.
The obtained data indicate that when the informants are the teachers, statistically significant differences are obtained in all scales and clinical indexes of BRIEF-P, both when the comparison is made by educational cycles as well as by chronological age.
When the informants are the parents, statistically significant differences are obtained in a smaller number of scales and clinical indexes of BRIEF-P. Specifically, when the comparison is made by age and the informants are the parents, we obtain differences in scale and clinical index flexibility. When the comparison is made equally by age by teachers, statistically significant differences are obtained in all scales and clinical indexes.
Thus, we researched how to analyse the degree of “sensitivity” that parents and teachers have toward this development, and also to know the variable that has the greater predictive power of the performance of the EFs. The absence of statistically significant differences in the development of EFs in the two age groups (first cycle versus second cycle of Early Childhood Education) was hypothesised in this study, since the study dimensions that configure the construct of EFs are interrelated with the first periods of development. Further, it is not easy for observers (parents and teachers) to discriminate whether there is a year of difference between the two groups of participants, when comparing two groups of subjects with very similar ages.
The development of EFs is analysed differently by informants (parents versus teachers), with significant differences between respondents. Thus, when the informants are teachers, statistically significant differences are obtained between the two age groups that are being analysed, whereas when the informants are the parents, there are no statistically significant differences in different clinical scales (Inhibition, and Planning and Organisation) and in clinical indexes (Inhibitory Self-Control, and Emerging Metacognition). The differences found among the observers are in line with the results obtained by other researchers [34,35,36,37].
The obtained results allow us to acknowledge the existence of statistically significant differences according to the two age groups that were analysed, when evaluated by both parents and teachers. These data confirm that the different executive dimensions are supported by general neural circuits that mature, and change throughout the life cycle, making it possible to analyse and make comparisons from the first periods of the life cycle. Our data, as well as those provided by other studies [1,38,39] suggest that as the development of typical children progresses, the children are maturing with respect to their executive competencies. This mean that those children are abler to inhibit automatic responses that positively affect their attentional capacity, they are more flexible, they have greater emotional control, are they are more capable of storing and managing information [40], in the field of mathematics [41] and in other fields of study. This typical developmental milestone will allow us to understand the difficulties that some children have in these competences; for example, children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( [42,43], children with low birth weight (Anderson, McNamara, Andridge, & Keim, 2015) [44] , children with language disorders [45], learning disabilities [46] or children with autism spectrum disorder [47,48].
We can conclude by affirming that BRIEF-P is an instrument that is sensitive to the development of EFs and it is the informant that interacts with the child, guaranteeing a plural and diverse view depending on the development contexts (home versus school) and guarantees ecological validity of the scores. These results are in line with results obtained by other researchers [49] and justify the creation of different scales according to age groups and educational cycle. It is observed that the different dimensions evaluated (Emergent Metacognition, Inhibitory Self-Control, and Flexibility) follow different trajectories, being in line with the approach proposed by several researchers in relation to the EFs topic [4,24,50,51,52].
These results lead to a need to proffer intervention proposals that are sensitive to these differences in development during the first stage of the life cycle, avoiding consideration of the EFs as a segment or set, since for this first stage evidences of differences in their development have been verified among children of age groups first cycle versus second cycle of Early Childhood Education [3,53]. These results are consistent with neuroimaging studies, which confirm that the maturation of neural connections occurs by following a process, from the interconnected local regions to the regions of distributed connectivity, which work as the basis of the same function and this is reflected in the maturation of cognitive abilities [54].
In the case of cognitive flexibility, the data are in line with those data provided by [3], who indicate that flexibility emerges towards the end of the third year of life, being therefore at the border between the two age groups at were analysed.
Also, these results force us to include teachers and parents as evaluation agents and not to ignore their contributions. In accordance with this, also the need to train and instruct parents and teachers in this construct is estimated (for example, EFs and their relationship with basic instrumental skills, such as mathematical competence). The deep knowledge of the qualitative changes (and not limited to the quantitative aspects) of these cognitive processes of higher order are necessary in order to be able to have a referent norm and to be able to understand all the differences and / or deviations that occur in a typical development or disorders from the early stages of the life cycle (primary intervention) [55].
One of the strengths that we estimate from the present study is the sample that has been extracted from all of the national territory, which guarantees the representativeness and generalisation of the obtained results.

5. Conclusions

In the present study, a crosscutting design has been proposed, which makes it impossible to analyse intraindividual differences in the development of EFs, and it is therefore necessary to choose longitudinal designs [56], in order to analyse and to make comparisons of the intraindividual changes in the development of EFs.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study has been favorably evaluated by the Bioethics Committee of UNED during the session held on January 25, 2011.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Acknowledgments

To all the people who have participated anonymously and selflessly and to Tamara Luque, co-author of the Spanish adaptation of BRIEF-P.

Conflicts of Interest

The author is a co-author of the BRIEF-P adaptation in Spanish, receiving royalties in return.

References

  1. Garon N, Bryson SE, Smith IM. Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin. 2008;134(1):31-60.
  2. Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD. The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex “Frontal Lobe” Tasks: A Latent Variable Analysis. Cognitive Psychology. agosto de 2000;41(1):49-100.
  3. Hendry A, Jones EJH, Charman T. Executive function in the first three years of life: Precursors, predictors and patterns. Developmental Review. diciembre de 2016;42:1-33.
  4. Diamond A. Executive Functions. Annu Rev Psychol. 3 de enero de 2013;64(1):135-68.
  5. Anderson P. Assessment and Development of Executive Function (EF) During Childhood. Child Neuropsychology. julio de 2002;8(2):71-82.
  6. McCloskey G, Perkins LA, Van Divner B. Assessment and Intervention for Executive Function Difficulties [Internet]. 1.a ed. Routledge; 2008 [citado 12 de septiembre de 2024]. Disponible en: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781135906108.
  7. Zelazo PD, Carlson SM, Kesek A. The development of executive function in childhood. En: Handbook of developmental cognitive neuroscience, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA, US: Boston Review; 2008. p. 553-74. (Developmental cognitive neuroscience.).
  8. Zelazo PD, Carlson SM. Hot and Cool Executive Function in Childhood and Adolescence: Development and Plasticity. Child Dev Perspectives. diciembre de 2012;6(4):354-60.
  9. Lezak, MD. The Problem of Assessing Executive Functions. International Journal of Psychology. enero de 1982;17(1-4):281-97.
  10. Sohlberg MM, Mateer CA. Introduction to cognitive rehabilitation: Theory and practice. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press; 1989. xviii, 414 p. (Introduction to cognitive rehabilitation: Theory and practice.).
  11. Tirapu J, García A, Ríos M, Ardila A. Neuropsicología de la corteza prefrontal y las funciones ejecutivas. Barcelona: Viguera.; 2007.
  12. Funahashi, S. Neuronal mechanisms of executive control by the prefrontal cortex. Neuroscience Research. febrero de 2001;39(2):147-65.
  13. Zelazo, PD. Executive function: Reflection, iterative reprocessing, complexity, and the developing brain. Developmental Review. diciembre de 2015;38:55-68.
  14. Monette S, Bigras M, Lafrenière MA. Structure of executive functions in typically developing kindergarteners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. diciembre de 2015;140:120-39.
  15. Skogan AH, Egeland J, Zeiner P, Øvergaard KR, Oerbeck B, Reichborn-Kjennerud T, et al. Factor structure of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions (BRIEF-P) at age three years. Child Neuropsychology. 18 de mayo de 2016;22(4):472-92.
  16. Willoughby MT, Kupersmidt JB, Voegler-Lee ME. Is preschool executive function causally related to academic achievement? Child Neuropsychol. 2012;18(1):79-91.
  17. Lehto JE, Juujärvi P, Kooistra L, Pulkkinen L. Dimensions of executive functioning: Evidence from children. British J of Dev Psycho. marzo de 2003;21(1):59-80.
  18. Lee K, Bull R, Ho RMH. Developmental Changes in Executive Functioning. Child Development. noviembre de 2013;84(6):1933-53.
  19. Miller LJ, Nielsen DM, Schoen SA. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and sensory modulation disorder: A comparison of behavior and physiology. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2012;33(3):804-18.
  20. Wiebe SA, Espy KA, Charak D. Using confirmatory factor analysis to understand executive control in preschool children: I. Latent structure. Developmental Psychology. marzo de 2008;44(2):575-87.
  21. Brydges CR, Reid CL, Fox AM, Anderson M. A unitary executive function predicts intelligence in children. Intelligence. septiembre de 2012;40(5):458-69.
  22. Demetriou A, Spanoudis G. On the structure and development of executive functions in middle and late childhood: Remodeling and Commentary on Brydges, Fox, Reid, and Anderson. Intelligence. mayo de 2015;50:131-4.
  23. Van Der Ven SHG, Kroesbergen EH, Boom J, Leseman PPM. The structure of executive functions in children: A closer examination of inhibition, shifting, and updating. British J of Dev Psycho. marzo de 2013;31(1):70-87.
  24. Best JR, Miller PH, Jones LL. Executive functions after age 5: Changes and correlates. Developmental Review. septiembre de 2009;29(3):180-200.
  25. Blair C, Razza RP. Relating Effortful Control, Executive Function, and False Belief Understanding to Emerging Math and Literacy Ability in Kindergarten. Child Development. marzo de 2007;78(2):647-63.
  26. Cantin RH, Gnaedinger EK, Gallaway KC, Hesson-McInnis MS, Hund AM. Executive functioning predicts reading, mathematics, and theory of mind during the elementary years. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. junio de 2016;146:66-78.
  27. Cleary TJ, Chen PP. Self-regulation, motivation, and math achievement in middle school: Variations across grade level and math context. Journal of School Psychology. octubre de 2009;47(5):291-314.
  28. Cragg L, Gilmore C. Skills underlying mathematics: The role of executive function in the development of mathematics proficiency. Trends in Neuroscience and Education. junio de 2014;3(2):63-8.
  29. Nayfeld I, Fuccillo J, Greenfield DB. Executive functions in early learning: Extending the relationship between executive functions and school readiness to science. Learning and Individual Differences. agosto de 2013;26:81-8.
  30. Segers E, Damhuis CMP, Van De Sande E, Verhoeven L. Role of executive functioning and home environment in early reading development. Learning and Individual Differences. julio de 2016;49:251-9.
  31. Hughes C, Ensor R, Wilson A, Graham A. Tracking Executive Function Across the Transition to School: A Latent Variable Approach. Developmental Neuropsychology. 16 de diciembre de 2009;35(1):20-36.
  32. Gioia GA, Espy KA, Isquith PK. BRIEF-P. Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function – Preschool Version. Madrid: TEA Ediciones, S.A.U; 2016.
  33. Espy KA, Kaufmann PM, Glisky ML, McDiarmid MD. New Procedures to Assess Executive Functions in Preschool Children*. The Clinical Neuropsychologist. febrero de 2001;15(1):46-58.
  34. Montiel Nava C, Peña JA. Discrepancia entre padres y profesores en la evaluación de problemas de conducta y académicos en niños y adolescentes. RevNeurol. 2001;32(06):506.
  35. Ortiz Luna JA, Acle Tomasini G. Diferencias entre padres y maestros en la identificación de síntomas del trastorno por déficit de atención con hiperactividad en niños mexicanos. RevNeurol. 2006;42(01):17.
  36. Kane MJ, Bleckley MK, Conway ARA, Engle RW. A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2001;130(2):169-83.
  37. Meuwissen AS, Carlson SM. Fathers matter: The role of father parenting in preschoolers’ executive function development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. diciembre de 2015;140:1-15.
  38. Bernier A, Carlson SM, Whipple N. From External Regulation to Self-Regulation: Early Parenting Precursors of Young Children’s Executive Functioning. Child Development. enero de 2010;81(1):326-39.
  39. Harms MB, Zayas V, Meltzoff AN, Carlson SM. Stability of executive function and predictions to adaptive behavior from middle childhood to pre-adolescence. Front Psychol [Internet]. 22 de abril de 2014 [citado 10 de septiembre de 2024];5. Disponible en: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00331/abstract.
  40. Vandenbroucke L, Verschueren K, Baeyens D. The development of executive functioning across the transition to first grade and its predictive value for academic achievement. Learning and Instruction. junio de 2017;49:103-12.
  41. Purpura DJ, Schmitt SA, Ganley CM. Foundations of mathematics and literacy: The role of executive functioning components. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. enero de 2017;153:15-34.
  42. Jarratt KP, Riccio CA, Siekierski BM. Assessment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Using the BASC and BRIEF. Applied Neuropsychology. junio de 2005;12(2):83-93.
  43. Shuai L, Daley D, Wang YF, Zhang JS, Kong YT, Tan X, et al. Executive Function Training for Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Chinese Medical Journal. 5 de marzo de 2017;130(5):549-58.
  44. Anderson SE, McNamara K, Andridge R, Keim SA. Executive function and mealtime behavior among preschool-aged children born very preterm. Eating Behaviors. diciembre de 2015;19:110-4.
  45. Henry LA, Messer DJ, Nash G. Executive functioning and verbal fluency in children with language difficulties. Learning and Instruction. octubre de 2015;39:137-47.
  46. Huang F, Sun L, Qian Y, Liu L, Ma QG, Yang L, et al. Cognitive Function of Children and Adolescents with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Learning Difficulties: A Developmental Perspective. Chinese Medical Journal. 20 de agosto de 2016;129(16):1922-8.
  47. Chan AS, Sze SL, Han YMY. An intranasal herbal medicine improves executive functions and activates the underlying neural network in children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. junio de 2014;8(6):681-91.
  48. Margari L, Craig F, Margari F, Legrottaglie A, Palumbi R, De Giambattista C. A review of executive function deficits in autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. NDT. mayo de 2016;1191.
  49. Garon N, Smith IM, Bryson SE. A novel executive function battery for preschoolers: Sensitivity to age differences. Child Neuropsychology. 2 de noviembre de 2014;20(6):713-36.
  50. Barrouillet P. Theories of cognitive development: From Piaget to today. Developmental Review. diciembre de 2015;38:1-12.
  51. Carlson SM, Moses LJ. Individual Differences in Inhibitory Control and Children’s Theory of Mind. Child Development. agosto de 2001;72(4):1032-53.
  52. Romine CB, Reynolds CR. A Model of the Development of Frontal Lobe Functioning: Findings From a Meta-Analysis. Applied Neuropsychology. diciembre de 2005;12(4):190-201.
  53. Blakey E, Visser I, Carroll DJ. Different Executive Functions Support Different Kinds of Cognitive Flexibility: Evidence From 2-, 3-, and 4-Year-Olds. Child Development. marzo de 2016;87(2):513-26.
  54. Fair DA, Cohen AL, Power JD, Dosenbach NUF, Church JA, Miezin FM, et al. Functional Brain Networks Develop from a “Local to Distributed” Organization. Sporns O, editor. PLoS Comput Biol. 1 de mayo de 2009;5(5):e1000381.
  55. Wass SV. Applying cognitive training to target executive functions during early development. Child Neuropsychology. 4 de marzo de 2015;21(2):150-66.
  56. Spiess MA, Meier B, Roebers CM. Development and longitudinal relationships between children’s executive functions, prospective memory, and metacognition. Cognitive Development. abril de 2016;38:99-113.
Table 1. Distribution of participants according to age and educational cycle (own elaboration).
Table 1. Distribution of participants according to age and educational cycle (own elaboration).
Parents
(n)		 Teachers
(n)
Educacional cycle 1º Cicle 418 659
2º Cicle 325 577
Source: BRIEF-P (Spanish adaptation).
Table 2. Distribution of the sample according to the age, educational cycle by informant (parents) (only elaborated).
Table 2. Distribution of the sample according to the age, educational cycle by informant (parents) (only elaborated).
Clinical Scales / Indices 1º Cicle ECE 2º Cicle ECE
M σ M σ
Clinical Scales Inhibition 23.97 5.589 23.89 5.789
Flexibility 13.96 3.363 13.17 3.05
Emotional Control 14.67 3.538 14.36 3.661
Working Memory 23.75 5.589 23.09 5.479
Planning and Organisation 14.38 3.002 14.39 3.517
Indices Inhibitory Autocontrol 38.64 8.417 38.25 8.673
Flexibility 28.63 5.792 27.53 5.705
Emergent Metacognition 38.13 8.126 37.48 8.578
Global Executive Function 90.73 16.58 88.9 17.29
Source: BRIEF-P (Spanish adaptation).
Table 3. Distribution of the sample according to the age group, educational cycle by informant (teachers) (only elaborated).
Table 3. Distribution of the sample according to the age group, educational cycle by informant (teachers) (only elaborated).
Clinical Scales / Indices 1º Cicle ECE 2º Cicle ECE
M σ M σ
Clinical Scales Inhibition 22.77 6.255 21.42 6.193
Flexibility 13.46 3.354 12.26 2.967
Emotional Control 13.74 3.804 12.8 3.651
Working Memory 23.64 6.747 21.81 6.015
Planning and Organisation 13.82 3.919 12.76 3.235
Indices Inhibitory Autocontrol 36.51 9.183 34.22 9.085
Flexibility 27.2 6.238 25.06 5.604
Emergent Metacognition 37.46 10.357 34.57 8.987
Global Executive Function 87.44 19.278 81.05 17.43
Source: BRIEF-P (Spanish adaptation).
Table 4. Independent sample test in relation to age (first cycle versus second educational cycle of Early Childhood Education) (version for parents and teachers) (own elaboration).
Table 4. Independent sample test in relation to age (first cycle versus second educational cycle of Early Childhood Education) (version for parents and teachers) (own elaboration).
Executive Function Parents (a) Teachers (b)

Levene test
of equality variances		 Student’s t-test for the equality of means
Levene test
of equality variances		 Student’s t-test for the equality of means
F Sig.
(bilateral)		 t gl Sig.
(bilateral)		 Difference in means d F Sig.
(bilateral)		 t gl Sig.
(bilateral)		 Difference in means d
Clinical Scales Inhibition 1.258 .262 n.s. 0.215 1075 .83 n.s. 0.077 0.000 0.115 .734 n.s. 3.127 900 .002** 1.348 0.002
Flexibility 4.49 .034 * 3.941 1075 .000*** 0.782 0.014 12.309 .000 *** 5.565 900 .000*** 1.201 0.000
Emotional Control 0.614 .433 n.s. 1.373 1075 .17** 0.31 0.002 2.626 .105* 3.668 900 .000*** 0.943 0.000
Working Memory 0.005 .941 n.s. 1.915 1075 .056* 0.661 0.003 5.759 .017** 4.179 900 .000*** 1.822 0.000
Planning and Organisation 10.234 .001 *** -0.047 1075 .962 n.s. -0.01 0.000 11.969 .001*** 4.381 900 .000*** 1.062 0.000
Indices Inhibitory Autocontrol 0.826 .364 n.s 0.726 1075 .468 n.s. 0.389 0.000 0.393 .531n.s. 3.622 900 .000*** 2.291 0.000
Flexibility 0.047 .828 n.s. 3.049 1075 .002** 1.094 0.009 8.272 .004*** 5.294 900 .000*** 2.144 0.000
Emergent Metacognition 2.79 .095*** 1.239 1075 .216 n.s. 0.651 0.001 6.856 .009*** 4.377 900 .000*** 2.885 0.000
Global
Executive Function		 1.268 .26 n.s. 1.714 1075 .087* 1.824 0.003 3.502 .062* 5.08 900 .000*** 6.383 0.000
Source: BRIEF-P (Spanish adaptation). *** ρ<0.01, ** ρ<0.05, * ρ<0.1, N.S. not significant. Parents: 1º cicle= 418 / 2º cicle= 659 Teachers: 1º cicle= 325 / 2º cicle= 577.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated