Poster #7 - Latent Structure of Executive Functions in Preschoolers: Performance Indicator Selection Matters.

• In Event: 1-169 - Poster Session 04
  In Poster Session: PS 04 Section - Attention, Learning, Memory

Integrative Statement

Background: Miyake and colleagues (2000) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)on several tasks measuring executive functions (EFs) in an adult sample and identified three separable but interrelated factors namely inhibition, shifting and updating. So far, the three-factor-structure of EFs could not be replied with preschool samples. Studies identified either a unitary factor (e.g., Hughes, Ensor, Wilson, & Graham, 2010; Wiebe et al., 2011) or two factors (e.g., Lee, Bull, & Ho, 2013; Miller, Giesbrecht, Müller, McInerney, & Kerns, 2012; Usai, Viterbori, Traverso, & De Franchis, 2013). However, the majority of studies did not include performance indicators for shifting (e.g. Bull, Espy, Wiebe, Sheffield, & Nelson, 2011) or used indicators for higher-order EF such as planning (e.g., Hughes et al., 2010). Studies suggest that the exclusion of performance indicators for shifting as well as the use of unspecific EF measures could influence the obtained results significantly (Miller et al., 2012; Monette, Bigras, & Lafrenière, 2015).
Aim: The aim of the current study was to analyze the latent structure of EFs in 4- and 5-year-olds using CFA. Specific measures for all three core EFs (inhibition, updating, shifting) were included. Four different models were tested: a one-factor model (Willoughby, Wirth, & Blair, 2012), a two-factor model with an inhibition factor and an updating–flexibility factor (Miller et al., 2012; Usai et al., 2014), a two-factor model with an updating factor and an inhibition-shifting factor (Lee et al., 2013), and a three-factor model (Miyake et al, 2000).
Method: A sample of 282 preschoolers between 4 and 5 years of age (51% female, Mage =58 months, SDage = 5.08) completed a battery of EF tasks. Inhibition was assessed with Tower (Kochanska et al., 1996), Sticker Choice (Thompson et al., 1997), and Hearts & Flowers incongruent (Diamond et al., 2007). Digit Span (Petermann & Petermann, 2008) and Block Recall (Alloway et al., 2006) were used to assess updating. Dimensional Change Card Sort (Zelazo, 2006) and Hearts & Flowers Mix (Diamond et al., 2007) were used to assess shifting.
Results: A two-factor model in which updating was distinguished, while inhibition memory and shifting emerged as a unitary component fit the data best. Although the three-factor model provided a good fit, it produced a solution that was inadmissible: Both the estimated correlation between inhibition and updating as well as between inhibition and switching was greater than one.
Conclusion: Although performance indicators for shifting were included in the analysis, the three-factor-structure of EF that is found for adults could not be replicated. A two-factor-structure fit the data best replicating the findings of Lee and colleagues (2013).

Authors

• Wiebke Friederike Evers, Heidelberg University
  Presenting Author

• Laura M. Walk, TransferCenter for Neuroscience and Learning, Ulm University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Melanie Otto, TransferCenter for Neuroscience and Learning, Ulm University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Sabina Maria Pauen, Heidelberg University
  Non-Presenting Author