Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36591081›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2022

Executive function and effortful control-Similar and different evidence from big data analysis.

Soo Eun Chae

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Soo Eun ChaeDepartment of Education, Art and Humanities College, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung-si, South Korea.
Gangneung–Wonju National University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The current study explored commonalities and similarities between executive function (EF) and effortful control (EC). Methods: The major empirical studies published between 2013 and 2022 in the World of Science (WoS) was collected. The bibliographic information was systematically analyzed. Results and discussion: (1) EC is the efficiency of executive attention that incorporates inhibitory control (IC), attentional control, activation mainly related to temperament. On the other hand, EF is the efficiency of self-directed action that encompasses IC, working memory (WM), and shifting/cognitive flexibility in particular focuses on the cognitive aspect. (2) EF research has overwhelmingly outnumbered EC research (2,000 EF studies vs. 50 EC studies per year). (3) According to a co-word analysis with keyword co-occurrences, the subject of preschool students and individual differences co-occurred in EF studies. (4) EC usually occurs with working memory and early childhood. In the more detailed analysis of the articles, the EF and EC studies used younger subject groups than older subject groups. EC studies were especially likely to use subjects in early childhood. (5) The Delis-Kaplan Tests of Executive Functioning System (D-KEFS) was the most commonly used test for EF. In contrast, the EC used self-report surveys such as the Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire (ATQ). This research illustrates and discusses key findings in the EC and EF data and provides suggestions for future study directions.

Indexed as

Adolescent Temperament Questionnairebibliographic informationbig data analysisDelis–Kaplan Tests of Executive Functioning Systemeffortful control (EC)executive function (EF)

Identifiers

PMID36591081
PMCPMC9794866
OpenAlexW4311480485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.