Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36699709›Full record

ArticlePsychology in Russia : state of the art2022

Growth of Executive Functions in Preschool-Age Children During the COVID-19 Lockdown: Empirical Evidence.

Elena A Chichinina, Margarita N Gavrilova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychology in Russia : state of the art, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

2 authors.

Elena A ChichininaLomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.
Margarita N GavrilovaLomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: During the lockdown for COVID-19, children were limited in a number of activities which are essential for the development of executive functions (play, social interaction, and organized sport). Earlier studies found an increase in executive function issues in children during the pandemic, based on caregivers' reports. Objective: The present study was a pioneer in exploring the dynamics of children's executive function development during the lockdown. Our purpose was to explore the effect of the lockdown on the growth of executive functions in children over a one-year period, as compared to their peers before the pandemic. Design: The sample consisted of two cohorts of children. All the children had been attending the same kindergartens but in different periods of time. The executive functions of both groups were assessed twice, with a year's break in-between (the first group was assessed before the pandemic; the second, during the pandemic). These groups were comparable in gender composition, age, and family's place of residence. Results: The results have confirmed concerns about the slower growth of executive functioning in children during the lockdown versus their peers before the pandemic, especially for cognitive flexibility and working memory. Inhibition was not significantly affected by the lockdown. Moderation analysis showed that the lockdown impacted girls differently than boys in terms of working memory. The negative effect of social restrictions on working memory was significantly higher in females. Conclusion: Our findings illuminate the negative effects the pandemic-related social restrictions had on the growth of children's cognitive flexibility and working memory. For working memory, the effect of social isolation varied depending on the child's gender.

Indexed as

cognitive flexibilityCOVID-19developmentinhibitionlockdownsocial restrictionsWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID36699709
PMCPMC9833618

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.