ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders task and EF in two samples of adolescents in Brazil and United States.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- HTKS measure of executive function and self-regulation: two decades of progress in early childhood measurement.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- The screening tool of behavioral self-regulation "Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders" task: a preliminary adaptation to Greek older adults.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Validating a gamified size perception task for identifying cognitive profiles in children: a latent profile analysis of executive function and sensory measures.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Smart exercise in pediatric oncology: enhancing executive functions through cognitively challenging physical activity- a non-randomized controlled trial.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Physical Fitness, Executive Functions, and Academic Performance in Children and Youth: A Cross-Sectional Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Executive function (EF) is a foundational cognitive construct, which is linked to better cognitive and physical health throughout development. The present study examines the construct validity of an EF task, the Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders task (HTKS) that was initially developed for young children, in a sample of adolescents. We investigate the initial validity and range in scores between 54 adolescents from Brazil (mean age 12.58) and 56 US adolescents (mean age 12.48) from different socioeconomic contexts. Results indicated that the HTKS showed sufficient variability in both samples, especially for a measure of HTKS efficiency (completion time divided by the total score). The US sample performed better on all cognitive measures. For the Brazilian sample, regression models controlling for age and sex showed a significant relationship between the digit span working memory task, the HTKS total score, and the HTKS efficiency score. The Heart and Flowers cognitive flexibility measure was also included as an independent variable only for the Brazil sample, showing a significant relationship with both HTKS scores. For the US sample, results showed that only the HTKS efficiency score was significantly related to the digit span working memory task. This study highlights the importance of cognitive efficiency measures to achieve greater validity, as they can assess a broader range of performance with different populations. The HTKS showed good ecological validity with two adolescent samples, as it differentiated between populations with high and low socioeconomic status from different cultural contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.