ArticleJournal of neurodevelopmental disorders2026
Longitudinal profiles of executive function in autistic and non-autistic children at high likelihood of autism.
Article in Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Memory, attention, and executive function in intellectual and developmental disabilities.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2026Article
- Executive Functioning as a Pathway Between Social Skills and Psychopathology: The Moderating Role of Autism Diagnosis.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExecutive functioning (EF) difficulties are common in autistic children and may aggregate in families. Longitudinal studies examining EF development in autistic children and their siblings are limited. In the current study, we characterized EF development from later infancy through school-age in autistic and non-autistic high likelihood (HL; with an older autistic sibling) and low likelihood (LL; without older autistic sibling) children.
methodsParticipants were 83 autistic and 235 non-autistic HL children, and 132 LL children from the Infant Brain Imaging Study. EF was assessed at ages 12 and 24 months using the A-not-B task and ages 5–14 years (school-age) using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test (Flanker), and Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS). Longitudinal profiles of EF were examined using linear mixed-effects models with three separate models for each school-age EF outcome.
resultsFrom 12–24 months, the LL group showed an increase in standardized EF scores (p < 0.05). The HL-ASD and HL-noASD groups showed no change (ps > .05). From 24 months to school-age, no change was observed for any group (ps > .05). From 12 months to school-age, standardized scores in the LL group increased (p = 0.002) and in the HL-ASD group (p < .001) decreased for the BRIEF GEC outcome. There were no group differences at 12 months in standardized EF scores (ps > .05) but at 24-months both HL groups had lower scores than the LL group (ps < .05). At school-age, the HL-ASD group had lower standardized EF scores than the LL and HL-noASD groups on all measures (ps < or = .050), and the HL-noASD group had lower standardized scores than the LL group on the BRIEF GEC (p = .014).
conclusionsAutistic and non-autistic HL children and LL children showed distinct EF profiles. On lab-based measures, autistic and non-autistic HL children showed relatively stable EF performance over time while LL children showed initial improvements. Parent report showed accumulating EF difficulties in autistic HL children. Executive function supports starting in toddlerhood may be useful for HL children showing emerging EF difficulties.
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.