ArticleJournal of Intelligence2026
The Contribution of Executive Functions to Academic Achievement in Gifted Children: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Growing evidence indicates that executive functions, metacognition, and reading comprehension are crucial for academic success; however, their contribution to academic achievement in gifted children remains insufficiently understood. The main aim of this study was to compare planning processes and metacognitive abilities among gifted children with high academic achievement, gifted children with low academic achievement, and typically developing children with high academic achievement. A secondary aim was to examine reading comprehension in gifted children compared to typically developing peers. Seventy-three children (34 males, 39 females), aged between 8 and 11 years (M = 9.5, SD = 0.91), were divided into three groups: gifted children with high academic achievement, gifted children with low academic achievement, and typically developing children. Participants completed the Tower of London task, the MT Reading Comprehension Test, and the Me and My Mind metacognition questionnaire. Results showed that both groups of gifted children performed significantly better than typically developing peers in planning efficiency and reading comprehension. No significant differences emerged between high- and low-achieving gifted children in planning, reading comprehension, or metacognition. Overall, the findings suggest that planning abilities and reading comprehension represent cognitive strengths that distinguish gifted children from typically developing high achievers, whereas differences in academic achievement within the gifted population may be more closely related to metacognitive regulation and other non-cognitive factors rather than to planning or reading comprehension alone.
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.