Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
There has been considerable debate and interest regarding the factor structure of executive functioning (EF). Therefore, the aim of the current study was to delve into this issue differently, by investigating EF and other cognitive constructs, such as working memory capacity (WMC), relational integration, and divided attention, which may contribute to EF. Here, we examined whether it is possible to provide evidence for a definite model of EF containing the components of updating, shifting, and inhibition. For this purpose, 202 young adults completed a battery of EF, three WMC tests, three relational integration tests, and two divided attention tests. A confirmatory factor analysis on all the cognitive abilities produced a five-factor structure, which included one factor predominately containing shifting tasks, the next factor containing two updating tasks, the third one predominately representing WMC, the fourth factor consisting of relational integration and antisaccade tasks, and finally, the last factor consisting of the divided attention and stop signal tasks. Lastly, a subsequent hierarchical model supported a higher-order factor, thereby representing general cognitive ability.
Highlights
Executive functioning (EF) continues to be an interesting topic of investigation regarding its cognitive underpinning and debate of relevant assessment procedures
A confirmatory factor analysis on all the cognitive abilities produced a five-factor structure, which included one factor predominately containing shifting tasks, the factor containing two updating tasks, the third one predominately representing working memory capacity (WMC), the fourth factor consisting of relational integration and antisaccade tasks, and the last factor consisting of the divided attention and stop signal tasks
As shown in Hilbert et al (2014), this may lead to a disappearance of the desired effect
Summary
Executive functioning (EF) continues to be an interesting topic of investigation regarding its cognitive underpinning and debate of relevant assessment procedures. EF can be either characterized as a unitary cognitive construct or as representing a diverse set of functions. Some researchers have taken the approach of using several measures for distinct components of EF (Fleming et al 2016; Friedman et al 2016; Ito et al 2015), whereas others use several measures to assess a single. EF component (Ettenhofer et al 2006). There has been a longstanding debate about the “elusive nature” or “task-impurity problem” of EF for decades, as well as discussion about the relationship between the tasks. As described by Snyder et al (2015), this problem makes interpreting the results difficult because the amount of variance attributed to unique, as well as common, EF variance can be relatively small compared to non-EF variance
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
