Received: 17 September 2018 | Revised: 20 October 2019 | Accepted: 28 October 2019

DOI: 10.1111/desc.12918

PAPER

Common mechanisms of executive attention underlie

executive function and effortful control in children

Jeggan Tiego1,2 | Mark A. Bellgrove1 | Sarah Whittle2,3 | Christos Pantelis3,4 |

Renee Testa1,2

1
Turner Institute for Brain and Mental
Health and School of Psychological Sciences, Abstract
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Executive Function (EF) and Effortful Control (EC) have traditionally been viewed
Australia
2 as distinct constructs related to cognition and temperament during development.
Department of Psychiatry, Melbourne
Neuropsychiatry Centre, The University More recently, EF and EC have been implicated in top-down self-regulation - the
of Melbourne and Melbourne Health,
goal-directed control of cognition, emotion, and behavior. We propose that executive
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3
Melbourne School of Psychological
attention, a limited-capacity attentional resource subserving goal-directed cognition
Sciences, The University of Melbourne, and behavior, is the common cognitive mechanism underlying the self-regulatory
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4
capacities captured by EF and EC. We addressed three related questions: (a) Do
Department of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering, Centre for Neural Engineering, behavioral ratings of EF and EC represent the same self-regulation construct? (b) Is
The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, this self-regulation construct explained by a common executive attention factor as
Victoria, Australia
measured by performance on cognitive tasks? and (c) Does the executive attention
Correspondence factor explain additional variance in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
Jeggan Tiego, Turner Institute for Brain and
Mental Health and School of Psychological problems to behavioral ratings of self-regulation? Measures of performance on com-
Sciences, 18 Innovation Walk, Clayton plex span, general intelligence, and response inhibition tasks were obtained from
Campus, Wellington Road, Monash
University, VIC, 3800 Australia. 136 preadolescent children (M = 11 years, 10 months, SD = 8 months), along with
Email: [email protected] self- and parent-reported EC, and parent-reported EF, and ADHD problems. Results
Funding information from structural equation modeling demonstrated that behavioral ratings of EF and
National Health and Medical Research EC measured the same self-regulation construct. Cognitive tasks measured a com-
Council, Grant/Award Number: 1105825,
1125504 and 628386; Centre of Excellence mon executive attention factor that significantly explained 30% of the variance in be-
in Cognition and its Disorders, Australian havioral ratings of self-regulation. Executive attention failed to significantly explain
Research Council, Grant/Award Number:
FT130101488 additional variance in ADHD problems beyond that explained by behavioral ratings
of self-regulation. These findings raise questions about the utility of task-based cog-
nitive measures in research and clinical assessment of self-regulation and psychopa-
thology in developmental samples.

KEYWORDS

ADHD, developmental psychopathology, effortful control, executive attention, executive

function, self-regulation

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N - the ability to control cognition, emotion, and behavior in a goal-

directed manner (Nigg, 2017; Zhou, Chen, & Main, 2012). EF is an
Executive Function (EF) and Effortful Control (EC) are constructs umbrella term encompassing a range of cognitive processes in-
related to top-down self-regulation in children and adolescents volved in goal-directed, context-appropriate behavior, particularly in

Developmental Science. 2020;23:e12918. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/desc © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd | 1 of 25
https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12918
2 of 25 | TIEGO et al.

conditions characterized by novelty and interference from distract-

ing information (Banich, 2009; Diamond, 2013). EC is a dimension of
Research Highlights
temperament related to individual differences in children's and ado-
lescents’ ability to control their attention and behavior (Derryberry • Behavioral ratings of executive function and effortful
& Rothbart, 1988; Rothbart & Gartstein, 2008). Some researchers control measured the same self-regulation construct in
have contended that EF and EC are overlapping constructs (Bridgett, children aged 11 and 12 years
Oddi, Laake, Murdock, & Bachmann, 2013; Holzman & Bridgett, • Cognitive tasks assessing working memory capacity, re-
2017; Nigg, 2017; Zhou et al., 2012). Others have argued they are sponse inhibition, and general intelligence measured a
conceptually and empirically distinct and are differentially related to common execution attention factor
developmental psychopathology, such as attention deficit hyperac- • The executive attention factor explained 30% of the
tivity disorder (ADHD) (Eisenberg, 2017; Samyn, Roeyers, Bijttebier, variance in self-regulation as measured by behavioral
Rosseel, & Wiersema, 2015). Here, we propose that executive atten- ratings of executive function and effortful control
tion - a limited-capacity attentional resource subserving the goal- • Task-based cognitive assessment failed to explain statis-
directed control of cognition and behavior - is the common cognitive tically significant additional variance in attention deficit
mechanism underlying EF and EC and can explain their conceptual hyperactivity disorder problems to that accounted for
and empirical overlap. by behavioral ratings of self-regulation

1.1 | Executive attention and the attention difference between incongruent and congruent trials has been
networks model called the ‘interference effect’, ‘conflict effect’, or ‘conflict score’.
It is used as an index of the efficiency of the executive attention
Research on developmental self-regulation has been strongly in- network in resolving conflict between competing stimuli and re-
fluenced by the attention networks model (Posner & Petersen, sponse alternatives during task performance on incongruent trials
1990; Rueda, Posner, & Rothbart, 2011). Within this model, at- (Rueda et al., 2011, 2015). From the perspective of the attention
tention is conceptualized as several interrelated and mutually networks model, executive attention therefore refers to the ability
supportive processes subserved by neuroanatomically distinct to detect and resolve conflict (Petersen & Posner, 2012; Posner
functional networks (Petersen & Posner, 2012; Rueda, Pozuelos, & Rothbart, 2009). An implicit assumption of unidimensionality is
& Combita, 2015). Among these, the ‘executive control of atten- revealed by the use of a single interference effect obtained from
tion’ (also ‘executive control’ or ‘executive attention’) network stimulus-response compatibility tasks as a measure of executive
is specialized for detecting and resolving conflict between com- attention (Posner et al., 2002; Rueda et al., 2015).
peting processes (Fan, Raz, & Posner, 2003; Petersen & Posner,
2012). The executive attention network is particularly relevant
to the goal-directed control of attention and behavior in contexts 1.2 | Effortful control reflects efficiency of the
of novelty and interference (Petersen & Posner, 2012; Posner & executive attention network
Rothbart, 2009). For this reason, the executive attention network
has been implicated as the neurobiological basis of top-down self- Effortful Control (EC) represents the self-regulatory aspect of tem-
regulation and argued to play an important role in self-regulation perament identified in the psychobiological model first proposed by
during development (Rothbart, Sheese, & Posner, 2007; Rueda, Rothbart and Derryberry (1981) (Rothbart & Bates, 2006; Rothbart
Posner, & Rothbart, 2005). & Gartstein, 2008). It reflects a range of self-regulatory capacities
According to Posner and colleagues, individual differences in that are seen to first emerge in early infancy and demonstrate rapid
the efficiency of the executive attention network can be mea- development throughout childhood and adolescence, reflecting
sured using stimulus-response compatibility tasks, such as the maturation of the neural networks underlying the voluntary control
Stroop, Eriksen flanker (‘flanker’), and Simon tasks, and the at- of attention and behavior (Rothbart, Ellis, Rueda, & Posner, 2003;
tention networks test (Fan, McCandliss, Sommer, Raz, & Posner, Rothbart & Gartstein, 2008; Rueda et al., 2005). In the psychobio-
2002; Petersen & Posner, 2012; Simonds, Kieras, Rueda, & logical model of temperament, EC is defined as “…the efficiency of
Rothbart, 2007). Stimulus-response compatibility tasks consist of executive attention – including the ability to inhibit a dominant response
two main conditions: (a) congruent (or compatible), in which there and/or activate a subdominant response, to plan, and to detect errors.”
is a correspondence between task-relevant and task-irrelevant (Rothbart & Bates, 2006, p.129). Temperament researchers there-
stimuli and response elements; and (b) incongruent (or incompat- fore equate EC with individual differences in the efficiency with
ible), in which there is conflict between task-relevant stimuli and which executive attention supports self-regulation (Rueda et al.,
task-irrelevant distractors that prime an automatic, but incorrect, 2011). Thus, the interference effect on stimulus-response compat-
response (Eriksen, 1995; Kornblum, Hasbroucq, & Osman, 1990; ibility tasks has been used as a measure of EC in developmental sam-
Lu & Proctor, 1995; MacLeod, 1991). The mean reaction time ples (Rueda, Posner, & Rothbart, 2004; Simonds et al., 2007).
TIEGO et al. | 3 of 25

1.3 | Executive attention as working memory Working memory and response inhibition are two key cognitive pro-
capacity cesses commonly subsumed under the EF rubric and represented
across different theories and models (Diamond, 2013; Nigg, 2017).
Executive attention is also conceptualized and measured with Shifting between alternative stimulus-response associations and/
respect to working memory capacity (WMC) (Engle, 2002; Kane, or attentional sets (also ‘task-set switching’ or ‘cognitive flexibility’)
Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001).WMC is situated within broader is another core EF that is later-developing and partially dependent
theoretical models of working memory, a limited capacity cogni- upon inhibition and working memory (Best & Miller, 2010; Diamond,
tive system that functions to maintain and manipulate information 2013). Together, these ‘first-order’ EFs are believed to support more
over brief periods of time (Baddeley, 2012). In the multi-compo- complex ‘second-order’ EFs, such as planning, organization, prob-
nent model, originally described by Baddeley and Hitch (1974), lem solving, reasoning, and decision-making (Best & Miller, 2010;
the ‘Central Executive’ is a domain-general attentional resource Diamond, 2013).
that regulates the function and contents of two modality-specific One of the more prominent accounts of EF in the literature
temporary storage systems subserving auditory-verbal and visu- is the Unity/Diversity model of Miyake and colleagues (Miyake
ospatial short-term memory (Baddeley, 2003, 2012). WMC largely et al., 2000). The model includes three first-order EFs mea-
corresponds with the Central Executive as conceptualized in the sured at the level of latent variables using structural equation
multi-component model of working memory (Hofmann, Friese, modeling: (a) shifting between tasks or mental sets (‘Shifting’);
Schmeichel, & Baddeley, 2011; Repovs & Baddeley, 2006). Studies (b) updating and monitoring of working memory representations
suggest that this ‘executive’ or ‘attention control’ component of (‘Updating’); (c) inhibition of dominant or prepotent responses
working memory accounts for a large proportion of the variance in (‘Inhibiting’) (Miyake et al., 2000). When analyzed as a direct hi-
WMC, with residual variance attributable to individual differences erarchical factor model these EFs exhibit both ‘unity’ and ‘diver-
in short-term storage capacity and the efficiency of secondary re- sity’ (Miyake & Friedman, 2012). More specifically, the Shifting
trieval mechanisms (Shipstead, Lindsey, Marshall, & Engle, 2014; and Updating factors are associated with distinct, ability-spe-
Unsworth & Spillers, 2010). cific variance, but these three EFs also exhibit strong empirical
WMC is often assessed using complex span tasks, which mea- overlap captured by a general factor that completely subsumes
sure retention of a series of presented items interleaved with a dis- variance in the Inhibiting factor (Friedman, Miyake, Robinson,
tracting secondary processing task (Conway et al., 2005). According & Hewitt, 2011; Friedman et al., 2008). This general factor has
to the executive attention perspective of WMC developed by Kane, been termed ‘Common EF’ and may reflect a shared reliance of
Engle and colleagues, goal-relevant information is actively main- EFs on goal maintenance processes for top-down control (Miyake
tained through mechanisms of executive attention, which keep & Friedman, 2012).The proposed cognitive mechanisms un-
the contents of working memory in a readily accessible state and derlying Common EF are strikingly similar to the executive at-
protects it from interference and temporal decay (Kane, Conway, tention account of WMC (Kane et al., 2007). In fact, Friedman
Hambrick, & Engle, 2007). The ability to actively maintain goal-rel- and Miyake (2017) draw strong parallels between the two, con-
evant information, such as stimulus-response associations and task cluding that the same goal-maintenance mechanisms underlie
rules, is believed to enable individuals to override automatic pro- Common EF and the executive attention component of WMC.
cessing and engage in goal-directed cognition and behavior (Engle, Several studies have already demonstrated a close empirical as-
2002; Kane & Engle, 2002). For this reason, WMC has been im- sociation between two key EFs, Inhibiting (i.e. response inhibi-
plicated as an important mechanism in top-down self-regulation tion) and Updating, and WMC (Schmiedek, Hildebrandt, Lövdén,
(Hofmann et al., 2011; Ilkowska & Engle, 2010). Studies in children Wilhelm, & Lindenberger, 2009; Shipstead et al., 2014; Wilhelm,
and adults have demonstrated that individuals with higher WMC are Hildebrandt, & Oberauer, 2013).
better able to delay gratification, as well as more effectively regulate
the experience and expression of emotion (Hofmann, Gschwendner,
Friese, Wiers, & Schmitt, 2008; Schmeichel, Volokhov, & Demaree, 1.5 | Executive attention: A common construct
2008; Yu, Kam, & Lee, 2016). in the attention networks model and executive
attention account of WMC

1.4 | Executive attention is the goal maintenance Individual differences in the executive attention component of
mechanism underlying common EF in the unity/ WMC are most relevant in contexts of strong interference and
diversity model automatic response tendencies, such as those comprising stimu-
lus-response compatibility and response inhibition tasks (Kane et
In the developmental literature, executive functions (EF) have been al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2002). Consistent with this perspective,
described as a family of distinct, but functionally related, goal-di- higher WMC predicts lower interference effects on tasks used to
rected control mechanisms that act to initiate, maintain, and coordi- measure executive attention and EC within the attention networks
nate lower-lever cognitive processes (Diamond, 2013; Nigg, 2017). model, including the attention networks test, Stroop, and flanker
4 of 25 | TIEGO et al.

tasks (Heitz & Engle, 2007; Kane & Engle, 2003; Redick & Engle, that function in combination to focus attention on relevant infor-
2006). WMC is associated with better selective visual attention, mation (Shipstead et al., 2016).
facilitating the ability to focus on task-relevant targets and filter
out task-irrelevant distracters (Awh, Jonides, & Reuter-Lorenz,
1998; Burnham, Sabia, & Langan, 2014; Downing, 2000). Higher 1.6 | Performance on cognitive tasks versus
WMC also predicts better inhibitory control on measures of re- behavioral ratings as measures of self-regulation in
sponse inhibition, including the stop signal, go/no-go, and anti- relation to developmental psychopathology
saccade tasks (Kane et al., 2001; Tiego, Testa, Bellgrove, Pantelis,
& Whittle, 2018; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004). Selective Despite the apparent convergence of EF and EC (Holzman &
visual attention and response inhibition are abilities ascribed to Bridgett, 2017; Nigg, 2017; Zhou et al., 2012), some theorists
executive attention in the attention networks model, as well as contend they are conceptually and empirically distinct (Eisenberg,
being subsumed under EC, suggesting strong convergence on a 2017; Samyn et al., 2015). Unfortunately, there is a paucity of em-
common cognitive construct (Eisenberg, Hofer, & Vaughan, 2007; pirical studies that have directly tested the overlap between EC
Rueda et al., 2005). and EF (Bridgett et al., 2013; Lin, Liew, & Perez, 2019; Samyn et al.,
It has been suggested that the executive attention component 2015). Existing conceptual and empirical dissociations between EF
of WMC reflects a domain general attentional resource for actively and EC, particularly as predictors of developmental psychopathol-
maintaining goal-relevant neural representations (e.g., motivational ogy, may reflect differences in measurement approach rather than
context, task rules, stimulus–response associations, object features/ fundamental differences between these constructs (Bridgett et
attributes) as an ‘attentional set’ or ‘attentional template’ that bi- al., 2013; Samyn et al., 2015; Toplak, West, & Stanovich, 2013). EF
ases lower-level perceptual, cognitive, and behavioral processes has traditionally been measured using performance on cognitive
through top-down control (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002; Desimone & tasks, whereas EC has largely  been measured using behavioral rat-
Duncan, 1995; Kane & Engle, 2002). This theory provides a parsimo- ings based on parent- and self-report (Zhou et al., 2012). However,
nious account of executive attention, as the mechanisms supporting EF in developmental samples is increasingly assessed using behav-
goal-directed cognition and behavior in novel contexts and interfer- ioral rating measures based on parent- and/or self-report, such
ence-rich environments, such as those encountered during perfor- as the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF)
mance of stimulus-response compatibility and response inhibition (Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000). The BRIEF assesses EF
tasks, tests of EF, and general intelligence tasks (Brydges, Reid, using eight clinical scales: working memory, inhibit, shift, emo-
Fox, & Anderson, 2012; Engel de Abreu, Conway, & Gathercole, tional control, monitor, planning/organization, initiate, and organi-
2010; Kane & Engle, 2002; McCabe, Roediger, McDaniel, Balota, zation of materials, that can be summed to form two index scores
& Hambrick, 2010). Posner, Rothbart and colleagues have further – the metacognition index and behavioral regulation index (Gioia
acknowledged that the executive component of WMC and execu- et al., 2000). Several of these self-regulatory capacities converge
tive attention within the attention networks model are synonymous with those incorporated by definitions of EC, including the ability
(Rueda et al., 2011). to focus and ‘shift’ attention, ‘inhibit’ dominant responses, ‘plan’,
Recent accounts posit dissociable mechanisms of maintenance detect errors (i.e. monitor), and modulate emotional responses
and disengagement comprising the executive attention construct (i.e. emotional control) (Eisenberg et al., 2007; Rothbart & Bates,
(Engle, 2018; Shipstead, Harrison, & Engle, 2016). Researchers 2006). These self-regulatory abilities are also assessed using ques-
suggest these cognitive mechanisms account for the observed tionnaires designed to measure EC (Putnam, Ellis, & Rothbart,
strong associations between measures of WMC and general in- 2001).
telligence (Burgoyne, Hambrick, & Altmann, 2019; Engle, 2018). Conversely, EC has been increasingly measured using perfor-
Psychometric g, a factor that captures shared variance in perfor- mance on cognitive tasks. The Stroop, flanker, Simon, stop signal,
mance across tests of general intelligence, is correlated at or near and go/no-go tasks, have been used interchangeably as measures
unity with WMC, reflecting a common reliance on executive at- of EC, EF, and executive attention (Allan & Lonigan, 2011; Banich,
tention (Barbey et al., 2012; Brydges et al., 2012; Conway, Kane, 2009; Diamond, 2013; Fan, Flombaum, McCandliss, Thomas, &
& Engle, 2003; Engel de Abreu et al., 2010; Jensen, 2002; Nisbett Posner, 2003; Fan et al., 2002; Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000;
et al., 2012). Engle (2018) posits that complex span tasks primarily Miyake & Friedman, 2012; Murray & Kochanska, 2002). EF and EC
measure the capacity to maintain information, whereas tests of are thus likely closely associated constructs when both measured
general intelligence tap the ability to disengage from previously using behavioral ratings or performance-based tasks (Bridgett et
encountered, but no longer relevant, information. However, tasks al., 2013; Lin et al., 2019). For example, Lin et al. (2019) found that
measuring WMC and general intelligence are highly correlated be- EF and EC could not be empirically differentiated using laborato-
cause both require the controlled engagement and disengagement ry-based tasks in a sample of 244 children aged 4 – 6 years. This
of focal attention (Burgoyne et al., 2019; Engle, 2018; Shipstead et also suggests that commonality in behavioral ratings of EF and EC
al., 2016). From this perspective, the executive attention construct is explained by task-based cognitive measures of executive atten-
reflects cognitive mechanisms of maintenance and disengagement tion and that these measurement approaches should converge
TIEGO et al. | 5 of 25

on a common self-regulation construct (Nigg, 2017; Zhou et al., et al., 2001). However, more recent work suggests these three
2012). However, performance on cognitive tasks has typically ex- abilities largely reflect a ‘Common EC’ construct, conceptually simi-
hibited weak to modest correlations with behavioral ratings of EF lar to the Common EF factor in the Unity/Diversity model (Snyder,
and EC (Rueda, Posner, et al., 2004; Samyn et al., 2015; Simonds Gulley, et al., 2015). Parcelling item-level data by using question-
et al., 2007; Ten Eycke & Dewey, 2016; Toplak, Bucciarelli, Jain, & naire subscale or total scores without regard to the underlying
Tannock, 2008). A lack of convergence between task-based and factor structure can result in parameter bias and model misspeci-
self-report measures is a problem encountered in the self-regula- fication (Bandalos, 2002; Marsh, Lüdtke, Nagengast, Morin, & Von
tion research literature more broadly and has been attributed to Davier, 2013). This may explain weaker than expected conver-
the poor psychometric properties of task-based measures, as well gence between these constructs in previous studies, which have
as their inability to reliably measure individual differences (Enkavi not taken into account the latent structure of behavioral ratings of
et al., 2019; Hedge, Powell, & Sumner, 2017). EF and EC using analysis of behavioral ratings at an item-level (e.g.
Toplak et al. (2013) conducted a review of the EF research lit- Bridgett et al., 2013).
erature and concluded that cognitive tasks and behavioral ratings Second, the cognitive tasks used to measure EF and execu-
measure different constructs (see also Ten Eycke & Dewey, 2016). tive attention are often characterized by poor reliability, which
Additionally, behavioral ratings of EF and EC are more strongly constrains the strength of the empirical associations that can be
predictive of developmental psychopathology, such as ADHD, measured with other variables (Ghiselli, Campbell, & Zedeck, 1981;
than performance on cognitive tasks (Muris, van der Pennen, Hedge et al., 2017). Third, EF tasks are affected by task impurity:
Sigmond, & Mayer, 2008; Samyn et al., 2015; Toplak et al., 2008, individual differences in task performance combines variance from
2013). Toplak et al. (2013) suggested that cognitive tasks measure multiple sources beyond the function of interest, including non-tar-
‘optimal’ levels of performance in controlled conditions, whereas get cognitive processes, task-specific variance, and measurement
behavioral ratings are more representative of ‘typical’ perfor- error (Enkavi et al., 2019; Snyder, Miyake, & Hankin, 2015). Fourth,
mance in ecologically valid contexts, arguably more relevant to executive attention has been narrowly defined in the developmen-
everyday self-regulation and developmental psychopathology. tal literature (Diamond, 2013) and measured using single tasks in
From this perspective, it was concluded that cognitive tasks and previous studies (e.g. Rueda, Fan, et al., 2004; Simonds et al., 2007),
behavioral ratings of self-regulation explain unique variance in resulting in poor construct representation (Strauss & Smith, 2009).
symptoms of developmental psychopathology, particularly ADHD Furthermore, ADHD symptoms and other measures of develop-
(Toplak et al., 2013). mental psychopathology are often obtained through parent-report.
The stronger relationship between measures of developmental psy-
chopathology and behavioral ratings compared to performance on
1.7 | Limitations of previous studies cognitive tasks may be attributable to common method variance
and informant bias (Bridgett et al., 2013; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &
Conceptual and methodological limitations of previous studies Podsakoff, 2012; Toplak et al., 2013). Given these obstacles, identi-
may explain the poor association between performance on cogni- fying statistically significant and meaningful associations between
tive tasks and behavioral rating measures of self-regulation and performance on cognitive tasks and behavioral ratings of EF, EC,
developmental psychopathology. First, several of the scales on the and developmental psychopathology is challenging (Anderson,
BRIEF, the most widely used behavioral rating measure of EF in de- Anderson, Northam, Jacobs, & Mikiewicz, 2002; Mahone et al.,
velopmental samples, have no parallel cognitive tasks, making em- 2002; Toplak et al., 2008).
pirical relationships between these two measurement approaches
less likely (Toplak et al., 2013). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
has indicated that behavioral rating data obtained from the BRIEF 1.8 | Current study
coalesces around three higher-order factors, metacognition, emo-
tional regulation, and behavioral regulation, rather than reflecting We aimed to investigate the relationships between behavioral rat-
the eight clinical scales or the metacognition index and behavioral ings of EF and EC, performance on cognitive task measures of ex-
regulation index (Egeland & Fallmyr, 2010; Fournet et al., 2015; ecutive attention, and problems associated with developmental
Gioia, Isquith, Retzlaff, & Espy, 2002; Little et al., 2017). Similarly, psychopathology. We addressed several limitations of previous
EC was originally believed to consist of three distinct, but inter- studies. First, we used CFA to model the optimal latent structure
related, abilities as measured by separate subscales: (a) Attentional of the BRIEF and EATQ-R to obtain a more accurate estimate of
Control - the ability to voluntarily focus and shift attention, as well their empirical association. Second, we included both parent- and
as disengage from alternative sources of attention using cognitive self-reported EC to account for informant bias in estimating the re-
distraction; (b) Inhibitory Control - the ability to inhibit contextually lationship between behavioral ratings of EC, EF, and developmental
inappropriate behavioral responses; and (c) Activation Control - the psychopathology. Third, we used multiple cognitive tasks, includ-
capacity to undertake an action when there is a strong tendency ing tests of WMC, response inhibition, and general intelligence, in
to avoid it (Eisenberg, Smith, Sadovsky, & Spinrad, 2004; Putnam combination with structural equation modeling (SEM) to measure a
6 of 25 | TIEGO et al.

common executive attention factor. Use of these multiple measures parent-reported ADHD problems in addition to that explained by be-
enabled us to capture a range of cognitive processes ascribed to the havioral ratings of EF and EC.
executive attention construct, including maintenance, attentional
disengagement, and voluntary control of behavior (Kane et al., 2001;
Kane & Engle, 2002; Shipstead et al., 2016). Fourth, we used SEM 2 | M E TH O DS
to examine the inter-relationships between executive attention, be-
havioral ratings of EF and EC, and parent-reported ADHD problems. 2.1 | Participants
Using SEM allowed us to obtain less biased estimates of the hypoth-
esized empirical relationships between executive attention, EF, EC, The sample comprised 136 (125 right-handed) typically develop-
and ADHD problems by reducing the effect of measurement error ing, pre-adolescent children (86 males, 50 females), aged 11 years,
and by modeling the optimal latent structure of the constructs of 0 months to 12 years, 11 months (M = 11 years, 10 months,
interest. SD = 8 months), with no history of diagnosed neurological or psy-
ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by at chiatric disorders. Participants were recruited from 52 Government
least two, major symptom dimensions: (a) inattention/ disorga- (63.8%), Catholic (30.8%), and Independent (5.4%) primary and
nization, and (b) hyperactive/ impulsive (American Psychiatric secondary schools located in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia
Association, 2013; Frick & Nigg, 2012; Hinshaw, 2018). We chose using advertisement flyers handed out to students and through
to examine ADHD problems because this disorder is an archetypal school newsletters. The majority (86%) of the student sample were
model of self-regulatory failure linked to EF deficits, particularly of European descent. Sample size selection was based roughly on
working memory and response inhibition (Barkley, 2014; Lipszyc a recommended minimum case to parameter ratio (N:q) of 10:1
& Schachar, 2010; Oosterlaan & Sergeant, 1996). We adopted for the structural regression models (Jackson, 2003; Kline, 2015).
a dimensional approach by measuring ADHD on a continuum Ethics approval for the research project and associated methodol-
in a non-selected, community sample using the Child Behavior ogy was obtained from the Monash University Human Research
Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach, 2009; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). Ethics Committee (Approval Number: CF13/1307 - 2,013,000,673).
Dimensional approaches have long been advocated in develop- The primary caregivers of participants provided written informed
mental psychopathology and are now widely adopted in psycho- consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and in-
pathology research (Cuthbert, 2014; Hudziak, Achenbach, Althoff, formed written assent to participate was obtained from the research
& Pine, 2007; Krueger et al., 2018). According to dimensional participants.
conceptualizations, ADHD is a spectrum disorder with symptoms
occurring along a continuum of severity that can be quantified in
the broader developmental population (Coghill & Sonuga-Barke, 2.2 | Materials
2012; Frick & Nigg, 2012; Hinshaw, 2018). Diagnostic criteria and
clinical significance represent arbitrary thresholds along this con- 2.2.1 | Cognitive task measures of
tinuum (Frick & Nigg, 2012). A dimensional approach to measuring executive attention
ADHD problems is preferable to traditional categorical models in
the current research context, because it leverages symptom vari- Working memory capacity
ation across the full spectrum of severity, increasing variance and WMC was measured using the three verbal working memory sub-
statistical power for examining the association with executive at- tests of the automated working memory assessment (AWMA):
tention, EF, and EC (Helzer, Kraemer, & Krueger, 2006; Kraemer, (a) listening recall; (b) counting recall; and (c) backward digit recall
Noda, & O'Hara, 2004). (Alloway, 2007). The AWMA was administered on a Dell Inspiron
We addressed the following three questions: (a) Do behavioral 1,520 computer with 33 cm screen at 1,280 × 800 resolution using
ratings of EF and EC measure the same self-regulation construct? the Windows Vista operating system and operated by one of the
(b) Is the commonality between behavioral ratings of EF and EC investigators. Details of task administration have been provided
explained by a unitary executive attention factor? and (c) Do task- elsewhere (Tiego et al., 2018) and are also provided in supporting
based measures of executive attention and behavioral ratings of EF information. The dependent variables were the subtest raw scores
and EC predict unique or overlapping variance in ADHD problems? reflecting the number of correctly answered trials.
We hypothesized that behavioral rating measures of EC and EF
would be strongly empirically related and converge on a common Response inhibition
self-regulation construct. Second, we predicted that an executive Response inhibition was measured using three tasks: (a) stop sig-
attention factor, as measured by performance on cognitive tasks, nal; (b) go/no-go; and (c) Simon tasks. The stop signal task was ad-
would significantly explain substantial variance in the self-regula- ministered using the ‘stop-it’ and ‘analyze-it’ program (Verbruggen,
tion construct measured by behavioral ratings of EF and EC. Finally, Logan, & Stevens, 2008) installed on a Dell Latitude D420 Laptop
we expected that executive attention, as measured by performance computer running on Windows XP. The dependent variable was
on cognitive tasks, would predict unique variance in the severity of stop signal reaction time (SSRT) calculated using the subtraction
TIEGO et al. | 7 of 25

method (Logan, Schachar, & Tannock, 1997; Verbruggen et al., the frequency with which the behavior has occurred over the past six
2008). The go/no-go (Menon, Adleman, White, Glover, & Reiss, months [i.e. N = Never (1), S = Sometimes (2), O = Often (3)]. Responses
2001) and Simon (Sparkes, 2006) tasks were programmed using are summed and averaged to yield scores for eight clinical scales that
PsychoPy V1.80.03 (Peirce, 2007, 2008) and administered on the represent the level of functioning in each domain: inhibit, shift, emo-
same computer as the AWMA. Dependent variables were the tional control, initiate, working memory, plan/organize, organization
number of commission errors on no-go trials and Simon stimulus- of materials, and monitor. Higher scores represent more problems
response (SR-) conflict (i.e. mean reaction time difference between with EF. The BRIEF is a validated assessment tool that is used widely
incongruent & control trials) respectively. See supporting informa- in clinical and research contexts (Fitzpatrick & Schraw, 2003; Gioia
tion and Tiego et al. (2018). et al., 2002). The dependent variables used were the total raw scores
obtained on the clinical scales and then composite raw scores for
General intelligence the derived ‘metacognition’ and ‘emotional and behavioral regula-
Tests of general intelligence were used as additional measures of tion’ constructs as revealed by CFA (see 3.1 CFA Models).
the maintenance and disengagement mechanisms of the executive
attention construct (Engle, 2018; Shipstead et al., 2016). General Child behavior checklist/6 – 18
intelligence was measured using a short form of the Australian The child behavior checklist/6 – 18 (CBCL) is a parent-report form
Standardized Edition of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children that asks primary caregivers about the presence and extent of emo-
– Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) (Wechsler, 2003a) consisting of three tional and behavioral problems exhibited by their child aged 6 to
core subtests – (a) vocabulary; (b) matrix reasoning; and (c) symbol 18 years over the past six months (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001).
search. These subtests were chosen because vocabulary and matrix The form consists of 113 items in the form of statements related
reasoning have amongst the strongest loadings on psychometric g to the presence of problem behaviors. Respondents endorse each
(Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004; Wechsler, 2003b) and in combination, item with respect to the presence and extent of each symptom
these three subtests have a high validity coefficient (r = .92) with on a 3-point Likert scale (0 = Not True, 1 = Somewhat or Sometimes
full-scale intelligence (Sattler, 2008; Tellegen & Briggs, 1967). The True, 2 = Very True or Often True). The dependent variable was the
dependent variables were the subtest raw scores reflecting the summed raw score obtained for each participant on the 7-item
number of correctly answered items. DSM-orientated ADHD problems scale, which includes problems
corresponding to diagnostic criteria for ADHD in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)
2.2.2 | Behavioral ratings of EC, EF, and ADHD (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001; American Psychiatric Association,
2000). Cut-off T scores provide a criterion for evaluating the sever-
The early adolescent temperament questionnaire – revised self- and ity and clinical significance of emotional and behavioral problems.
parent-report forms
The early adolescent temperament questionnaire-revised (EATQ-R)
self-report (65-item) and parent-report (62-item) forms are question- 2.3 | General procedure
naires that assess temperament in children and adolescents aged
9 to 16 years (Ellis & Rothbart, 2001). Each questionnaire item is a Details of the general testing procedures used for data collection
statement made about a typical cognitive, emotional, or behavioral have been previously described (Tiego et al., 2018) and are also pro-
response to a situation. Respondents endorse the extent to which vided in supporting information.
they agree with each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Almost always
untrue to Almost always true = 5). These questionnaires measure EC,
as well as the two reactive domains of temperament, negative af- 2.4 | Statistical procedures
fectivity and positive affectivity (Putnam et al., 2001). The depend-
ent variables used in the current study were the total raw scores Analysis of missing values, normality, and outliers are described in
obtained on the self-report and parent-report EC scales, as revealed supporting information. All models were estimated in Mplus 7.2 using
by CFA (see 3.1 CFA Models). The eight and nine reverse-scored EC the covariance matrix (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). CFA mod-
items of the self- and parent-report EATQ-R were recoded prior to els of the ordered categorical data obtained from the EATQ-R self-
analyses. and parent-report forms were estimated using the weighted least
squares means and variance (WLSMV) adjusted estimator (Muthén,
Behavior rating inventory of executive function (BRIEF) – parent- du Toit, & Spisic, 1997). All other CFA and structural regression mod-
report form els were estimated using full information maximum likelihood with
The BRIEF parent-report form is a questionnaire designed for com- the expectation maximization algorithm to account for missing data
pletion by primary caregivers for assessing EF in children and ado- (Enders, 2010). All models were estimated with non-target indica-
lescents aged 5 to 18 years (Gioia et al., 2000). Each item consists of tor cross-loadings and error covariances initially constrained to zero
a statement relating to specific behaviors and respondents endorse (Byrne, 2012; Hair, Black, Babbin, & Anderson, 2010). Post hoc model
8 of 25 | TIEGO et al.

fitting was performed by freeing theoretically plausible error covari- to conserve the number of free parameters (i.e. degrees of freedom
ances for estimation one at a time with reference to modification [df]) and a higher participant to parameter ratio (N:q) (Bollen, 2000;
indices and with adjustment of significance thresholds for multiple Kline, 2015). Factor score estimates were generated using the re-
comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate gression method for the executive attention construct based on CFA
(B-H FDR; q = 0.05) (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995; Cribbie, 2007). of the nine performance-based tasks (DiStefano, Zhu, & Mindrila,
Global model fit was assessed using a combination of fit indi- 2009; Grice, 2001;Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). This eliminated
ces (Byrne, 2012; Hair et al., 2010). The χ2 test statistic is the gold the need to include the full measurement model of executive atten-
standard metric for evaluating overall model fit and was referred to tion and therefore conserved free parameters and statistical power.
first (Hayduk, Cummings, Boadu, Pazderka-Robinson, & Boulianne, The factor score regression method results in unbiased parameter
2007; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004). A probability value >.05 indicates estimates in structural regression models when the factor score es-
that the null hypothesis of exact fit of the model reproduced co- timates are generated using the regression method and are used as
variance matrix to the observed covariance matrix cannot be re- an exogenous (i.e. independent) latent variable (Devlieger, Mayer, &
jected (Kline, 2015). Approximate fit indices perform poorly in small Rosseel, 2016; Devlieger & Rosseel, 2017; Skrondal & Laake, 2001).
samples sizes with few degrees of freedom (e.g. Kenny, Kaniskan, & The executive attention factor score estimates were entered in
McCoach, 2015; Taasoobshirazi & Wang, 2016). Furthermore, there the structural regression models as a single-indicator latent variable
are no accepted thresholds for evaluating overall model fit based on with error variance fixed to reflect the inverse of the factor determi-
approximate fit indices (Barrett, 2007; Hayduk et al., 2007; Kline, nacy [(1 – ρ)*σ2], which represents a validity coefficient (Grice, 2001).
2015). Nevertheless, we report the root mean square error of ap- ADHD problems was specified as a single-indicator latent variable
proximation (RMSEA) and associated 90% confidence interval (CI), with error variance of the summed raw scale score fixed to reflect
which provides a means of evaluating the error of approximation the inverse of Cronbach's alpha internal consistency reliability es-
that incorporates increased sampling error associated with small timate [(ε = (1 – α)*σ2] (Bollen, 1989). Use of single-indicator latent
samples (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). In addition, the variables reduces unnecessary model complexity and identification
comparative fit index (CFI), and standardized root mean square re- problems and facilitates a greater focus on the hypothesized statis-
sidual (SRMR), or weighted root mean residual (WRMR) for ordered tical dependence relationships (i.e. regression coefficients) between
categorical data, are also reported with a higher CFI and lower SRMR the constructs of interest (Hayduk & Littvay, 2012). Finally, the
or WRMR indicating better model fit (Byrne, 2012; Hair et al., 2010). Bollen-Stine Bootstrap procedure with 10,000 posterior draws was
We evaluated local model fit and report standardized covariance re- used to account for the small sample size and multivariate non-nor-
siduals exceeding the critical threshold (Z> + 1.96, p < .05) as a more mality (Enders, 2010; Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). This approach
sensitive indication of model misspecification (Kline, 2015). uses resampling with replacement to generate a pseudo-population
To facilitate adjudication between competing models with close that does not have attenuated standard errors often associated
comparative fit based on maximum likelihood estimation, we report with small samples (Enders, 2010). Bootstrapped standard errors
the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), Bayesian conditional poste- with 95% confidence intervals (CI) thus provide an indication of
rior probability [PrBIC(Hi|D)], and Bayes Factors (BF) (Wagenmakers, the precision of the model parameter estimates that are unbiased
2007). The conditional posterior probability quantifies the relative by small sample size (Enders, 2010). Bias corrected bootstrapped
probability (p ~ .00 – 1.0) that a given model provides the best fit confidence intervals (BC-CI) were used for evaluating the statistical
to the observed data compared to competing models. The Bayes significance of indirect (i.e. mediated) effects (Lau & Cheung, 2010).
Factor directly compares the likelihood of two competing models Bootstrapped standard errors are reported in the model figures to
in terms of a ratio (Jarosz & Wiley, 2014). We also provide model facilitate evaluation of the precision of parameter estimates.
diagnostics, unidimensionality statistics, and model-based reliability
estimates based on the bifactor models of the EATQ-R to adjudi-
cate between a unidimensional model and alternative multi-factorial 3 | R E S U LT S
models of EC (Reise, 2012; Reise, Scheines, Widaman, & Haviland,
2013; Rodriguez, Reise, & Haviland, 2016). The best-fitting models 3.1 | CFA models
were selected according to global fit statistics, local fit testing, and
model parsimony (i.e. the model with the fewest factors). Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the behavioral rat-
We used a jigsaw piece modeling strategy in combination with ings and cognitive tasks are provided in supporting information,
factor score regression, single-indicator latent variables, and boot- Tables S1–S4. Results obtained from the CBCL/6-18 revealed
strapped standard errors to circumvent issues related to small sam- that 17 female and 13 male (n = 30; 22.4%) participants scored
ple size, multivariate non-normality, and model complexity (Bollen, in the borderline clinical (T Score 60 – 63, n = 11, 8.2%) or clini-
2000; Devlieger & Rosseel, 2017; Enders, 2010; Hayduk & Littvay, cal range (T Score ≥ 64, n = 19, 14.2%) on the DSM-orientated
2012). Briefly, we first estimated the best-fitting measurement ADHD problems scale, reflecting a sample with ADHD problems
model for each construct (i.e. executive attention, EF, & EC) prior to across a broad spectrum of severity (Achenbach, 2009). Results
combining them in the final structural regression model, enabling us for the competing CFA models for the BRIEF, EATQ-R self- and
TIEGO et al. | 9 of 25

TA B L E 1 Summary of fit statistics for competing confirmatory factor analysis models of the BRIEF

Model df χ2 p RMSEA (90%CI) SRMR CFI AIC BIC PrBIC(Hi|D)

a
1 Three-Factor 23 34.901 .150 0.064 (0.000 – 0.104) 0.036 0.987 5,399.042 5,487.455 0.414
2 Two-Factora 25 43.913 .058 0.077 (0.037 – 0.114) 0.038 0.979 5,404.053 5,486.762 0.586
b
3 One-Factor 24 79.915 <.001 0.135 (0.103 – 0.168) 0.063 0.939 5,442.056 5,527.616 <0.001
4 Bi-Factorc 18 33.718 .037 0.083 (0.037 – 0.125) 0.022 0.983 5,407.859 5,510.532 <0.001

Abbreviations: df, Degress of freedom; χ2, Chi square value for test of model fit using maximum likelihood estimation; p, significance value of the chi
square test statistic; RMSEA, Root mean square error of approximation; CI, Confidence interval; SRMR, Standardized root mean residual.
a
Model included an estimated error covariance between the working memory and inhibit scales.
b
Included three, freely estimated error covariances.
c
All scales loaded significantly on the general EF factor, however, none of the secondary loadings on the metacognition or emotional and behavioral
regulation group factors were statistically significant.

parent-report forms, and the cognitive tasks are displayed in metacognition factor and emotional and behavioral regulation fac-
Tables 1‒4. For the BRIEF, two- and three-factor models provided tor could be used to capture individual differences in EF as meas-
close fit. However, fit for the two-factor model was superior to the ured by the BRIEF.
three-factor model as revealed by the Bayes Factor [BF10 = 1.414] The bi-factor model of the EATQ-R originally reported by
and conditional posterior probability [(PrBIC (H1|D) =0.586]. Further Snyder, Gulley, et al. (2015) was replicated for both the parent-
analyses revealed that the emotional regulation and behavioral and self-report forms in the current sample (see Table 2). For the
regulation factors in the three-factor model did not have discri- EATQ-R parent-report form, the bifactor model consisted of a
minant validity, as they shared more variance than they explained Common EC factor and an activation control-specific group factor
in their respective indicators, as calculated by the squared mul- with loadings from five of the seven activation control subscale
tiple correlation (SMC = 0.826) and average variance extracted items (see Figure 2). Model diagnostics were calculated to assess
(AVE = 0.688 & 0.780) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). unidimensionality, including the explained common variance (ECV;
From the perspective of parsimony, these results suggested that i.e. the proportion of item variance explained by the general fac-
combining these two factors into a single ‘emotion and behavioral tor), percentage of uncontaminated correlations (PUC; the num-
regulation’ construct as represented in the two-factor model, was ber of covariances between items contributing to variance in the
warranted. The two-factor model is displayed in Figure 1. These general but not the group factor), and omega hierarchical (ωH; i.e.
results indicated that summed scores from items composing the a measure of internal consistency reliability of the latent variable)

TA B L E 2 Summary of fit statistics for

Model df χ2 p RMSEA (90%CI) WRMR CFI
competing confirmatory factor analysis
models of the EATQ-R parent- and self- Parent-Report
report forms 1 Three-Factor 132 235.098 <.001 0.078 (0.062 0.843 0.970
– 0.094)
2 Two-Factora 120 152.894 .023 0.046 (0.018 0.609 0.991
– 0.067)
3 One-Factora 118 147.657 .034 0.044 (0.013 0.600 0.991
– 0.065)
4 Bi-Factora 118 144.100 .052 0.042 (0.000 0.582 0.992
– 0.063)
Self-Report
1 Two-Factora 90 111.432 .058 0.043 (0.000 0.651 0.978
– 0.067)
2 One-Factora 89 111.855 .051 0.045 (0.000 0.652 0.977
– 0.069)
3 Bi-Factora 88 108.579 .068 0.043 (0.000 0.631 0.979
– 0.067)

Abbreviations: df, Degress of freedom; χ2, Chi square value for test of model fit using WLSMV
estimator; p, significance value of the chi square test statistic; RMSEA, Root mean square error of
approximation; CI, Confidence interval; WRMR, Weighted root mean residual.
a
Model included freely estimated error covariances, all significant at p < .05 when corrected for
multiple post hoc comparisons (B-H FDR q = 0.05).
10 of 25 | TIEGO et al.

TA B L E 3 Summary of fit statistics for competing confirmatory factor analysis models of executive attention

Model Df χ2 p RMSEA (90%CI) SRMR CFI AIC BIC PrBIC(Hi|D)

a
1 Three-Factor 23 35.394 .150 0.063 (0.007 – 0.102) 0.048 0.952 4,471.743 4,562.035 0.011
2 Two-Factora 25 38.776 .133 0.064 (0.037 – 0.114) 0.050 0.947 4,471.125 4,555.592 0.263
a,b
3 One-Factor 25 36.748 .189 0.059 (0.000 – 0.097) 0.048 0.955 4,469.097 4,553.564 0.726
2
Abbreviations: df, Degress of freedom; χ , Chi square value for test of model fit using full information maximum likelihood estimation; p, significance
value of the chi square test statistic; RMSEA, Root mean square error of approximation; CI, Confidence interval; SRMR, Standardized root mean
residual.
a
Included a freely estimated error covariance between SSRT and symbol search.
b
Included a freely estimated error covariance between SSRT and no-go commission errors.

(Rodriguez et al., 2016). These indicated that the majority of vari- unidimensional executive attention factor was evaluated by cal-
ance in EC scale items were captured by the Common EC factor culation of the H index, which varies from 0 – 1 with higher val-
(ECV = 0.878) with high reliability (ωH = 0.90), and low contam- ues indicating greater construct replicability (Hancock & Mueller,
ination by the group factor (PUC = 93.5%), and could therefore 2001). The H index was 0.82, indicating that the executive at-
be collapsed into a unidimensional measure without introducing tention factor had good construct reliability and was likely to be
bias in the model (Reise, 2012; Reise et al., 2013; Rodriguez et replicable across studies using the same indicators (Hancock &
al., 2016). Calculation of omega hierarchical subscale (ωHs = 0.248) Mueller, 2001; Rodriguez et al., 2016). Factor score determinacy
for the group factor revealed that there was insufficient reliable was also high (ρ = 0.901), suggesting that the factor score esti-
residual variance in the activation control-specific group factor to mates calculated for the subsequent structural regression models
warrant its use as an independent measure (Reise, 2012). Model (see sections 3.3 & 3.4) provided accurate measures of individual
diagnostics for the EATQ-R self-report form revealed that items differences with respect to the executive attention latent variable
forming the activation control-specific group factor did not have (DiStefano et al., 2009; Grice, 2001).
sufficient reliable variance (ωHs = 0.367) once variance attributable
to the Common EC factor was removed. Additionally, a one-factor
model provided an adequate fit and was therefore preferred as the 3.2 | Do behavioral ratings of executive
more parsimonious model (see Table 2 & Figure 3). These results function and effortful control measure the same self-
indicated that EC was predominantly a unidimensional construct regulation construct?
in the current sample and that raw EC scale scores calculated from
the EATQ-R parent- and self-report forms could be used as unbi- A CFA model was estimated to test the first hypothesis that inform-
ased estimates of individual differences in EC (Reise, 2012). ant ratings of EF and EC would measure the same self-regulation
Results for the competing measurement models of executive construct. The EF and EC latent variables were each specified from
attention are displayed in Table 4. A one-factor model provided the raw scores calculated for items composing the metacognition
the most parsimonious fit to the performance-based task data factor and emotional and behavioral regulation factor, and the
(Figure 4). The Bayes Factor demonstrated that the one-factor EATQ-R parent- and self-report EC scale raw scores, respectively.
model was almost three times more likely than the closest fit- The unstandardized factor loadings were constrained to be equal
ting competing two-factor model (BF10 = 2.757). Reliability of this (i.e. tau equivalence) for purposes of statistical identification (Bollen,

TA B L E 4 Intercorrelations amongst the

1 2 3 4 5
executive attention, BRIEF, EATQ-R, and
1. Executive Attention Factor CBCL variables
Score Estimates
2. BRIEF Metacognition −0.510
3. BRIEF Emotional & −0.362 0.699
Behavioral Regulation
4. EATQ-R Effortful Control 0.450 −0.884 −0.669
Parent-Report
5. EATQ-R Effortful Control 0.340 −0.664 −0.452 0.666
Self-Report
6. CBCL DSM ADHD −0.368 0.720 0.726 −0.770 −0.550
Problems Scale

Note: All parameters were significant at p < .001.

TIEGO et al. | 11 of 25

1989; Hair et al., 2010). The overall model exhibited adequate fit specified as a single indicator latent variable with error variance
2
(χ (1) = 0.690, p = .448; RMSEA = 0.000 [90%CI = 0.000, 0.213]; fixed to reflect the validity coefficient of the factor scores estimates
CFI = 1.000; SRMR = 0.010) and is displayed in Figure 5. The EF and and entered into the measurement model with the self-regulation
EC factors were correlated near unity and the standardized 95%CI factor. Overall model fit was adequate (χ2(5) = 3.980, p = .617,
contained one (ϕ = −0.970 [95%CI = −0.912, −1.028], p < .001), indi- RMSEA = 0.000 [90%CI = 0.000, 0.106]; CFI = 1.000, SRMR = 0.016)
cating that behavioral ratings of EF and EC converged on a unitary and the regression of self-regulation onto executive attention
construct. The intercorrelation between EF and EC could not be con- was moderately strong and statistically significant (γ = 0.548
strained to one, as it resulted in model misspecification. A unitary [95%CI = 0.416, 0.681], p < .001, see Figure 7). These findings indi-
‘self-regulation’ factor was therefore estimated with loadings from cated that performance measures of executive attention explained
all four variables, with self-reported EC used as the reference vari- just over 30% of the common variance in behavioral ratings of EF
able for factor scaling so that higher values on this latent variable re- and EC.
flected better self-regulation (χ2(2) = 1.774, p = .422, RMSEA = 0.000
[90%CI = 0.000, 0.165], CFI = 1.000; SRMR = 0.015). The self-reg-
ulation factor is displayed in Figure 6 and explained almost all the 3.4 | Do performance-based tasks and behavioral
variance in metacognition and parent-reported EC scale scores and rating measures of self-regulation explain unique
just over half of the variance in emotional and behavioral regulation variance in ADHD problems?
and self-reported EC scale scores. Together, these results indicated
that behavioral ratings of EF and EC could be modeled as a unidi- The severity of parent-reported ADHD problems was included in
mensional self-regulation factor for subsequent analyses. the model with the executive attention and self-regulation factor to
address the third hypothesis. The DSM-orientated ADHD problems
scale of the CBCL was specified as a single indicator latent variable
3.3 | Does executive attention explain common with error variance fixed to reflect the internal consistency reliabil-
variance in behavioral ratings of EF and EC? ity of the scale. The covariance between the error variances for the
emotional and behavioral regulation factor and ADHD problems was
Intercorrelations between the executive attention factor score es- freely estimated (θε = 0.236, p < .001) to obtain an adequate fit-
timates, BRIEF, EATQ-R EC scale scores, and CBCL ADHD prob- ting model (χ2(7) = 10.517, p = .170, RMSEA = 0.061 [90%CI = 0.000,
lem scale scores are displayed in Table 4. Executive attention was 0.131], CFI = 0.993, SRMR = 0.016). Inspection of the standardized

F I G U R E 1 Two-factor model of
executive function using the BRIEF clinical
scale raw scores with the monitoring
scale separated into task monitoring
and self-monitoring subscales. Model fit
statistics were: (χ2(25) = 43.913, p = .058;
RMSEA = 0.077 (90%CI = 0.037, 0.114);
CFI = 0.979; SRMR = 0.038). Control,
Emotional control scale; Initiate, Initiate
scale; Organize, Organization of materials
age-residualized scale; Plan, Plan/organize
scale; SelfMon, Self-monitoring subscale;
TaskMon, Task monitoring subscale; WM,
Working memory scale. Fully standardized
estimates are in bold typeface.
Unstandardized estimates appear below
with bootstrapped (10,000 posterior
draws) standard errors in brackets. All
parameters were significant at p < .001
unless otherwise indicated. **p < .01.
12 of 25 | TIEGO et al.

F I G U R E 2 Bifactor model of EC modeled from data obtained on the EATQ-R parent-report form. Model fit statistics were:
(χ2(118) = 144.100, p = .052, RMSEA = 0.042 [90%CI = 0.000, 0.063], CFI = 0.992, WRMR = 0.582). Parameters estimates are fully
standardized. All parameters significant at p < .001 unless otherwise indicated. ** p < .01; *p < .05. All error covariances were statistically
significant (Benjamini-Hochberg p = .049) when adjusted for multiple post hoc comparisons (B-H FDR q = 0.05). n = 134.

covariance residuals revealed only one exceeding the critical thresh- 0.124], CFI = 0.994; SRMR = 0.018). The indirect effect of execu-
old for statistical significance, indicating that the covariance between tive attention on ADHD problems via the self-regulation factor was
executive attention factor score estimates and parent reported EC moderately strong and statistically significant (β = −0.462, p < .001,
scale scores had been slightly overestimated (Z = −2.465, p = .014). b = −1.498 [95%BC-CI = −1.041, −2.028], p < .001), explaining 21.3%
A mediation model was conducted to test the third hypothesis that of the variance. Performance on cognitive tasks thus failed to explain
executive attention would explain unique additional variance in ADHD statistically significant additional variance in ADHD problems to that
problems to behavioral ratings of EF and EC (i.e. self-regulation). After explained by behavioral ratings of EF and EC.
the self-regulation factor was regressed onto the executive attention
factor, the correlation between the self-regulation and ADHD prob-
lems factors decreased from 0.860 to 0.753, indicating task-based 3.5 | Evaluating the direct effect of executive
measures of executive attention explained some of the shared vari- attention on ADHD problems
ance between behavioral ratings of EF/EC and parent-reported ADHD
problems. However, once ADHD problems were regressed onto the It is important to evaluate theoretically plausible alternative and
self-regulation factor, the initial correlation (ϕ = −0.418, p < .001) be- equivalent fitting models, because these represent a challenge to
tween the executive attention factor and ADHD problems decreased any inferences based on the statistical dependence (‘causal’) rela-
and was no longer statistically significant (ψ = 0.133, p = .383). This tionships specified in a structural regression model (MacCallum &
parameter was weak and not statistically significant when respecified Austin, 2000; McDonald & Ho, 2002; Tomarken & Waller, 2005). A
as a regression coefficient (γ = 0.068, p = .335). The non-significant cor- theoretically plausible alternative model to the one hypothesized
relation between executive attention and ADHD problems was there- was that self-regulatory ability and ADHD problems are different
fore constrained to zero, which did not result in a significantly worse measures of the same underlying dimension in typically-developing
fitting model (Δχ2(1) = 0.931, p = .335). This final model is displayed children (i.e. regulation vs. dysregulation), and/or are strongly related
in Figure 8 (χ2(8) = 11.448, p = .197, RMSEA = 0.056 [90%CI = 0.000, due to content overlap and common method variance (Bridgett et
TIEGO et al. | 13 of 25

F I G U R E 3 One-factor model of EC modeled from data obtained on the EATQ-R self-report form. Model fit statistics were:
(χ2(89) = 111.855, p = .051, RMSEA = 0.045 [90%CI = 0.000, 0.069], CFI = 0.977, WRMR = 0.652). Parameters estimates are fully
standardized. All parameters significant at p < .001 unless otherwise indicated. ** p < .01; *p < .05. All error covariances were statistically
significant (Benjamini-Hochberg p = .049) when adjusted for multiple post hoc comparisons (B-H FDR q = 0.05). n = 128.

al., 2013; Espy, Sheffield, Wiebe, Clark, & Moehr, 2011; Toplak et al., that EF and EC, as measured by behavioral ratings, were correlated
2013), in addition to a shared association with executive attention. near unity and could be collapsed into a common self-regulation
Thus, individual differences in executive attention would be pre- construct. The strong empirical association between the EF and EC
dicted to directly explain variance in both self-regulatory ability and factors was not attributable to informant bias, as we used both the
ADHD problems. This alternative model specification was estimated self- and parent-report EATQ-R to measure EC. These results assist
and is displayed in Figure 9. Executive attention directly and signifi- in clarifying the nature of the proposed conceptual and empirical
cantly explained 17.5% of the variance in ADHD problems and 29.4% overlap between EF and EC in children, revealing they are likely the
of the variance in self-regulation. There was a strong and statistically same construct when measured using behavioral ratings (Bridgett
significant residual correlation between self-regulation and ADHD et al., 2013; Eisenberg, 2017; Nigg, 2017; Zhou et al., 2012). Until
problems (ψ = −0.830, p < .001), indicating that these constructs recently, temperament researchers and cognitive psychologists have
shared approximately 69% variance independently of that explained investigated self-regulation under distinct rubrics and with a focus
by executive attention. on different outcome criteria (Zhou et al., 2012). The current find-
ings may assist in guiding future developmental research towards a
more integrated understanding and model of top-down self-regula-
4 | D I S CU S S I O N tion during development (Nigg, 2017).
The second hypothesis was partially supported by findings
This study addressed three questions concerning the relationship that the executive attention latent variable explained 30% of the
between behavioral ratings of EF and EC, performance-based task common variance in self-regulation as measured by behavioral
measures of executive attention and ADHD problems in a typically ratings of EF and EC. The results are consistent with Zhou et al.
developing sample. In support of the first hypothesis, we found (2012), who argued that executive attention is a common cognitive
14 of 25 | TIEGO et al.

F I G U R E 4 Unitary executive attention

model consisting of a single latent
variable predicting performance on
measures of working memory capacity,
psychometric g, and response inhibition.
Model fit statistics were: (χ2(25) = 36.748,
p = .189, RMSEA = 0.059 [90%CI = 0.000,
0.097], CFI = 0.955, SRMR = 0.048).
LR = Listening recall; CR = Counting
recall; BDR = Backwards digit recall;
VC = Vocabulary; MR = Matrix reasoning;
SS = Symbol search; SSRT = Stop
signal reaction time age-residualized;
No-Go = Commission errors on no-go
trials; Simon = Simon task stimulus-
response conflict. Fully standardized
estimates are in bold typeface.
Unstandardized estimates appear below
with bootstrapped (10,000 posterior
draws) standard errors in brackets. All
parameters were significant at p < .001
unless otherwise indicated. **p < .01;
*p < .05.

1.000
323.059 (52.532)

.061
MC
.969 19.208 (14.112)
1.000 (.000)
Executive
Function
.727
.535 (.051) .472
EBR
83.183 (11.422)

1.000
-.970
151.957 (24.549)
-214.919 (31.635)

.114*
EC-PR
19.770 (7.529)
.941
1.000 (.000)
Effortful
Control
.722
.479
.551 (.046) EC-SR
42.293 (5.205)

F I G U R E 5 Empirical relationships between executive function and effortful control as measured by behavioral ratings on the BRIEF
and EATQ-R. Model fit statistics were: (χ2(1) = 0.690, p = .448, RMSEA = 0.000 [90%CI = 0.000, 0.213], CFI = 1.000, SRMR = 0.010). EBR,
Emotional and behavioral regulation; EC-PR, Effortful control parent-report; EC-SR, Effortful control self-report; MC, Metacognition. Fully
standardized estimates are in bold typeface. Unstandardized estimates appear below with bootstrapped (10,000 posterior draws) standard
errors in brackets. All parameters were significant at p < .001 unless otherwise indicated. **p < .01. The probability value of the estimate of
residual variance for MC was p > .05.
TIEGO et al. | 15 of 25

mechanism underlying EF and EC. However, the strength of the re- behavioral ratings of EF capture most, if not all, the variance ex-
lationship was far weaker than expected and indicated that the EF plained by performance-based measures, as well as substantial
and EC constructs, as measured by behavioral ratings, shared sub- additional unique variance in ADHD symptoms (Barkley & Fischer,
stantial common variance beyond that attributable to executive at- 2011; Barkley & Murphy, 2010; Toplak et al., 2008). Our findings
tention. One possible account of these findings can be made with contradict previous suggestions that performance on cognitive tasks
reference to the distinction between ‘cool’ and ‘hot’ EF/self-regu- and behavioral ratings of EF are related to different constructs and
lation (Allan & Lonigan, 2011; Bridgett, Burt, Edwards, & Deater- explain largely non-overlapping variance in ADHD symptoms (Ten
Deckard, 2015; Lin et al., 2019; Zelazo & Cunningham, 2007). Cool Eycke & Dewey, 2016; Toplak et al., 2013). We suggest that our con-
EF or behavioral self-regulation refers to goal-directed cognitive trasting findings are due to the use of SEM, which allowed for re-
processes that occur in emotionally neutral contexts, whereas hot moval of extraneous sources of variance that would have otherwise
EF or emotional self-regulation relates to emotionally-laden con- attenuated, or even completely obscured, the empirical associations
texts (Zelazo & Cunningham, 2007). In the current study, executive between task-based measures and the behavioral ratings of EF, EC,
attention was measured using nine tasks that all assessed emotion- and ADHD. The comparatively weaker effect of executive attention
ally neutral aspects of cognition and may thus only be related to on ADHD problems compared to the behavioral ratings of self-reg-
cool EF and behavioral self-regulation. The unexplained common ulation should be interpreted with respect to common method vari-
variance in EF and EC may be those aspects related to emotional ance of the questionnaires and the strong content overlap of rating
self-regulation. However, Lin et al. (2019) recently found that task- scales assessing EF and ADHD problems, particularly the BRIEF and
based measures of hot and cool self-regulation could not be empir- CBCL (Espy et al., 2011; Podsakoff et al. 2012; Toplak et al., 2013).
ically differentiated within an SEM framework. Thus, an alternative Indeed, when we modeled the direct effect of executive attention
explanation for the current findings is that unexplained variance in a theoretically plausible equivalent structural regression model,
in the self-regulation factor reflects method variance related to individual differences in performance on the nine cognitive tasks ex-
behavioral ratings (Podsakoff et al. 2012). Lack of convergence be- plained a sizeable proportion (17.5%) of variance in parent-reported
tween the executive attention and self-regulation factors may also severity of ADHD problems.
be representative of broader issues in mapping task-based mea-
sures to behavioral ratings of clinically relevant traits (Cyders &
Coskunpinar, 2011; Enkavi et al., 2019). 4.1 | Theoretical and practical implications
Our final hypothesis, that performance on cognitive tasks mea-
suring executive attention would explain unique variance in par- We have provided direct empirical support for the proposed
ent-reported ADHD problems in addition to behavioral ratings of correspondence between EF, specifically working memory and
self-regulation, was not supported. The results demonstrated that response inhibition, and EC through common mechanisms of ex-
the effect of individual differences in executive attention on par- ecutive attention (Nigg, 2017; Zhou et al., 2012). These findings
ent-reported ADHD problems was fully mediated by behavioral may assist in clarifying some of the ongoing confusion regarding
ratings of self-regulation, indicating that these measurement ap- the conceptual and empirical overlap between these two do-
proaches explain overlapping variance in ADHD problems. This mains (Eisenberg, 2017; Nigg, 2017; Zhou et al., 2012). Our results
result is in keeping with previous findings in adult samples that also support previous proposals that executive attention is the

F I G U R E 6 A unitary self-regulation
factor with loadings from the BRIEF,
and EATQ-R self- and parent-report.
Model fit statistics were: (χ2(2) = 1.774,
p = .422, RMSEA = 0.000 [90%CI = 0.000,
0.165], CFI = 1.000, SRMR = 0.015).
EBR = Emotional and behavioral
regulation; EC-PR = Effortful control
parent-report; EC-SR = Effortful control
self-report; MC = Metacognition. Fully
standardized estimates are in bold
typeface. Unstandardized estimates
appear below with bootstrapped (10,000
posterior draws) standard errors in
brackets. All parameters were significant
at p < .001 unless otherwise indicated.
*p < .05.
16 of 25 | TIEGO et al.

.067*
MC
23.111 (10.601)
1.000 .699
.090 (.014) 31.460 (6.491) -.966
-2.672 (.237)

EBR .472
-.727 82.971 (11.561)
-1.436 (.181)
.100 .949 Executive .548
EAFSE Self-Regulation
.010 (.000) 1.000 (.000) Attention 12.291 (2.183)
.917
1.793 (.152)
EC-PR .158
27.211 (5.391)

.712
1.000 (.000)
EC-SR .492
43.654 (5.265)

F I G U R E 7 Self-regulation factor regressed onto the executive attention factor. Model fit statistics were: (χ2(5) = 3.980, p = .617,
RMSEA = 0.000 [90%CI = 0.000, 0.106], CFI = 1.000, SRMR = 0.016). EAFSE, Executive attention factor score estimates; EBR, Emotional
and behavioral regulation; EC-PR, Effortful control parent-report; EC-SR, Effortful control self-report; MC, Metacognition. Fully standardized
estimates are in bold typeface. Unstandardized estimates appear below with bootstrapped (10,000 posterior draws) standard errors in
brackets. All parameters were significant at p < .001 unless otherwise indicated. * p < .05.

common cognitive mechanism underlying a broad range of higher- with respect to the attention networks model and as measured using
order cognitive processes and encourages a more parsimonious flanker tasks, not the executive attention theory of WMC. In fact,
approach to developmental self-regulation research (Ilkowska Diamond (2013) states that executive attention should be thought
& Engle, 2010; Kane & Engle, 2002; Kaplan & Berman, 2010; of as completely synonymous with “inhibitory control of attention”
McCabe et al., 2010). or “selective or focused attention”, which is subsumed in her model
The present study also suggests a close association between under the broader rubric of interference control and inhibitory con-
executive attention and EF. In a review, Diamond (2013) proposed trol. However, empirical studies in children and adults have shown
that executive attention and EF exhibited minimal overlap. However, that inhibitory control of attention (also inference control, selective
this proposal was based on conceptualization of executive attention attention, or attentional inhibition) is only weakly associated with

F I G U R E 8 Model of ADHD problems regressed onto the self-regulation factor, with variance indirectly explained by executive attention.
Model fit statistics were: (χ2(8) = 11.448, p = .197, RMSEA = 0.056 [90%CI = 0.000, 0.124], CFI = 0.994, SRMR = 0.018). EAFSE, Executive
attention factor score estimates; EBR, Emotional and behavioral regulation; EC-PR, Effortful control parent-report; EC-SR, Effortful control
self-report. MC, Metacognition. CBCL ADHD = CBCL/6-18 DSM-orientated ADHD problems scale summed score. Error covariance
between EBR and ADHD problems (θε = 0.236, p < .001) has been omitted for clarity. Fully standardized estimates are in bold typeface.
Unstandardized estimates appear below with bootstrapped (10,000 posterior draws) standard errors in brackets. All parameters were
significant at p < .001. The indirect effect of executive attention on ADHD problems was statistically significant (β = −0.462, p < .001;
b = −1.498 [95%CI = −1.041, −2.028], p < .001), explaining 21.3% of the variance.
TIEGO et al. | 17 of 25

F I G U R E 9 Model of self-regulation and ADHD problems regressed onto executive attention. Model fit statistics were: (χ2(7) = 10.517,
p = .170, RMSEA = 0.061 [90%CI = 0.000, 0.131], CFI = 0.993, SRMR = 0.016). EAFSE, Executive attention factor score estimates; EBR,
Emotional and behavioral regulation; EC-PR, Effortful control parent-report; EC-SR, Effortful control self-report; MC, Metacognition. CBCL
ADHD = CBCL/6-18 DSM-orientated ADHD problems scale summed score. Error covariance between EBR and ADHD problems (θε = 0.259,
p < .001) has been omitted for clarity. Fully standardized estimates are in bold typeface. Unstandardized estimates appear below with
bootstrapped (10,000 posterior draws) standard errors in brackets. All parameters were significant at p < .001.

WMC (Kane et al., 2016; Tiego et al., 2018). This suggests that ‘ex- EFs, such as WMC and response inhibition, represent the cogni-
ecutive attention’ is a much broader construct than is measured by tive underpinnings for instantiating self-regulatory strategies, such
flanker tasks. as delay of gratification and emotion regulation (Banfield, Wyland,
Rueda et al. (2011) previously acknowledged strong correspon- Macrae, Munte, & Heatherton, 2004; Ellis, Rothbart, & Posner,
dence between the working memory Central Executive and exec- 2004; McRae, Jacobs, Ray, John, & Gross, 2012; Ochsner & Gross,
utive attention as conceptualized within the attention networks 2005; Pe, Raes, & Kuppens, 2013). Individual differences in cogni-
model. However, these authors have focused on conflict monitoring tive capacity, as measured in optimal performance contexts using
and adaptation processes, thereby neglecting the broader range of performance-based tasks, represent a potential constraint (i.e. upper
control functions attributable to executive attention (Rueda et al., bound) on the efficiency and success with which self-regulatory pro-
2011). A narrow conceptualization of executive attention in relation cesses can be implemented in ecologically valid contexts. Indeed,
to developmental self-regulation may lead to erroneous conclusions empirical research in adult and developmental samples indicates
regarding development and interrelationships with other import- that individual differences in WMC and response inhibition as as-
ant aspects of functioning. For example, developmental improve- sessed with performance-based tasks have direct bearing on the
ments in performance on the attention network test plateau around success with which self-regulation is achieved at a behavioral level
7 years of age (Rueda, Fan, et al., 2004), whereas task performance (Barrett, Tugade, & Engle, 2004; Hofmann et al., 2008; Schmeichel
on tests of WMC and response inhibition continue to improve into et al., 2008; Yu et al., 2016). Our results are consistent with these
adolescence and early adulthood (Best & Miller, 2010; Lee, Bull, & previous findings in that individual differences in executive atten-
Ho, 2013; Luna, Marek, Larsen, Tervo-Clemmens, & Chahal, 2015). tion, measured across nine cognitive tasks, explained almost a third
This suggests that stimulus-response compatibility tasks measure of the variance in self- and parent-reported self-regulatory ability.
relatively low-level aspects of executive attention, which mature Conversely, executive attention deficits may lead to self-regula-
earlier and may not be as integral to self-regulation as high-level as- tory failures associated with limitations in cognitive capacity, with
pects of executive attention. Our findings suggest that stimulus-re- subsequent implications for symptoms of developmental psychopa-
sponse compatibility tasks, such as the attention networks test, thology (Barkley, 2014; Kotabe & Hofmann, 2015; Nigg, 2017). Our
Stroop, flanker, and Simon tasks, may not provide adequate mea- finding that the direct effect of executive attention explained 17.5%
sures of executive attention, EC, and self-regulation more broadly. of the variance in parent-reported ADHD problems is consistent
This conclusion is supported by recent evidence documenting the with models of self-regulatory failure and previous research linking
poor reliability of cognitive tasks, particularly those using difference EF deficits to ADHD (Willcutt, Doyle, Nigg, Faraone, & Pennington,
scores between conditions, as measures of individual differences in 2005). Nevertheless, our finding that executive attention failed to
self-regulation (Enkavi et al., 2019; Hedge et al., 2017). explain unique variance in parent-reported ADHD problems beyond
18 of 25 | TIEGO et al.

that explained by behavioral ratings raises questions about the util- confidence intervals for the parameter estimates. SEM can be a
ity of cognitive assessment in self-regulation and developmental powerful statistical technique for testing hypotheses even in small
psychopathology research. Performance on cognitive tasks related samples, which are considered sufficient when analyses converge
to self-regulation are generally associated with low internal consis- on solutions without illogical parameter estimates or attenuated
tency reliability, poor stability, and may be ill-suited for measuring standard errors (Gignac, 2006). Nevertheless, replication in a larger
individual differences, particularly those purported to reflect stable sample will be required to validate the precision of the parameter
traits (Enkavi et al., 2019; Hedge et al., 2017). Despite being more estimates and the conclusions of the study (Hermida, Luchman,
costly and time-intensive, cognitive assessment may offer limited Nicolaides, & Wilcox, 2015).
incremental predictive validity in explaining developmental psycho- It is not possible to determine the correct specification for a
pathology beyond behavioral ratings of self-regulation (Barkley & mediational model using cross-sectional data based on model fit
Fischer, 2011; Barkley & Murphy, 2010; Toplak et al., 2008). statistics or the strength and significance of parameter estimates
(Wiedermann & von Eye, 2015). We have presented an alternative
model positing direct effects of executive attention on self-regula-
4.2 | Limitations tion and ADHD problems; however, other less theoretically plausible
models are also possible (McDonald & Ho, 2002; Tomarken & Waller,
“Executive Attention”, “Executive Function”, and “Effortful Control” 2005). Conclusions based on cross-sectional data are also limited by
are each superordinate constructs that encompass multiple compo- concerns of low test–retest reliability for cognitive tasks (Enkavi et
nent processes and for which a number of theoretical accounts and al., 2019). A carefully designed longitudinal study would be required
models exist (Nigg, 2017). This ambiguity, along with a proliferation to demonstrate that the hypothesized mediational model provides
of terminology in the literature, makes it difficult to delineate the the most accurate representation compared to competing models
theoretical and empirical boundaries between these constructs. Our (MacCallum & Austin, 2000).
account is just one potential framework for theoretical and empirical We chose to focus on a narrow age range in the current study to
integration. Additionally, we did not directly test the empirical over- reduce the impact of developmental changes in executive attention
lap between stimulus-response compatibility tasks with measures of on the results (Wiebe, Espy, & Charak, 2008). However, this limits
WMC, response inhibition, and general intelligence. Nor did we ex- generalizability due to the protracted development of the neural
amine the neural mechanisms underlying performance of these tasks networks underling working memory and response inhibition, as
and, purportedly, self-regulation and EC according to the attention well as their divergent developmental trajectories (Best & Miller,
networks model (Posner & Rothbart, 2009). Our study was also limited 2010; Luna et al. 2015). Thus, further study of these relationships
to examining the interrelationships between cognitive tasks measur- across a broader developmental period is needed. Additionally, em-
ing WMC, response inhibition, and psychometric g. It is possible that pirical relationships between the constructs of interest may have
use of a wider variety of tasks would result in greater differentiation been attenuated in the current study because of fewer cognitive
of the executive attention construct and identify divergent relation- problems and a lower endorsement of ADHD problems in typically
ships of these component cognitive processes with behavioral ratings developing children compared to a clinical sample (Espy et al., 2011).
of EF, EC, and ADHD problems. Thus, we are unable to draw definitive This may partly explain discrepancies in our results compared to pre-
conclusions with regard to the overlap or differentiation of these con- vious studies, which have used either clinical, or mixed clinical and
structs at a cognitive or neural level. Future studies could attempt to non-clinical, developmental samples (Toplak et al., 2008, 2013). For
distinguish between executive attention mechanisms of maintenance example, a uniform lack of difficulties in EF as revealed by consis-
and disengagement, include EF measures of updating and switching, tently low behavioral ratings across the BRIEF scales could result
differentiate between hot and cool self-regulation, as well as examine in more difficulty distinguishing between the emotional regulation
the common and distinct neural mechanisms underlying executive at- and behavioral regulation subfactors (Egeland & Fallmyr, 2010).
tention, EF, and EC (Engle, 2018; Hofmann, Schmeichel, & Baddeley, Replication across a diverse range of clinical samples, particularly
2012; Lin et al., 2019). children diagnosed with ADHD, would be required to validate the
Our sample size of 136 is small for analysis using SEM accord- current findings.
ing to general guidelines (Kline, 2015). It is more difficult to detect ADHD is a heterogeneous disorder comprising multiple sub-
evidence of model misspecification, as well as compare fit between types associated with distinct etiological mechanisms and it is prob-
competing models with small samples. We used a combination of able that only a subset of cases are related to specific EF deficits
statistical techniques to circumvent this problem, including a jigsaw (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Diamond, 2005; Fair,
piece modeling strategy, factor scores regression, single-indicator Bathula, Nikolas, & Nigg, 2012; Frick & Nigg, 2012; Nigg, Willcutt,
latent variables, bootstrapping, and reference to coefficients and Doyle, & Sonuga-Barke, 2005; Sonuga-Barke, 2003). Measurement
standardized covariance residuals as measures of local model fit. of ADHD problems as a unitary construct constitutes an important
This approach enabled us to conserve the number of free parame- limitation of this study and may have obscured empirical relation-
ters estimated, maintain a higher participant number to parameter ships between specific constellations of symptoms with executive
ratio, whilst also guarding against attenuated standard errors and attention and EF/EC. Distinguishing between clinical presentations
TIEGO et al. | 19 of 25

(i.e. Inattention, Impulsivity/Hyperactivity, & Combined) using cat- Allan, N. P., & Lonigan, C. J. (2011). Examining the dimensionality of ef-
fortful control in preschool children and its relation to academic and
egorical specifiers and/or continuous symptom counts, or alterna-
socioemotional indicators. Developmental Psychology, 47, 905–915.
tively empirically derived latent classes, could be important avenues https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0023748
for investigating the relationships between ADHD problems and Alloway, T. P. (2007). Automated working memory assessment. London:
self-regulation constructs in future studies (Fair et al., 2012; Lahey Pearson Assessment.
Anderson, V. A., Anderson, P., Northam, E., Jacobs, R., & Mikiewicz,
& Willcutt, 2010). Measuring ADHD problems using only one infor-
O. (2002). Relationships between cognitive and behavioral
mant also limits the implications of the study, because symptom se- measures of executive function in children with brain disease.
verity and presentation can vary across contexts (Hinshaw, 2018). Child Neuropsychology, 8(4), 231–240. https​://doi.org/10.1076/
Multiple informants would be needed to capture consistencies and chin.8.4.231.13509​
differences in problem behaviors across contexts, such as the class- American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual
of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. (4th edn Text Revised). Washington
room and home environment (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001).
DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual
of mental disorders - Fifth Edition (DSM-V®). Arlington, VA: American
4.3 | Conclusions Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.
Awh, E., Jonides, J., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (1998). Rehearsal in
spatial working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
We have shown that behavioral ratings of EF and EC measured Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 780–790. https​://doi.
the same self-regulation construct, thereby clarifying some of the org/10.1037//0096-1523.24.3.780
ongoing confusion regarding the conceptual and empirical overlap Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking
forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829–839. https​://doi.
between these two domains. We also found that a unitary model
org/10.1038/nrn1201
of executive attention derived from performance on cognitive Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controver-
tasks measuring WMC, response inhibition, and general intel- sies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–29. https​://doi.org/10.1146/
ligence, failed to explain statistically significant unique variance annur​ev-psych-120710-100422
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. The Psychology of
in parent-reported ADHD problems beyond behavioral ratings of
Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89.
EF and EC. Individual differences in cognitive capacity may repre- Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The Effects of item parceling on goodness-of-
sent a constraint on the instantiation of effective self-regulation fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling.
in typical, everyday contexts. Nevertheless, these findings raise Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(1), 78–102.
https​://doi.org/10.1207/S1532​8 007S​EM0901_5
questions about the utility of cognitive assessment for under-
Banfield, J. F., Wyland, C. L., Macrae, C. N., Munte, T. F., & Heatherton,
standing individual differences in self-regulation and developmen- T. F. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of self-regulation. In R.
tal psychopathology. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation:
Research, theory, and applications (pp. 62–83). New York: The
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S Guilford Press.
Banich, M. T. (2009). Executive function: The search for an integrated
Jeggan Tiego was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award.
account. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 89–94. https​
Mark Bellgrove was supported by ARC Future Fellowship (Level 3) ://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01615.x
(FT130101488). Sarah Whittle was supported by NHMRC Career Barbey, A. K., Colom, R., Solomon, J., Krueger, F., Forbes, C., & Grafman,
Development Fellowship (1125504). Christos Pantelis was supported J. (2012). An integrative architecture for general intelligence and ex-
ecutive function revealed by lesion mapping. Brain, 135, 1154–1164.
by NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowship (628386 & 1105825).
https​://doi.org/10.1093/brain/​aws021
Conflicts of interest: none. We thank the Department of Education Barkley, R. A. (2014). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, self-reg-
and Early Childhood Development, Catholic Education Commission ulation, and executive functioning. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister
Archdiocese of Melbourne, and Independent Schools of Victoria for (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications
(pp. 551–592). New York: Guilford Publications.
their consent to conduct research in their schools. We also thank all
Barkley, R. A., & Fischer, M. (2011). Predicting impairment in major
the schools, parents, and students that participated in the research. life activities and occupational functioning in hyperactive children
as adults: Self-reported Executive Function (EF) deficits versus EF
DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T tests. Developmental Neuropsychology, 36(2), 137–161. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/87565​6 41.2010.549877
The dataset analyzed for this study can be found on PsyArXiv Open
Barkley, R. A., & Murphy, K. R. (2010). Impairment in occupational func-
Science Framework [https​://osf.io/hq4xy/​]. tioning and adult ADHD: The predictive utility of Executive Function
(EF) ratings versus EF tests. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
REFERENCES 25(3), 157–173. https​://doi.org/10.1093/arcli​n/acq014
Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004). Individual differ-
Achenbach, T. M. (2009). The Achenbach System of Empirically Based
ences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories
Assessment (ASEBA): Development, findings, theory, and applications.
of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 553–573. https​://doi.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children,
org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.553
Youth, & Families.
Barrett, P. Q. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-
fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824. https​://doi.
age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research
org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018
Center for Children, Youth, & Families.
20 of 25 | TIEGO et al.

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual
A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193–222. https​://doi.
Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. org/10.1146/annur​ev.neuro.18.1.193
https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb020​31.x Devlieger, I., Mayer, A., & Rosseel, Y. (2016). Hypothesis testing using
Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental perspective on ex- factor score regression: A comparison of four methods. Educational
ecutive function. Child Development, 81, 1641–1660. https​://doi. and Psychological Measurement, 76(5), 741–770. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01499.x org/10.1177/00131​6 4415​607618
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Devlieger, I., & Rosseel, Y. (2017). Factor score path analysis. Methodology,
Wiley. 13(Suppl 1), 31–38. https​://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000130
Bollen, K. A. (2000). Modeling strategies: In search of the holy grail. Diamond, A. (2005). Attention-deficit disorder (attention-deficit/ hyper-
Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 74–81. https​://doi.org/10.1207/ activity disorder without hyperactivity): A neurobiologically and be-
S1532​8 007S​EM0701_03 haviorally distinct disorder from attention-deficit/hyperactivity dis-
Bridgett, D. J., Burt, N. M., Edwards, E. S., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2015). order (with hyperactivity). Development and Psychopathology, 17(3),
Intergenerational Transmission of Self-Regulation: A Multidisciplinary 807–825. https​://doi.org/10.1017/S0954​57940​5050388
Review and Integrative Conceptual Framework. Psychological Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64,
Bulletin, 141(3), 602–654. https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0038662 135–168. https​://doi.org/10.1146/annur​ev-psych-113011-143750
Bridgett, D. J., Oddi, K. B., Laake, L. M., Murdock, K. W., & Bachmann, M. DiStefano, C., Zhu, M., & Mindrila, D. (2009). Understanding and using
N. (2013). Integrating and differentiating aspects of self-regulation: factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical
Effortful control, executive functioning, and links to negative affec- Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(20), 1–11.
tivity. Emotion, 13, 47–63. https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0029536 Downing, P. E. (2000). Interactions between visual working memory and
Brydges, C. R., Reid, C. L., Fox, A. M., & Anderson, M. (2012). A unitary selective attention. Psychological Science, 11, 467–473. https​://doi.
executive function predicts intelligence in children. Intelligence, 40, org/10.1111/1467-9280.00290​
458–469. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.05.006 Egeland, J., & Fallmyr, O. (2010). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the
Burgoyne, A. P., Hambrick, D. Z., & Altmann, E. M. (2019). Is working Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF): Support
memory capacity a causal factor in fluid intelligence? Psychonomic for a distinction between emotional and behavioral regulation. Child
Bulletin & Review, 26(4), 1333–1339. https​://doi.org/10.3758/ Neuropsychology, 16(4), 326–337. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09297​
s13423-019-01606-9 04100​3601462
Burnham, B. R., Sabia, M., & Langan, C. (2014). Components of work- Eisenberg, N. (2017). Commentary: What's in a word (or words) - on the
ing memory and visual selective attention. Journal of Experimental relations among self-regulation, self-control, executive functioning,
Psychology - Human Perception and Performance, 40, 391–403. https​ effortful control, cognitive control, impulsivity, risk-taking, and in-
://doi.org/10.1037/a0033753 hibition for developmental psychopathology - reflections on Nigg
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic con- (2017). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(4), 384–386.
cepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge. https​://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12707​
Coghill, D., & Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S. (2012). Annual Research Review: Eisenberg, N., Hofer, C., & Vaughan, J. (2007). Effortful control and its
Categories versus dimensions in the classification and conceptual- socioemotional consequences. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Hanbook of emotion
isation of child and adolescent mental disorders – implications of regulation (pp. 287–306). New York: The Guilford Press.
recent empirical study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Effortful
53(5), 469–489. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011. control: Relations with emotion regulation, adjustment and socializa-
02511.x tion in childhood. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 259–282). New
O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A method- York: The Guilford Press.
ological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). Revision of the early adolescent tem-
769–786. https​://doi.org/10.3758/BF031​96772​ perament questionnaire. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis,
capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Minnesota.
Sciences, 7, 547–552. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.005 Ellis, L. K., Rothbart, M. K., & Posner, M. I. (2004). Individual differences
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stim- in executive attention predict self-regulation and adolescent psycho-
ulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3, social behaviors. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021,
201–215. https​://doi.org/10.1038/nrn755 337–340. https​://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1308.041
Cribbie, R. A. (2007). Multiplicity control in structural equation modeling. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York: The Guilford
Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 98–112. https​://doi.org/10.1207/ Press.
s1532​8 007s​em1401_5 Engel de Abreu, P. M. J., Conway, A. R. A., & Gathercole, S. E. (2010).
Cuthbert, B. N. (2014). The RDoC framework: Facilitating transition from Working memory and fluid intelligence in young children. Intelligence,
ICD/DSM to dimensional approaches that integrate neuroscience 38, 552–561. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.07.003
and psychopathology. World Psychiatry, 13(1), 28–35. https​://doi. Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention.
org/10.1002/wps.20087​ Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23. https​://doi.
Cyders, M. A., & Coskunpinar, A. (2011). Measurement of constructs org/10.1111/1467-8721.00160​
using self-report and behavioral lab tasks: Is there overlap in no- Engle, R. W. (2018). Working memory and executive attention: A revisit.
mothetic span and construct representation for impulsivity? Clin Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 190–193. https​://doi.
Psychol Rev, 31(6), 965–982. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06. org/10.1177/17456​91617​720478
001 Enkavi, A. Z., Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P. G., Mazza, G. L., MacKinnon,
Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1988). Arousal, affect, and attention D. P., Marsch, L. A., & Poldrack, R. A. (2019). Large-scale analysis of
as components of temperament. Journal of Personality and Social test–retest reliabilities of self-regulation measures. Proceedings of
Psychology, 55, 958–966. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55. the National Academy of Sciences, 116(12), 5472–5477. https​://doi.
6.958 org/10.1073/pnas.18184​3 0116​
TIEGO et al. | 21 of 25

Eriksen, C. W. (1995). The flankers task and response competition: A useful Function (BRIEF) in a clinical sample. Child Neuropsychology, 8, 249–
tool for investigating a variety of cognitive problems. Visual Cognition, 257. https​://doi.org/10.1076/chin.8.4.249.13513​
2, 101–118. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13506​28950​8 401726 Grice, J. W. (2001). Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychological
Espy, K. A., Sheffield, T. D., Wiebe, S. A., Clark, C. A., & Moehr, M. J. Methods, 6(4), 430–450. https​://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.430
(2011). Executive control and dimensions of problem behaviors in Hair, J. F., Black, C. W., Babbin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate
preschool children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, data analysis (7th edn). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
33–46. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02265.x Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability
Fair, D. A., Bathula, D., Nikolas, M. A., & Nigg, J. T. (2012). Distinct neu- within latent variable systems. In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit & D. Sorbom
ropsychological subgroups in typically developing youth inform (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future - A festchrift
heterogeneity in children with ADHD. Proceedings of the National in honor of Karl Joreskog (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific
Academy of Sciences, 109(17), 6769–6774. https​://doi.org/10.1073/ Software International.
pnas.11153​65109​ Hayduk, L. A., Cummings, G., Boadu, K., Pazderka-Robinson, H., &
Fan, J., Flombaum, J. I., McCandliss, B. D., Thomas, K. M., & Posner, M. Boulianne, S. (2007). Testing! testing! one, two, three – Testing
I. (2003). Cognitive and brain consequences of conflict. NeuroImage, the theory in structural equation models!. Personality and
18, 42–57. https​://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2002.1319 Individual Differences, 42(5), 841–850. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). paid.2006.10.001
Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional net- Hayduk, L. A., & Littvay, L. (2012). Should researchers use single indi-
works. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 340–347. https​://doi. cators, best indicators, or multiple indicators in structural equation
org/10.1162/08989​29023​17361886 models? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 159. https​://doi.
Fan, J., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Attentional mechanisms. In org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-159
Encyclopedia of the Neurological Sciences: Elsevier Science. Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2017). The reliability paradox: Why
Fitzpatrick, C., & Schraw, G. (2003). Test review of the Behavior Rating robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differ-
Inventory of Executive Function. In B. S. Plake, J. C. Impara & R. A. ences. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1166–1186, https​://doi.
Spies (Eds.), The fifteenth mental measurements yearbook [electronic org/10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1
version]. Retrieved from http://marke​tplace.unl.edu/buros/​ Heitz, R. P., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Focusing the spotlight: Individual differ-
Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment. ences in visual attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc. General, 136, 217–240. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation mod- 136.2.217
els with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Helzer, J. E., Kraemer, H. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2006). The feasibility and
Marketing Research, 39–50. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00222​43781​ need for dimensional psychiatric diagnoses. Psychological Medicine,
01800104 36(12), 1671–1680. https​://doi.org/10.1017/S0033​29170​600
Fournet, N., Roulin, J. L., Monnier, C., Atzeni, T., Cosnefroy, O., Le Gall, 821X
D., & Roy, A. (2015). Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis and Hermida, R., Luchman, J. N., Nicolaides, V., & Wilcox, C. (2015). The
structural invariance with age of the Behavior Rating Inventory of issue of statistical power for overall model fit in evaluating structural
Executive Function (BRIEF)–French version. Child Neuropsychology, equation models. Computational Methods in Social Sciences, 3, 25–42.
21(3), 379–398. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09297​0 49.2014.906569 Hinshaw, S. P. (2018). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD):
Frick, P. J., & Nigg, J. T. (2012). Current issues in the diagnosis of atten- Controversy, Developmental Mechanisms, and Multiple Levels of
tion deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, Analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 14, 291–316. https​://
and conduct disorder. Annu Rev Clin Psychol, 8, 77–107. https​://doi. doi.org/10.1146/annur​ev-clinp​sy-050817-084917
org/10.1146/annur​ev-clinp​sy-032511-143150 Hofmann, W., Friese, M., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2011).
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2017). Unity and diversity of execu- Working memory and self-regulation. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister
tive functions: Individual differences as a window on cogni- (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications
tive structure. Cortex, 86, 186–204. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. (2nd edn.) (pp. 204–225). New York: The Guilford Press.
cortex.2016.04.023 Hofmann, W., Gschwendner, T., Friese, M., Wiers, R. W., & Schmitt, M.
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Robinson, J. L., & Hewitt, J. K. (2011). (2008). Working memory capacity and self-regulatory behavior:
Developmental trajectories in toddlers' self-restraint predict individ- Toward an individual differences perspective on behavior determina-
ual differences in executive functions 14 years later: A behavioral tion by automatic versus controlled processes. Journal of Personality
genetic analysis. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1410–1430. https​:// and Social Psychology, 95, 962–977. https​://doi.org/10.1037/
doi.org/10.1037/a0023750 a0012705
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., Corley, R. P., & Hewitt, Hofmann, W., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Executive func-
J. K. (2008). Individual differences in executive functions are almost tions and self-regulation. Trends Cogn Sci, 16(3), 174–180. https​://doi.
entirely genetic in origin. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.006
137, 201–225. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.201 Holzman, J. B., & Bridgett, D. J. (2017). Heart rate variability indices as
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for bio-markers of top-down self-regulatory mechanisms: A meta-ana-
the behavioral sciences. San Francisco, CA: WH Freeman. lytic review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 74, 233–255.
Gignac, G. E. (2006). Self-reported emotional intelligence and life sat- https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubi​orev.2016.12.032
isfaction: Testing incremental predictive validity hypotheses via Hudziak, J. J., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., & Pine, D. S. (2007).
structural equation modeling (SEM) in a small sample. Personality and A dimensional approach to developmental psychopathology.
Individual Differences, 40(8), 1569–1577. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 16(Suppl 1),
paid.2006.01.001 S16–23. https​://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.217
Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). BRIEF: Ilkowska, M., & Engle, R. W. (2010). Working memory capacity and
Behavioral rating inventory of executive function professional manual. self-regulation. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of personality and
Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc. self-regulation (pp. 263–290). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Retzlaff, P. D., & Espy, K. A. (2002). Confirmatory Jackson, D. L. (2003). Revisiting sample size and number of parameter
factor analysis of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive estimates: Some support for the N: Q hypothesis. Structural Equation
22 of 25 | TIEGO et al.

Modeling, 10, 128–141. https​://doi.org/10.1207/s1532​8 007s​ Psychology, 39(6), 761–775. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15374​416.2010.

em1001_6 517173
Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide Lau, R. S., & Cheung, G. W. (2010). Estimating and comparing specific
to computing and reporting Bayes factors. The Journal of Problem mediation effects in complex latent variable models. Organizational
Solving, 7(1), https​://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1167 Research Methods, 15, 3–16. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10944​28110​
Jensen, A. R. (2002). Psychometric g: Definition and substantiation. In 391673
R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The general factor of intelli- Lee, K., Bull, R., & Ho, R. M. (2013). Developmental changes in exec-
gence: How general is it? (pp. 39–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum utive functioning. Child Development, 84, 1933–1953. https​://doi.
Associates. org/10.1111/cdev.12096​
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). Lin, B., Liew, J., & Perez, M. (2019). Measurement of self-regulation
A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal in early childhood: Relations between laboratory and perfor-
of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169–183. https​://doi. mance-based measures of effortful control and executive func-
org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.169 tioning. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47, 1–8. https​://doi.
Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2007). org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.10.004
Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive at- Lipszyc, J., & Schachar, R. (2010). Inhibitory control and psychopathol-
tention and control. In A. R. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake ogy: A meta-analysis of studies using the stop signal task. Journal of
& J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 21–48). New the International Neuropsychological Society, 16, 1064–1076. https​://
York: Oxford University Press. doi.org/10.1017/S1355​61771​0 000895
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in work- Little, C. W., Taylor, J., Moltisanti, A., Ennis, C., Hart, S. A., &
ing-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelli- Schatschneider, C. (2017). Factor structure and aetiological architec-
gence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & ture of the BRIEF: A twin study. Journal of Neuropsychology, 11(2),
Review, 9, 637–671. https​://doi.org/10.3758/BF031​96323​ 252–276. https​://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12084​
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and Logan, G. D., Schachar, R. J., & Tannock, R. (1997). Impulsivity and in-
the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, re- hibitory control. Psychological Science, 8, 60–64. https​://doi.
sponse competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb005​45.x
of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70. https​://doi. Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location
org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47 information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial
Kane, M. J., Meier, M. E., Smeekens, B. A., Gross, G. M., Chun, C. A., Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207. https​://
Silvia, P. J., & Kwapil, T. R. (2016). Individual differences in the ex- doi.org/10.3758/bf032​10959​
ecutive control of attention, memory, and thought, and their asso- Luna, B., Marek, S., Larsen, B., Tervo-Clemmens, B., & Chahal, R. (2015).
ciations with schizotypy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, An integrative model of the maturation of cognitive control. Annual
145, 1017–1048. https​://doi.org/10.1037/xge00​0 0184​ Review of Neuroscience. 38(1), 151–170. https​://doi.org/10.1146/
Kaplan, S., & Berman, M. G. (2010). Directed attention as a common re- annur​ev-neuro-071714-034054
source for executive functioning and self-regulation. Perspectives on MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equa-
Psychological Science, 5, 43–57. https​://doi.org/10.1177/17456​91609​ tion modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology,
356784 51, 201–226. https​://doi.org/10.1146/annur​ev.psych.51.1.201
Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power
of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological analysis and determination of sample size for covariance struc-
Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–507. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00491​ ture modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. https​://doi.
24114​543236 org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect:
(4th edn). New York: The Guilford Press. An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203. https​://
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163
early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implica- Mahone, E. M., Cirino, P. T., Cutting, L. E., Cerrone, P. M., Hagelthorn, K.
tions for social development. Developmental Psychology, 36, 220– M., Hiemenz, J. R., … Denckla, M. B. (2002). Validity of the behavior
232. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.220 rating inventory of executive function in children with ADHD and/
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional over- or Tourette syndrome. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 17(7),
lap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - A model 643–662. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6177(01)00168-8
and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270. https​://doi. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules:
org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253 Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff val-
Kotabe, H. P., & Hofmann, W. (2015). On integrating the components of ues for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's
self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 618–638. https​ (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
://doi.org/10.1177/17456​91615​593382 Journal, 11(3), 320–341. https​://doi.org/10.1207/s1532​8 007s​
Kraemer, H. C., Noda, A., & O'Hara, R. (2004). Categorical versus di- em1103_2
mensional approaches to diagnosis: Methodological challenges. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J. S., & Von Davier, M.
Journal of Psychiatric Research, 38(1), 17–25. https​://doi.org/10.1016/ (2013). Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: Two wrongs
S0022-3956(03)00097-9 do not make a right—Camouflaging misspecification with item par-
Krueger, R. F., Kotov, R., Watson, D., Forbes, M. K., Eaton, N. R., Ruggero, cels in CFA models. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 257–284. https​://
C. J., … Zimmermann, J. (2018). Progress in achieving quantitative doi.org/10.1037/a0032773
classification of psychopathology. World Psychiatry, 17(3), 282–293. McCabe, D. P., Roediger, H. L., McDaniel, M. A., Balota, D. A., &
https​://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20566​ Hambrick, D. Z. (2010). The relationship Between working memory
Lahey, B. B., & Willcutt, E. G. (2010). Predictive validity of a continu- capacity and executive functioning: Evidence for a common execu-
ous alternative to nominal subtypes of attention-deficit/hyper- tive attention construct. Neuropsychology, 24, 222–243. https​://doi.
activity disorder for DSM-V. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent org/10.1037/a0017619
TIEGO et al. | 23 of 25

McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting Peirce, J. W. (2008). Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy.
structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82. https​ Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2, 10. https​ ://doi.org/10.3389/
://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64 neuro.11.010.2008
McRae, K., Jacobs, S. E., Ray, R. D., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2012). The attention system of the human
Individual differences in reappraisal ability: Links to reappraisal brain: 20 years after. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 35, 73–89. https​
frequency, well-being, and cognitive control. Journal of Research in ://doi.org/10.1146/annur​ev-neuro-062111-150525
Personality, 46, 2–7. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.10.003 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of
Menon, V., Adleman, N. E., White, C. D., Glover, G. H., & Reiss, A. Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on
L. (2001). Error-related brain activation during a Go/NoGo re- How to Control It. In S. T. Fiske, D. L. Schacter, & S. E. Taylor (Eds.),
sponse inhibition task. Human Brain Mapping, 12, 131–143. https​ Annual Review of Psychology,Vol. 63 (pp. 539–569).
://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0193(20010​3 )12:3<131:AID-HBM10​ Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the
10>3.0.CO;2-C human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25–42. https​://doi.
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of org/10.1146/annur​ev.ne.13.030190.000325
individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclu- Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2009). Toward a physical basis of atten-
sions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 8–14. https​://doi. tion and self regulation. Physics of Life Reviews, 6, 103–120. https​://
org/10.1177/09637​21411​429458 doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2009.02.001
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., Posner, M. I., Rothbart, M. K., Vizueta, N., Levy, K. N., Evans, D. E.,
& Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive func- Thomas, K. M., & Clarkin, J. F. (2002). Attentional mechanisms of
tions and their contributions to complex "Frontal Lobe" tasks: A la- borderline personality disorder. Proceedings of the National Academy
tent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100. https​://doi. of Sciences of the United States of America, 99, 16366–16370. https​://
org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 doi.org/10.1073/pnas.25264​4699
Muris, P., van der Pennen, E., Sigmond, R., & Mayer, B. (2008). Symptoms Putnam, S. P., Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). The structure of tem-
of anxiety, depression, and aggression in non-clinical children: perament from infancy through adolescence.Paper presented at the
Relationships with self-report and performance-based measures of at- Advances/proceedings in research on temperament., (pp. 165–182).
tention and effortful control. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, Germany: Pabst Scientific.
39(4), 455–467. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-008-0101-1 Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2006). Working memory capacity and at-
Murray, K. T., & Kochanska, G. (2002). Effortful control: Factor tention network test performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20,
structure and relation to externalizing and internalizing behav- 713–721. https​://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1224
iors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 503–514. Unsp0​ Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement mod-
091-0627/02/1000-0503/0 els. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667–696. https​://doi.
Muthén, B., du Toit, S. H. C., & Spisic, D. (1997). Robust inference using org/10.1080/00273​171.2012.715555
weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in la- Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013).
tent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equa-
Unpublished technical report. Retrieved from https​ ://www.statm​ tion modeling a bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological
odel.com/downl​oad/Artic​le_075.pdf Measurement, 73(1), 5–26. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00131​64412​449831
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user's guide (7th edn). Repovs, G., & Baddeley, A. (2006). The multi-component model of
Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. working memory: Explorations in experimental cognitive psychol-
Nigg, J. T. (2017). Annual Research Review: On the relations among ogy. Neuroscience, 139, 5–21. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro​scien​
self-regulation, self-control, executive functioning, effortful control, ce.2005.12.061
cognitive control, impulsivity, risk-taking, and inhibition for develop- Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor
mental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological
58(4), 361–383. https​://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12675​ Methods, 21(2), 137–150. https​://doi.org/10.1037/met00​0 0045​
Nigg, J. T., Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., & Sonuga-Barke, E. J. (2005). Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament in children's devel-
Causal heterogeneity in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: opment. In W. Damon, R. Lerner & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of
Do we need neuropsychologically impaired subtypes? Biological child psychology (Vol. 3 Social, emotional, and personality development
Psychiatry, 57(11), 1224–1230. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biops​ (pp. 99–166). New York: Wiley.
ych.2004.08.025 Rothbart, M. K., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Development of individual
Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. differences in temperament. In M. E. Lamb & A. L. Brown (Eds.),
F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoret- Advances in developmental psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 37–86). Hillsdale,
ical developments. American Psychologist, 67, 130–159. https​://doi. NJ: Erlbaum.
org/10.1037/a0026699 Rothbart, M. K., Ellis, L. K., Rueda, M. R., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Developing
Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. mechanisms of temperamental effortful control. Journal of Personality,
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 242–249. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. 71, 1113–1143. https​://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7106009
tics.2005.03.010 Rothbart, M. K., & Gartstein, M. A. (2008). Temperament. In M. H.
Oosterlaan, J., & Sergeant, J. A. (1996). Inhibition in ADHD, aggressive, Marshall & B. B. Janette Editors-in-Chief (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Infant
and anxious children: A biologically based model of child psychopa- and Early Childhood Development (pp. 318–332). San Diego: Academic
thology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 19–36. https​://doi. Press.
org/10.1007/bf014​48371​ Rothbart, M. K., Sheese, B. E., & Posner, M. I. (2007). Executive atten-
Pe, M. L., Raes, F., & Kuppens, P. (2013). The cognitive building blocks tion and effortful control: Linking temperament, brain networks,
of emotion regulation: Ability to update working memory moderates and genes. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 2–7. https​://doi.
the efficacy of rumination and reappraisal on emotion. PLoS ONE, 8, org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2007.00002.x
https​://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.0069071 Rueda, M. R., Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Halparin, J. D., Gruber, D. B.,
Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy - psychophysics software in Python. Lercari, L. P., & Posner, M. I. (2004). Development of attentional net-
Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, 8–13. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. works in childhood. Neuropsychologia, 42(8), 1029–1040. https​://doi.
jneum​eth.2006.11.017 org/10.1016/j.neuro​psych​ologia.2003.12.012
24 of 25 | TIEGO et al.

Rueda, M. R., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2004). Attentional control Strauss, M. E., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct Validity: Advances in
and self-regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook Theory and Methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5,
of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 283–300). 1–25. https​://doi.org/10.1146/annur​ev.clinp​sy.032408.153639
New York: The Guilford Press. Taasoobshirazi, G., & Wang, S. (2016). The performance of the SRMR,
Rueda, M. R., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2005). The development RMSEA, CFI, and TLI: An examination of sample size, path size, and
of executive attention: Contributions to the emergence of self-reg- degrees of freedom. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 11(3),
ulation. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 573–594. https​://doi. 31–39.
org/10.1207/s1532​6942d​n2802_2 Tellegen, A., & Briggs, P. F. (1967). Old wine in new skins: Grouping
Rueda, M. R., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2011). Attentional control Wechsler subtests into new scales. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
and self-regulation. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook 31, 499–506. https​://doi.org/10.1037/h0024963
of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (2nd edn.) (pp. Ten Eycke, K. D., & Dewey, D. (2016). Parent-report and perfor-
284–299). New York: The Guilford Press. mance-based measures of executive function assess different
Rueda, M. R., Pozuelos, J. P., & Combita, L. M. (2015). Cognitive neurosci- constructs. Child Neuropsychology, 22(8), 889–906. https​://doi.
ence of attention: From brain mechanisms to individual differences in org/10.1080/09297​0 49.2015.1065961
efficiency. AIMS Neuroscience, 2, 183–202. Tiego, J., Testa, R., Bellgrove, M. A., Pantelis, C., & Whittle, S. (2018).
Samyn, V., Roeyers, H., Bijttebier, P., Rosseel, Y., & Wiersema, J. R. A hierarchical model of inhibitory control. Frontiers in Psychology,
(2015). Assessing effortful control in typical and atypical de- 9(1339), https​://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01339​
velopment: Are questionnaires and neuropsychological mea- Tomarken, A. J., & Waller, N. G. (2005). Structural equation model-
sures interchangeable? A latent-variable analysis. Research in ing: Strengths, limitations, and misconceptions. Annual Review of
Developmental Disabilities, 36, 587–599. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. Clinical Psychology, 1, 31–65. https​://doi.org/10.1146/annur​ev.clinp​
ridd.2014.10.018 sy.1.102803.144239
Sattler, J. M. (2008). Resource guide to accompany assessment of children: Toplak, M. E., Bucciarelli, S. M., Jain, U., & Tannock, R. (2008). Executive
Cognitive foundations. San Diego: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher Inc. functions: Performance-based measures and the Behavior Rating
Schmeichel, B. J., Volokhov, R. N., & Demaree, H. A. (2008). Working Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) in adolescents with Attention
memory capacity and the self-regulation of emotional expression Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Child Neuropsychology,
and experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 15(1), 53–72. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09297​0 4080​2070929
1526–1540. https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0013345 Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Practitioner review:
Schmiedek, F., Hildebrandt, A., Lövdén, M., Wilhelm, O., & Lindenberger, Do performance-based measures and ratings of executive function
U. (2009). Complex span versus updating tasks of working memory: assess the same construct? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
The gap is not that deep. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, 54, 131–143. https​://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12001​
Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1089–1096. https​://doi.org/10.1037/ Unsworth, N., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2004). Working memory
a0015730 capacity and the antisaccade task: Individual differences in voluntary
Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., & Engle, R. W. (2016). Working Memory saccade control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
Capacity and Fluid Intelligence: Maintenance and Disengagement. and Cognition, 30, 1302–1321. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 771–799. https​://doi. 30.6.1302
org/10.1177/17456​91616​650647 Unsworth, N., & Spillers, G. J. (2010). Working memory capacity:
Shipstead, Z., Lindsey, D. R. B., Marshall, R. L., & Engle, R. W. (2014). The Attention control, secondary memory, or both? A direct test of the
mechanisms of working memory capacity: Primary memory, second- dual-component model. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 392–
ary memory, and attention control. Journal of Memory and Language, 406. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.02.001
72, 116–141. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.01.004 Verbruggen, F., Logan, G. D., & Stevens, M. A. (2008). STOP-IT: Windows
Simonds, J., Kieras, J. E., Rueda, M. R., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Effortful executable software for the stop-signal paradigm. Behavior
control, executive attention, and emotional regulation in 7–10-year- Research Methods, 40, 479–483. https​://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.
old children. Cognitive Development, 22, 474–488. https​://doi. 2.479
org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.08.009 Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive prob-
Skrondal, A., & Laake, P. (2001). Regression among Factor Scores. lems ofp values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 779–804. https​
Psychometrika, 66(4), 563–575. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF022​ ://doi.org/10.3758/bf031​94105​
96196​ Wechsler, D. (2003a). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Fourth
Snyder, H. R., Gulley, L. D., Bijttebier, P., Hartman, C. A., Oldehinkel, A. Edition: Administration and scoring manual. San Antonio: The
J., Mezulis, A., … Hankin, B. L. (2015). Adolescent emotionality and Psychological Corporation.
effortful control: Core latent constructs and links to psychopathol- Wechsler, D. (2003b). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Fourth Edition:
ogy and functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, Technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio: The Psychological
1132–1149. https​://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0​0 00047 Corporation.
Snyder, H. R., Miyake, A., & Hankin, B. L. (2015). Advancing under- Wiebe, S. A., Espy, K. A., & Charak, D. (2008). Using confirmatory fac-
standing of executive function impairments and psychopa- tor analysis to understand executive control in preschool children:
thology: Bridging the gap between clinical and cognitive ap- I. Latent Structure. Developmental Psychology, 44, 575–587. https​://
proaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, https​://doi.org/10.3389/ doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.575
fpsyg.2015.00328​ Wiedermann, W., & von Eye, A. (2015). Direction of effects in media-
Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S. (2003). The dual pathway model of AD/HD: An tion analysis. Psychological Methods, 20(2), 221–244. https​://doi.
elaboration of neuro-developmental characteristics. Neuroscience org/10.1037/met00​0 0027​
& Biobehavioral Reviews, 27(7), 593–604. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. Wilhelm, O., Hildebrandt, A. H., & Oberauer, K. (2013). What is working
neubi​orev.2003.08.005 memory capacity, and how can we measure it? Frontiers in Psychology,
Sparkes, S. J. (2006). The influence of ADHD and experimental con- 4, 1–22. https​://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00433​
text on components of attention in children (Doctoral dissertation). Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., Nigg, J. T., Faraone, S. V., & Pennington, B. F.
Dalhousie University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67, 6747. (2005). Validity of the executive function theory of attention-deficit/
TIEGO et al. | 25 of 25

hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analytic review. Biological Psychiatry, S U P P O R T I N G I N FO R M AT I O N

57(11), 1336–1346. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biops​ych.2005.02.006
Additional supporting information may be found online in the
Yu, J., Kam, C., & Lee, T. M. (2016). Better working memory and motor in-
hibition in children who delayed gratification. Frontiers in Psychology,
Supporting Information section.
7, 1–7. https​://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01098​
Zelazo, P. D., & Cunningham, W. A. (2007). Executive function:
Mechanisms underlying emotion regulation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), How to cite this article: Tiego J, Bellgrove MA, Whittle S,
Hanbook of emotion regulation (pp. 135–158). New York: The Guilford Pantelis C, Testa R. Common mechanisms of executive
Press.
attention underlie executive function and effortful control in
Zhou, Q., Chen, S. H., & Main, A. (2012). Commonalities and dif-
ferences in the research on children's effortful control and ex- children. Dev Sci. 2020;23:e12918. https​://doi.org/10.1111/
ecutive function: A call for an integrated model of self-regula- desc.12918​
tion. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 112–121. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00176.x