TY - JOUR
T1 - Measuring executive function in early childhood
T2 - A case for formative measurement
AU - Willoughby, Michael T.
AU - Blair, Clancy B.
N1 - Funding Information:
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Grants R01 HD51502 and P01 HD39667, with cofunding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, supported data collection. The Institute of Educational Sciences Grant R324A120033 supported data analysis and writing. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and they do not necessarily represent the opinions and positions of the Institute of Educational Sciences, the Department of Education, or the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The Family Life Project Phase I Key Investigators include Lynne Vernon-Feagans, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Martha Cox, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Clancy B. Blair, The Pennsylvania State University; Peg Burchfinal, University of North Carolina; Linda Burton, Duke University; Keith Crnic, The Arizona State University; Ann Crouter, The Pennsylvania State University; Patricia Garrett-Peters, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Mark Greenberg, The Pennsylvania State University; Stephanie Lanza, The Pennsylvania State University; Roger Mills-Koonce, University of North Carolina at Greensboro; Debra Skinner, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Emily Werner, The Pennsylvania State University; and Michael T. Willoughby, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 American Psychological Association.
PY - 2016/3/1
Y1 - 2016/3/1
N2 - This study tested whether individual executive function (EF) tasks were better characterized as formative or reflective indicators of the latent construct of EF. EF data that were collected as part of the Family Life Project (FLP), a prospective longitudinal study of families who were recruited at the birth of a new child (N = 1,292), when children were 3, 4, and 5 years old. Vanishing tetrad tests were used to test the relative fit of models in which EF tasks were used as either formative or reflective indicators of the latent construct of EF in the prediction of intellectual ability (at Age 3), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms (at Ages 3 to 5 years), and academic achievement (at kindergarten). Results consistently indicated that EF tasks were better represented as formative indicators of the latent construct of EF. Next, individual tasks were combined to form an overall measure of EF ability in ways generally consistent with formative (i.e., creating a composite mean score) and reflective (i.e., creating an EF factor score) measurement. The test-retest reliability and developmental trajectories of EF differed substantially, depending on which overall measure of EF ability was used. In general, the across-time stability of EF was markedly higher when represented as a factor score versus composite score. Results are discussed with respect to the ways in which the statistical representation of EF tasks can exert a large impact on inferences regarding the developmental causes, course, and consequences of EF.
AB - This study tested whether individual executive function (EF) tasks were better characterized as formative or reflective indicators of the latent construct of EF. EF data that were collected as part of the Family Life Project (FLP), a prospective longitudinal study of families who were recruited at the birth of a new child (N = 1,292), when children were 3, 4, and 5 years old. Vanishing tetrad tests were used to test the relative fit of models in which EF tasks were used as either formative or reflective indicators of the latent construct of EF in the prediction of intellectual ability (at Age 3), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms (at Ages 3 to 5 years), and academic achievement (at kindergarten). Results consistently indicated that EF tasks were better represented as formative indicators of the latent construct of EF. Next, individual tasks were combined to form an overall measure of EF ability in ways generally consistent with formative (i.e., creating a composite mean score) and reflective (i.e., creating an EF factor score) measurement. The test-retest reliability and developmental trajectories of EF differed substantially, depending on which overall measure of EF ability was used. In general, the across-time stability of EF was markedly higher when represented as a factor score versus composite score. Results are discussed with respect to the ways in which the statistical representation of EF tasks can exert a large impact on inferences regarding the developmental causes, course, and consequences of EF.
KW - Early childhood
KW - Executive function
KW - Formative measurement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84933576273&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84933576273&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/pas0000152
DO - 10.1037/pas0000152
M3 - Article
C2 - 26121388
AN - SCOPUS:84933576273
SN - 1040-3590
VL - 28
SP - 319
EP - 330
JO - Psychological assessment
JF - Psychological assessment
IS - 3
ER -