An Ecological Systems Perspective on Individual Differences in Children’s Performance on Measures of Executive Function

Abstract

The predictive validity of performance on cognitive-behavioral measures of executive function (EF) suggests that these measures index children's underlying capacity for self-regulation. In this paper, we apply ecological systems theory to critically evaluate this assertion. We argue that as typically administered, standard measures of EF do not index children's underlying, trait-like capacity for EF, but rather assess their state-like EF performance at a given point in time and in a particular (and often quite peculiar) context. This underscores the importance of disentangling intra-individual (i.e., state-like) and inter-individual (trait-like) differences in performance on these measures and understanding how factors at various levels of organization may contribute to both. To this end, we offer an approach that combines the collection of repeated measures of EF with a multilevel modeling framework, and conclude by discussing the application of this approach to the study of educational interventions designed to foster children's EF.

Moulding environmental contexts to optimise neurodiverse executive function performance and development: A goodness‐of‐fit account

“…With this in mind, we recommend collecting data using a combination of measurement types (e.g., observer, performance), administrative approaches (e.g., in conditions of high and low distraction, stress and/or social demands) and contexts (e.g., home, school, lab) in order to find a more accurate proxy of actualised EF ability within these indices. Ideally, data should be collected with such measures at repeated intervals in order to use statistical modelling approaches to partition out stable, actualised EF ability from context‐specific fluctuations in the ability to perform towards their upper‐limit EF level (Holochwost et al, 2023). In cases where collecting multiple indices of EF across contexts and time is not feasible, we advise increasing the match between EF measures and children's actualised EF ability as much as possible by matching the data collection conditions to the circumstances in which the child's EF abilities are most commonly deployed.…”

“…Measuring a child's EF performance under conditions of good environmental fit, and where they are motivated to pursue a goal, is most likely to capture upper‐limit EF ability. Measuring a child's EF performance when under stress, hyper‐arousal or when the child is not fully committed to the goal (because it is not motivating for them, they do not understand it, or because of competing social or attentional demands) is most likely to capture lower‐limit EF ability (see also Holochwost et al (2023) for discussion of other potential causes of lower‐limit performance levels, such as nutrition, sleep, and rapport with the experimenter). A study in which adolescents were asked to complete three EF tasks each evening, and report on their affect and academic experiences during that day, has usefully elucidated the effects of fluctuations of mood and sense of belonging on EF performance such that adolescents' actualised inhibitory control and working memory performance was more likely to be at their lower‐limit level on days when they reported negative mood and lower school belonging or engagement (Wang et al, 2021).…”

“…Yet, the deployment of EFs is also context‐specific. Doebel (2020) has argued convincingly for the importance of considering how EFs are embedded within, and contingent upon, individuals' knowledge, beliefs, norms, values, and preferences, while Holochwost and colleagues have underscored the importance of disentangling stable, trait‐like EF capacity from intra‐individual, context‐specific, state‐like EF performance (Holochwost et al, 2023). Here we extend this reasoning to argue that an individual's EF ability at any moment in time may be anywhere within the range of their personal lower‐ and upper‐limit EF ability, depending on context.…”