Cool EF (Stroop inhibition and CNT cognitive flexibility) predicts academic performance, while no hot EF variable does¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 2 associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Stroop interference and CNT cognitive flexibility account for an additional 15.2% of variance in average grade, controlling general intellectual ability. → Poon K 2018 q2 i? No hot EF variables are associated with academic performance. → Poon K 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Poon K 2018¶

Poon K (2018) Hot and Cool Executive Functions in Adolescence: Development and Contributions to Important Developmental Outcomes. Front. Psychol. 8:2311. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02311

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Hierarchical regression controlling general intellectual ability, with self-reported grades in English, Chinese, and math as outcomes. The article reports Stroop and CNT cognitive flexibility as significant predictors of average grade, accounting for an additional 15.2% of variance.

"Table 13 showed that Stroop ( B = 0.26, t = 3.21, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.15) and CNT cognitive flexibility ( B = − 0.246, t = − 2.995, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.15) accounted for an additional 15.2% of the variance in predicting average grade."

Poon K 2018 (2)¶

Poon K (2018) Hot and Cool Executive Functions in Adolescence: Development and Contributions to Important Developmental Outcomes. Front. Psychol. 8:2311. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02311

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Same hierarchical regression analyses (Tables 13–14). The article reports that no hot EF variables (CGT risk adjustment, CGT delay aversion) were associated with academic performance, consistent with the hypothesis that cool EF predicts cognitively demanding outcomes.

"No hot EF variables associated with academic performance."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Inhibition/interference, working memory and processing speed correlate with adolescent academic achievement, while cognitive flexibility and social skills do not — reports the opposite
• Meta-analytic findings show small-to-medium relations between EF and academic performance, with cognitive flexibility showing the strongest effects — related
• Hot EF (CGT risk adjustment) uniquely predicts parent-rated emotional problems, while no cool EF test does — related
• Gender differences appear in academic achievement and several cognitive parameters but not in inhibition/interference or social skills — related
• EF measures jointly account for 43% of math variance, with inhibition (Tap Test) a significant unique predictor but cognitive flexibility (FIST) not significant in any model — related
• Interference suppression, but not response inhibition, relates to academic achievement and schooling skills — related