Nicolas Chevalier

TL;DR: Tests of the relative fit of several alternative models supported a single latent EF construct, and measurement invariance testing revealed less proficient EF in children at higher sociodemographic risk relative to those at lower risk and no differences between boys and girls.

Abstract: ion level of themes Percentage of utterances that introduce themes that are decontextualized in time (e.g., I’m gonna go skiing this winter), place or reality (fictitious/fantasy) (e.g., You you’re the mom and I’m the dad (ICC = 0.89). TALKATIVENESS SCALE (α = 0.71) Number of words Number of words per minute (ICC = 1.00). Number of utterances Number of utterances per minute (ICC = 1.00). Number of utterances per speaking turn Percentage of utterances that express more than one utterance (separated by a delay of more than 2 s) per speaking turn (ICC = 0.93). ASSERTIVENESS SCALE (α = 0.66) Initiations Percentage of utterances that initiate conversation, rather than answering a question (ICC = 0.88). Requests Percentage of utterances that formulate requests (ICC = 0.56). Conversation breakdown repairs Percentage of utterances that repair conversation breakdowns (e.g., child: “Box.,” research assistant: “What?,” child: “The box.” (ICC = 0.52). COMMUNICATIVE CONTROL SCALE (α = 0.38) Fluidity Percentage of utterances that are free of involuntary and unnecessary repetition or hesitation (e.g., “I want the. . . the bottle”) (ICC = 0.93). Non-interruption Percentage of utterances that do not interrupt the interlocutor (ICC = 0.72). RESPONSIVENESS SCALE (α = 0.61) Contingency Percentage of utterances that adequately respond to a request by the interlocutor (e.g., research assistant: “Will you play with the puzzle?,” child: “OK.”) (ICC = 0.81). Utterance clarity Percentage of utterances that express clear and understandable statement (ICC = 0.14b). aICC, Intraclass correlation coefficient. The speech samples of this study were codified by the same person. However, the principal author and an undergraduate student codify eighteen speech samples separately, during the validation process of the PSCS-P, in order to compute the ICC of each variable. bThis variable’s ICC is below the “fair” level of 0.40 suggested by Cicchetti (1994). But when the inter-rater reliability is calculated in terms of percentage of agreement, the rate of this variable still remains relatively high at 91%, even higher than other variables. The lack of variability in this variable seems to have reduced

TL;DR: Analysis of RTs, ERPs, and pupil dilation showed that 5-year-olds did engage in advance preparation, a critical aspect of proactive control, but only when reactive control was made more difficult, whereas 10-year's engaged in proactive control whenever possible.

TL;DR: The current literature on set shifting in children in comparison with task switching in adults is reviewed in order to highlight the range of factors that impact on children's ability to flexibly shift between tasks.