Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Steenbergen‐Hu, Saiying
• Olszewski‐Kubilius, Paula
• Calvert, Eric

Titel

PROTOCOL: The Direct and Indirect Effects of School‐Based Executive Function Interventions on Children and Adolescents’ Executive Function, Academic, Social‐Emotional, and Behavioral Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Ist Teil von

• Campbell systematic review, 2017, Vol.13 (1), p.1-63

Ort / Verlag

Oslo: Wiley

Erscheinungsjahr

2017

Quelle

Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Executive function (EF) has been linked to many important aspects of child and adolescent functioning, such as academic achievement, self-regulated learning, social-emotional development, physical well-being, and behavioral problems. Planning and organization, two key executive functions, are found to be the most important predictors of school grades for middle school students with ADHD (Langberg, Dvorsky, & Evans, 2013). The current meta-analysis will focus on three core components of executive functions: inhibition (also called inhibitory control), working memory (or updating), and cognitive flexibility (or shifting, task-switching). The aim of current meta-analysis is to comprehensively synthesize the efficacy of school-based executive function interventions on typically developing children and adolescents. Specifically, this review will address the following five key questions: (1) Do school-based executive function interventions help improve children and adolescents' executive function in general and/or their specific skills in inhibition, working memory, and cognitive flexibility? (2) Do school-based executive function interventions help improve the academic achievement, social-emotional and behavioral performance of children and adolescents? (3) Are some types of school-based executive function interventions more effective than others (e.g., school curricula/educational programs versus mind-body interventions)? (4) How, for whom, and under what circumstances do school-based executive function interventions work or work the best? and (5) What are noteworthy features (e.g., dosage, duration, and design mechanisms of interventions) of effective school-based EF interventions and key aspects of program implementation and evaluation of the interventions' outcomes that have great potential practical and policy implications for future research and practices?