A Neuropsychological Tool For Simultaneous Reading And Executive Functions Assesment

Executive functions are a set of cognitive processes that enable goal-directed behavior, including inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility.

These skills are crucial for planning, problem-solving, and self-regulation.

Studying the relationship between executive functions and reading is important because both are fundamental to academic success and lifelong learning.

Understanding how these processes interact can inform educational strategies, improve early identification of learning difficulties, and guide the development of targeted interventions to enhance both reading proficiency and cognitive skills.

de Oliveira VF, Vial-Martins J, Pinto ALCB, Fonseca RP and Malloy-Diniz LF (2024) A new neuropsychological tool for simultaneous reading and executive functions assessment: initial psychometric properties. Front. Psychol. 15:1399388. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1399388

Key Points

• The Assessment of Reading and Executive Functions (AREF) test was developed to simultaneously evaluate reading comprehension and executive functions in students from 4th to 9th grade.
• The AREF shows initial evidence of construct validity through correlations with established measures of reading comprehension and executive functions.
• Performance on AREF subtests varied significantly across grade levels and between public and private school students, supporting its concurrent validity.
• The AREF demonstrates adequate internal consistency and reliability for most subtests, though further psychometric validation is needed.
• Limitations include a relatively small sample size, lack of private school students in 4th-5th grades, and focus on students from only two Brazilian states.
• This research highlights the interconnected nature of executive functions and reading skills, with implications for assessment and intervention in clinical and educational settings.

Rationale

The development of reading skills and executive functions are crucial for academic and professional success, as well as social integration (Rabiner et al., 2016; OECD, 2023).

While existing research has established connections between executive functions and reading comprehension (Gonçalves et al., 2017; Follmer, 2018), there is a lack of comprehensive assessment tools that simultaneously evaluate both constructs.

This study aims to address this gap by developing and validating the Assessment of Reading and Executive Functions (AREF) test.

The AREF was designed based on theoretical models of reading comprehension, such as the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) and the three-factor model of executive functions (Miyake et al., 2000; Diamond, 2013).

By integrating tasks that assess graphophonological-semantic flexibility, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and working memory within reading contexts, the AREF seeks to provide a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between these cognitive processes during reading.

This research is particularly timely given the increasing recognition of the role executive functions play in reading development and academic achievement (Peng & Kievit, 2020; Burgess & Cutting, 2023).

By validating a tool that assesses both constructs simultaneously, this study aims to contribute to more efficient and comprehensive evaluations in clinical and educational settings.

Method

Procedure

The study employed a cross-sectional design to validate the AREF test. Participants completed the AREF battery along with complementary tests used for validation.

Testing was conducted in two sessions over consecutive days, with each session lasting 30-40 minutes.

Sample

The sample consisted of 93 Brazilian students (aged 8-14) enrolled in 4th to 9th grade. Participants were recruited from both public (n=61) and private (n=32) schools in two Brazilian states.

Exclusion criteria included visual, auditory, neurological, behavioral, or cognitive impairments; developmental, language, or learning disorders; and reading difficulties.

Measures

1. AREF Battery:
   • Graphophonological-Semantic Flexibility (GSF) task
   • Inhibitory Control (IC) tasks (2 versions)
   • Flexibility (FL) task
   • Working Memory (WM) task
2. Validation measures:
   • Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI)
   • PROLEC Text Comprehension (4th-5th grade)
   • PROLEC-SE-R Narrative Comprehension (6th-9th grade)
   • Five Digit Test (FDT)
   • WISC-IV Digit Span subtest

Statistical measures

The study employed various statistical analyses, including:

• Spearman correlations for convergent validity
• Wilcoxon and t-tests for comparing performance across tasks
• ANOVA for grade-level comparisons
• Mann-Whitney and t-tests for public vs. private school comparisons
• Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency

Results

Hypothesis 1: AREF subtests will demonstrate convergent validity with established measures of reading comprehension and executive functions.

Results: Confirmed. Significant positive correlations were found between AREF subtests and external measures:

• GSF correlated with reading measures (rs = 0.355), inhibition (rs = 0.209), and verbal IQ (rs = 0.348)
• IC and FL tasks correlated with reading measures (rs = 0.339-0.367), inhibition (rs = 0.284-0.387), and verbal IQ (rs = 0.262-0.412)
• WM task correlated with reading measures (rs = 0.365), digit span (rs = 0.259-0.396), and verbal/performance IQ (rs = 0.328, 0.241)

---

Hypothesis 2: Performance on AREF subtests will differ significantly across grade levels.

Results: Confirmed. ANOVA revealed significant group effects for all subtests (p < 0.001), with 4th and 5th-grade students generally performing lower than higher grades.

---

Hypothesis 3: Performance on AREF subtests will differ between public and private school students.

Results: Partially confirmed. Significant differences were found for WM (p = 0.038), IC-1 (p = 0.043), and FL (p = 0.049) tasks, with private school students outperforming public school students. No significant differences were found for GSF and IC-2 tasks.

---

Hypothesis 4: AREF subtests will demonstrate adequate internal consistency.

Results: Partially confirmed. Internal consistency varied across subtests:

• GSF: Low (α = 0.566)
• IC and FL: Moderate (α = 0.768)
• WM: High (α = 0.881)

Insight

The AREF test demonstrates promise as a novel tool for simultaneously assessing reading comprehension and executive functions in school-aged children.

The significant correlations between AREF subtests and established measures of reading and executive functions provide evidence for its construct validity.

This suggests that the AREF effectively captures the interplay between these cognitive processes during reading tasks.

The study’s findings extend previous research by integrating executive function assessment within reading contexts.

This approach offers a more ecologically valid method for understanding how these skills interact in real-world reading situations.

The observed differences in performance across grade levels align with developmental literature, indicating that the AREF is sensitive to age-related changes in both reading and executive function abilities.

The differences found between public and private school students on some AREF subtests highlight the potential influence of educational context on cognitive development.

This finding warrants further investigation into the role of socioeconomic factors and educational quality in shaping reading and executive function skills.

Future research should focus on:

1. Expanding the sample size and geographical representation to enhance generalizability
2. Investigating the AREF’s sensitivity to clinical populations with reading or executive function deficits
3. Conducting longitudinal studies to examine the predictive validity of AREF scores for academic outcomes
4. Exploring potential interventions targeting both reading and executive functions based on AREF profiles

Strengths

The study had several methodological strengths, including:

1. Comprehensive assessment: The AREF battery incorporates multiple components of executive function within reading contexts, providing a more holistic evaluation than traditional separate assessments.
2. Convergent validity: The study employed well-established measures for validation, strengthening the evidence for the AREF’s construct validity.
3. Diverse sample: Inclusion of students from both public and private schools across multiple grade levels allows for meaningful comparisons and enhances generalizability.
4. Ecological validity: The AREF tasks simulate real-world reading situations, potentially offering more relevant insights than isolated cognitive tests.
5. Multiple statistical approaches: The use of various statistical methods provides a thorough examination of the AREF’s psychometric properties.

Limitations

The study has several limitations that should be considered:

1. Sample size and representation: The relatively small sample (N=93) from only two Brazilian states limits generalizability to the broader population.
2. Absence of private school students in 4th-5th grades: This gap in the sample may confound grade-level comparisons and limit conclusions about school type differences.
3. Cross-sectional design: The study cannot provide insights into the developmental trajectories of reading and executive functions over time.
4. Lack of socioeconomic data: Without this information, it’s challenging to disentangle the effects of school type from broader socioeconomic factors.
5. Limited clinical validation: The study focused on typically developing children, leaving questions about the AREF’s utility in clinical populations unanswered.

These limitations impact the generalizability of the findings and highlight the need for further research with larger, more diverse samples and longitudinal designs.

Implications

The development and initial validation of the AREF test have significant implications for both research and practice in educational and clinical psychology:

1. Integrated assessment: The AREF offers a more efficient and comprehensive approach to evaluating reading and executive function skills, potentially streamlining assessment processes in schools and clinics.
2. Targeted interventions: By identifying specific patterns of strengths and weaknesses across reading and executive function domains, the AREF could inform more tailored interventions for struggling readers.
3. Educational planning: The test’s sensitivity to grade-level differences suggests its potential use in tracking developmental progress and informing curriculum design.
4. Socioeconomic considerations: The observed differences between public and private school students highlight the need to consider educational context when interpreting cognitive assessments and planning interventions.
5. Theoretical advancements: The AREF’s integrated approach contributes to our understanding of the complex interactions between executive functions and reading processes, potentially informing future models of reading comprehension.
6. Cross-cultural applications: While developed in Brazil, the AREF’s structure could be adapted for use in other languages and cultural contexts, promoting cross-cultural research on reading and executive functions.

Variables influencing the results include:

• Age and grade level
• School type (public vs. private)
• Potential socioeconomic factors (not directly measured)
• Task complexity and cognitive load

The significance of these findings extends beyond the immediate context of the study, offering a new paradigm for assessing and understanding the cognitive underpinnings of reading comprehension.

As literacy skills become increasingly critical in the digital age, tools like the AREF may play a crucial role in identifying and addressing reading difficulties early in a child’s educational journey.

References

Primary reference

de Oliveira VF, Vial-Martins J, Pinto ALCB, Fonseca RP and Malloy-Diniz LF (2024) A new neuropsychological tool for simultaneous reading and executive functions assessment: initial psychometric properties. Front. Psychol. 15:1399388. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1399388

Other references

Burgess, A. N., & Cutting, L. E. (2023). The Behavioral and Neurobiological Relationships between Executive Function and Reading: A Review of Current and Preliminary Findings. Mind, Brain, and Education, 17(4), 267-278. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12378

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual review of psychology, 64(1), 135-168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

Follmer, D. J. (2018). Executive function and reading comprehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 53(1), 42-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1309295

Gonçalves, H. A., Viapiana, V. F., Sartori, M. S., Giacomoni, C. H., Stein, L. M., & Fonseca, R. P. (2017). Funções executivas predizem o processamento de habilidades básicas de leitura, escrita e matemática?. Neuropsicologia Latinoamericana, 9(3).

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and special education, 7(1), 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325860070010

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive psychology, 41(1), 49-100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734

OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Peng, P., & Kievit, R. A. (2020). The development of academic achievement and cognitive abilities: A bidirectional perspective. Child Development Perspectives, 14(1), 15-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12352

Rabiner, D. L., Godwin, J., & Dodge, K. A. (2016). Predicting academic achievement and attainment: The contribution of early academic skills, attention difficulties, and social competence. School Psychology Review, 45(2), 250-267.

Keep Learning

Socratic Questions for Class Discussion:

1. How might the integration of executive function assessment within reading tasks provide insights that traditional separate assessments might miss?
2. What are the potential implications of the observed differences between public and private school students? How might socioeconomic factors influence the development of reading and executive function skills?
3. How could the AREF test be adapted or extended to assess reading and executive functions in different languages or cultural contexts?
4. What ethical considerations should be taken into account when using comprehensive cognitive assessments like the AREF in educational settings?
5. How might the findings of this study inform the development of interventions targeting both reading skills and executive functions? What challenges might arise in designing such interventions?
6. Given the limitations of the study, what would be the most critical next steps in validating and refining the AREF test?
7. How might the relationship between executive functions and reading comprehension change throughout development? How could longitudinal research using the AREF contribute to our understanding of this relationship?
8. In what ways could the AREF potentially be used to identify students at risk for reading difficulties or executive function deficits? What precautions should be taken when using such assessments for screening purposes?
9. How does the AREF’s approach to assessment align with or challenge current models of reading comprehension? What new questions does it raise about the cognitive processes involved in reading?
10. Considering the increasing importance of digital literacy, how might future versions of the AREF need to evolve to capture the executive function demands of reading in digital environments?