1. The Relationship Between Executive Function and Language Abilities in Grade School Children
By: Jacquelyn Liesen
Faculty Mentors: Mrs. Jill Fahy & Dr. Rebecca Throneburg

2. Executive Functions High-Order Cognitive abilities Cognitive Processes
Attentional Control and Shifting
Inhibition
Working Memory
Fundamental Components
Goal Selection
Planning/Organizing
Initiation/Persistence
Flexibility/Shifting
Self-monitoring/regulation
Executive functions are comprised of multiple cognitive abilities, including attentional control and shifting, inhibition, and working memory. They are essential for success in everyday life.
In addition to these cognitive processes, executive functions are also comprised of specific components: Goal Selection, Planning/Organizing, Initiation/Persistence, Flexibility/Shifting, Self-monitoring

3. Development of Executive Functions & Language
Longest developmental phase in humans
Birth through mid-20s
Developmental spurts correspond with frontal lobe maturity
Attentional and inhibitory control
Rapid development in first few years of life
Planning/organization
Emerging skills throughout childhood
More sophisticated in adolescence
Flexibility/shifting
Emerges in early school-age
Matures in adolescence, early 20s
Self-monitoring
Not fully developed til late adolescence/early 20s
Language
Critical period 0-3
Morphology
Generally mastered by age five
Vocabulary acquisition
Shifts from oral exposure to written exposure
Proceeds throughout school years, adolescence
Syntax
Spoken syntax levels off in early school years
Written syntax becomes more complex
Whereas much is known about typical language development, much less specific knowledge is available about the development of executive functions.
Longest developmental phase in humans
Developmental spurts tend to correspond with frontal lobe refinement and maturity
Rapid development begins in first few years of life
Emerging skills throughout childhood
Many skills approach maturity in teens
Refinement in early to mid 20s
Language
Language consists of content, form, and use. Semantically, receptive language abilities are typically higher than expressive language abilities. Again, see pattern of development beginning in the first few years of life, and extending into early school years. Complex use, syntax forms... Vocab become more refined in later school years

4. Literature Review: Relationship Between Language and EFs
Few studies in this area
Most involve isolated assessment of EF skills in un-naturalistic environments, with minimal language assessment
Fewer still have evaluated EF behaviors in naturalistic environments
Research has concluded
Children with SLI may have a deficit in working memory (Hoffman & Gillam, Marton & Schwartz)
Significance between preschooler's narrative language abilities and inhibition, working memory, flexibility, and planning (Trainor)
Typically developing adolescents and those with SLI differ in executive functions on the BRIEF (Hughes, Turkstra, and Wulfeck)
A few studies have found correlations between isolated executive functions and certain language processes however, most involve isolated assessment of EF skills in un-naturalistic environments, with minimal language assessment. Fewer still have evaluated EF behaviors in naturalistic environments
Marton and Schwartz found a significant impairment for children with Specific Language Impairment in working memory
Hoffman and Gillam found a significant difference between typically developing children and children with SLI in working memory
Trainor did not find significant correlations between PPVT scores and performance on the BRIEF-P, but significant relationships were found between preschooler's narrative language abilities and functional measures of executive control for inhibition, working memory, flexibility, and planning
Hughes, Turkstra, and Wulfeck found a significant difference between typically developing adolescents and adolescents with SLI on the BRIEF.

5. Research Questions
What is the relationship between executive functions and receptive language skills in typically developing children ages six and eight years of age?
What is the relationship between executive functions and expressive language skills in typically developing children ages six and eight years of age?
What is the relationship between executive functions and structure language skills in typically developing children ages six and eight years of age?
What is the relationship between executive functions and content language skills in typically developing children ages six and eight years of age?

6. Response to Intervention
Subjects
First Grade
Third Grade
Total 14 13
Mean Age
80 months
104 months
Age Range
75-86 months
months
Speech Disorder 1 3
Language Disorder
Response to Intervention
5 - reading
2 - reading
2 - math
27 total participants
All within regular education classroom
14 First grade
Mean age 80 months
One had a speech disorder and 5 were receiving RTI for reading
13 Third grade
Mean age 104 months
Three had a speech disorder and one had a language disorder in syntax.
Two were receiving RTI for reading and two for math.
Attending a school in Central Illinois in a regular education classroom

7. Assessment Measures: Language
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-4
Receptive language
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4
Language skills
Core Language Score
Expressive Language Index
Receptive Language Index
Language Content Index
Language Structure Index
Working Memory Index
We used the PPVT, the CELF, and the Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Function – Parent. The PPVT examines a child’s receptive language ability.
The CELF assessed language skills. Nine subtests were administered: Concepts and Following Directions, Word Structure, Recalling Sentences, Formulated Sentences, Word Classes, Sentence Structure, Expressive Vocabulary, Number Repetition, and Familiar Sequences. Performance on individual subtests generated a Core Language Score, an Expressive Language Index, and a Receptive Language Index. In addition, subtest scores were further transformed into a Language Content Index, a Language Structure Index, and a Working Memory Index.

8. Assessment Measures: Executive Functions
Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Functions – Parent Form
Parents’ rating of executive function ability in naturalistic environment
Initiate
Working Memory
Plan/Organize
Organization of Materials
Monitor
Inhibit Control
Shift Control
Emotional Control
Global Executive Composite
T-scores of 65 and above indicate clinical significance/area of concern
The Parent Rating form from the BRIEF was used to capture parents’ observations of EF behaviors in children’s daily environments. Indices on the BRIEF include:
The BRIEF measured eight subdomains of executive functions: Initiate, Working Memory, Plan/Organize, Organization of Materials, Monitor, Inhibit Control, Shift Control, and Emotional Control. An overall Global Executive Composite is given from two sub-indexes. The Behavioral Regulation Index is composed of the inhibit control, shift control, and emotional control sub-domains. The Metacognition Index consists of the initiate, working memory, plan/organize, organization of materials, and monitor domains. High scores on the BRIEF signify advanced executive dysfunction.

9. (Behavior Regulation Index) BRIEF MI (Metacognition Index)
Results
Means and Standard Deviations of BRIEF
BRIEF GEC
BRIEF BRI
(Behavior Regulation Index)
BRIEF MI (Metacognition Index)
First Grade:
Groups Mean
Standard Deviation 52 12 11
Third Grade: 14 15 53
Overall: 13
All within normal range
Above 65 = impairment
Standard scores represented as T-scores with mean of 50 and a SD of +/-15.
T-scores c>65 are considered clinically significant (higher score = more impairment)

10. Results Means and Standard Deviations of CELF
CELF Core Lang.
CELF Receptive Lang.
CELF Express. Lang.
CELF Lang. Content
CELF Lang. Structure
CELF Working Memory
First Grade:
Groups Mean
Standard Dev.
104 11
106 9
105 13
103 15
Third Grade:
107
110 12
108 14
111
109 10 99
Overall:
101
All means between which is within normal range
Mean=100. Typical performance = +/- SD of 15

11. Results Means and Standard Deviations of PPVT Standard Score
First Grade:
Groups Mean
Standard Deviation
104 12
Third Grade:
121 22
Overall:
112 19
The First Grade mean is within the normal range and the third grade mean is 1 SD above the mean
Mean=100. Typical performance = +/- SD of 15

12. Relationship between PPVT and BRIEF Parent
BRIEF GEC
BRIEF BRI
(Behavior Regulation Index)
BRIEF MI
(Metacognition Index)
PPVT
-.317
-.298
-.371
Insignificant correlation between PPVT & BRIEF
No significant correlations

13. Relationship between BRIEF &CELF
Sig at the * = ** = .01 level
BRIEF GEC
(Composite)
BRIEF BRI
(Behavior Regulation Index: Inhibit Control, Shift Control, & Emotional Control)
BRIEF MI
(Metacognition Index: Initiate, Working Memory, Plan/Organize, Organization of Materials, & Monitor)
CELF Core
-.460*
-.428*
-.443*
CELF Receptive
-.369
-.264
(Shift-.258, Inhibit -.221, Emotional Control -.312)
-.400*
(Initiate-.418*, Working Memory-.332, Plan/Organize-.288, Monitor -.332, Materials-.110)
CELF Expressive
-.495**
(Shift-.606**, Inhibit-.372, Emotional Control-.312)
-.489**
(Plan/Organize-.579**, Monitor-.490**, Initiate-.436*, Working Memory-.399, Materials-.135)
CELF Content
-.282
-.249
(Shift-.323, Inhibit-.195, Emotional Control-.269)
-.300
(Plan/Organize-.238, Monitor-.244, Initiate-.281, Working Memory-.196, Materials-.061)
CELF Structure
-.404*
-.348
(Shift-.518**, Inhibit-.328, Emotional Control--.269)
-.405*
(Plan/Organize-.508**, Monitor-.439*, Initiate-.414*, Working Memory-.333, Materials-.135)
Significant correlation between CELF & BRIEF
CELF Expressive Language & all 3 BRIEF EF indices.
CELF Core Language & all 3 BRIEF EF indices.
The strongest relationships were between:
BRIEF Shift & CELF Expressive Language
BRIEF Plan/Organize & CELF Expressive Language
BRIEF Monitor & CELF Expressive Language
BRIEF Initiate & CELF Expressive Language

14. Clinical Implications
Suggests that expressive communication skills engage not only semantics & syntax, but also EFs.
Expressive language skills are particularly related to planning and organizing, shifting, monitoring, and initiating
Indicate children with weak expressive language skills may also have weak executive function skills.
Successful use of compensatory strategies is dependent upon the presence of intact executive functions
Speech-language pathologists should assess children’s executive functions in addition to language
Avoid assuming that intact executive function skills are available to compensate for weak language skills
Within the field of speech-language pathology, components of language are a primary focus for communication and academic performance. The results of the current study suggest that expressive communication skills engage not only semantics and syntax, but also executive functions—particularly shifting, planning, organization, and monitoring.
Results of the current study indicate children with weak expressive language skills may also have weak executive function skills. Successful use of compensatory strategies is dependent upon the presence of intact executive functions which serve to monitor, regulate, organize, and initiate the use of said strategies.
Speech-language pathologists should assess children’s executive functions in addition to language in order to identify more specific profiles and gain insight into communication breakdowns within the child’s home and academic environments.
Development of accommodations or compensatory strategies for children with language impairments should take into consideration the degree of executive functioning available to each child.
Lastly, speech-language pathologists should avoid assuming that intact executive function skills are available to compensate for weak language skills

15. Limitations Small sample with similar demographics.
Executive function behaviors are based on parent report only, without use of direct measures.
Did not assess language in naturalistic environments
A limitation of this research study includes a small sample with similar demographics. All of the children attended the same public elementary school in central Illinois.
Although executive functions are measured in an ecologically valid manner, they are also based on parent report instead of direct measures. A more robust study would include both types of evaluation.
In addition, language measurements we chose used highly structured isolated tasks, rather than also including more environmentally natural, spontaneous assessments.

16. Future research Similar research to validate findings
Subtypes of children with specific language impairment (semantic, syntactic)
Treatment of executive functions for children with language impairments
The nature of the relationship between executive functions and language should be further evaluated. This study found significant relationships between executive functions and language. Specifically, expressive language and language structure are related to shifting, initiating, planning and organizing, and monitoring. More research is needed to validate the current research on typical grade school children with larger sample sizes and differing demographics. The present study only researched Caucasian first and third graders within central Illinois. Future research should determine if the results can be applied to the general population in differing ages.
Also, research on the relationship between executive functions and language in children with different types of specific language impairments (semantic and syntactic) is needed. The results indicate that executive functions and language are correlated; therefore children with language impairments may also have executive function deficits. Various language disorders should be researched to determine if this correlation is present.
Future research should investigate treatment of executive functions for children with language impairments (children with and without concomitant executive function deficits). A variety of treatment settings should be studied including early intervention, within the classroom, and with SLPs outside the classroom. Potential changes within the treatment settings and the functional impact on academic performance should also be researched.

17. References
Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 8,
Anderson, V. A., Anderson, P., Northam, E., Jacobs, R., & Catroppa, C. (2001). Development of executive functions through late childhood and adolescence in and australian sample. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20,
Dunn, L., & Dunn, D. (Ed.). (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test, fourth edition. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.
Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). Behavior rating inventory of executive function. Child Neuropsychology, 6,
Hoffman, L. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2004). Verbal and spatial information processing constraints in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, doi: /04/
Hughes, D. M., Turkstra, L. S., & Wulfeck, B. B. (2009). Parent and self-ratings of executive function in adolescents with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 44(6), doi: /

18. References
Im-Bolter, N., Johnson, J., & Pascual-Leone, J. (2006). Processing limitations in children with specific language impairment: The role of executive function. Child Development, 77,
Marton, K., & Schwartz, R. G. (2003). Working memory capacity and language processes in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, doi: /03/
Richard, G. J., & Fahy, J. K. (2005). The source for development of executive functions. East Moline, Illinois: Linguisystems.
Trainor, K. (2010). The relationship between preschool executive function skills and oral narrative skills. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Communication Disorders and Sciences, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois.
Ye, Z., & Zhou, X. (2009). Executive control in language processing. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33, doi: /j.neubiorev