Executive Functions in Children With Specific Language Impairment: A Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Mounting evidence demonstrates deficits in children with specific language impairment (SLI) beyond the linguistic domain. Using meta-analysis, this study examined differences in children with and without SLI on tasks measuring inhibition and cognitive flexibility. Method: Databases were searched for articles comparing children (4-14 years) with and without SLI on behavioral measures of inhibition or cognitive flexibility. Weighted average effect size was calculated using multilevel modeling to measure potential group differences. Results: The analysis included 46 studies. Of those, 34 included inhibitory control measures and 22 included cognitive flexibility tasks. Children with SLI performed below same-aged peers on both inhibitory control tasks (g = -.56) and cognitive flexibility tasks (g = -.27). Moderator analyses showed no effect of linguistic task demands, participant age, or severity of language impairment on the degree of difference between children with SLI and controls on measures of inhibitory control. Conclusion: Reliable differences between children with and without SLI were found on inhibition and cognitive flexibility tasks. A moderate group effect was found for inhibition tasks, but there was only a small effect for cognitive flexibility tasks. Results of moderator analyses suggest that these deficits are present throughout development despite task demands or severity of linguistic impairment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it