The Flexible Item Selection Task (FIST): A Measure of Executive Function in Preschoolers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstraction and cognitive flexibility were assessed in 197 preschool children at 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of age using the Flexible Item Selection Task, a task adapted from the Visual-Verbal Test (Feldman & Drasgow, 1951). On this new inductive task, children were shown a set of 3 cards and required to select 2 cards that matched each other on 1 dimension (Selection 1) and then to select a different pair of cards that matched each other on another dimension (Selection 2). Thus, 1 of the 3 cards always had to be selected twice according to different dimensions. Two-year-olds failed to understand basic task requirements as assessed by a criterial measure. Three-year-olds did more poorly on Selection 1 than 4- and 5-year-olds (who performed near ceiling), suggesting that 3-year-olds had difficulty with the abstraction component of the task. Four-year-olds did worse than 5-year-olds on Selection 2, suggesting that they had difficulty with the cognitive flexibility component (i.e., difficulty selecting the same card on more than 1 dimension). Results are discussed in terms of the development of executive function.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".