Psychosocial adversity and executive functions in children and adolescents: a systematic review of mediating and moderating influences of parenting behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Summarize the state of the evidence on potential mediating and moderating roles of parenting behaviors in the relationship between psychosocial adversity and executive functions among children and adolescents. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and PsycINFO databases in June 2024, screening for eligible studies, in duplicate, and summarizing results from individual studies. RESULTS: Twenty-one eligible studies were identified, 18 from the USA and Canada, and 3 from other countries. In 17 studies of mediation, developmentally supportive parenting behaviors and non-supportive parenting behaviors at least partly explained the relationship between adversity (low socioeconomic status, household chaos, intimate partner violence, and maternal depression) and executive functions. Among four studies testing moderation, two suggested that a context of developmentally supportive parenting behaviors (e.g., maternal sensitivity) may act as a protective factor, buffering the negative effects of adversity (low socioeconomic status) on executive functions. CONCLUSION: Parenting practices are potentially important intervening mechanisms explaining the effects of adversity on child executive functions, and developmentally supportive parenting behaviors could mitigate negative effects. However, the current evidence base is limited, particularly about potential buffering effects, and further research is needed across a wider range of countries and settings.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".