Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24 (2009) 337–349

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

The contributions of ‘hot’ and ‘cool’ executive function to children’s

academic achievement, learning-related behaviors,
and engagement in kindergarten
Laura L. Brock a,∗ , Sara E. Rimm-Kaufman a , Lori Nathanson a , Kevin J. Grimm b
a
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, United States
b
University of California, Davis, CA, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Executive functioning (EF) refers to higher order thought processes considered founda-
Received 20 September 2007 tional for problem-solving. EF has both ‘cool’ cognitive and ‘hot’ emotional components.
Received in revised form 27 May 2009
This study asks: (a) what are the relative contributions of ‘hot’ and ‘cool’ EF to children’s
Accepted 13 June 2009
academic achievement? (b) What are the relative contributions of ‘hot’ and ‘cool’ EF to
learning-related classroom behaviors and observed engagement? (c) Do learning-related
Keywords:
classroom behaviors and observed engagement account for the relation between EF and
Executive function
Academic achievement achievement? For a sample of 173 kindergarteners, cool EF predicted math achievement,
Learning-related behavior learning-related classroom behaviors, and observed engagement. Hot EF did not predict any
Engagement achievement or behavior outcomes when examined concurrently with cool EF. Children’s
Kindergarten classroom behavior did not account for the relation between cool EF and math achievement,
School readiness suggesting cool EF and math performance are directly associated.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Contemporary conversations about school readiness present contradicting views. On one hand, a body of literature points
to children’s emotional and behavioral regulation as primary mechanisms driving school readiness (Blair, 2002; Raver, Garner,
& Smith-Donald, 2007). Children who are emotionally prepared to comply with the demands of the classroom exhibit
classroom behaviors that facilitate learning. For example, children who are able to share or take turns will be better equipped
to interact with peers and learning materials, resulting in more opportunities to learn. In practice, most kindergarten teachers
regard children’s behavioral regulation as more important than children’s academic knowledge in predicting adjustment to
kindergarten (Lin, Lawrence, & Gorell, 2003; Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000), corroborating the view that children’s
socio-emotional development drives school readiness.
On the other hand, policy increasingly emphasizes children’s pre-academic skills as criteria for school readiness (The
School Readiness Act of 2005). Empirical evidence supports this trend. An analysis incorporating six nationally representa-
tive longitudinal datasets consistently pointed not to children’s socio-emotional functioning but rather pre-academic skills
and learning-related abilities at ages 5 and 6, notably attention, as the important predictors in children’s later achieve-
ment (Duncan et al., 2007). This recent finding raises a question: What abilities do children need to succeed in the early
years of school? Executive functioning (EF) may play a key role in determining children’s successful transition to kinder-
garten.

∗ Corresponding author at: Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning, University of Virginia, 350 Old Ivy Way, Suite #300, Charlottesville, VA
22903, United States. Tel.: +1 434 249 4924.
E-mail address: llb3w@virginia.edu (L.L. Brock).

0885-2006/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.06.001
338 L.L. Brock et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24 (2009) 337–349

EF refers generally to the coordination of higher order thought processes (including inhibitory control, working mem-
ory, and attention) considered foundational to problem-solving (Zelazo, Mueller, Frye, & Markovitch, 2003). As such, EF is
implicated in any novel situation that requires active control over one’s thoughts and actions. This broad definition makes
EF cumbersome to parse. One suggestion is to conceptualize an emotional component of EF (one that facilitates emotion
regulation) and a cognitive component of EF (one that facilitates cognitive regulation) as two interrelated but distinct con-
structs (Blair et al., 2007; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Zelazo and Muller (2002) applied the terms hot EF to describe emotional
problem-solving and cool EF to describe cognitive problem-solving.
In classrooms, children must complete tasks that vary in their emotional implications. Some activities are, relatively
speaking, less emotionally laden, for example thinking abstractly; others involve regulation of potentially intense emotions,
such as deciding whether to hit the child that has taken one’s toy. Children engage in cognitive problem-solving, or cool
EF, when they encounter and manipulate abstract concepts and symbols (e.g., numbers and letters). The extent to which
children successfully navigate higher order thinking (abstraction) is dictated, in part, by their attention, working memory,
and inhibitory control—all cool EF skills. Children with high cool EF display higher levels of effortful control (defined as
voluntary attentional persistence; Eisenberg et al., 2004) as cool EF skill components underlie the behaviors exhibited by
children with high levels of effortful control.
Children also encounter problems in the classroom that have an emotional valence, requiring hot EF. For example, children
must wait for a turn, inhibit impulses to play with peers or tempting toys in favor of completing school work, and comply
with the demands of the classroom. Hot EF skills, including the ability to delay gratification and down-regulate emotional
responses, are foundational to emotion regulation. In sum, effortful control, or cognitive regulation, can be described as
behavioral manifestations of cool EF skill components; whereas emotion regulation can be considered a behavioral mani-
festation of hot EF skill components. Given the importance teachers place on children’s emotional and behavioral regulation
as well as the recent emphasis on achievement in early childhood education, understanding which skills are foundational to
kindergarteners’ learning and classroom behaviors becomes an important topic to be addressed.

1. Hot and cool EF

The distinction between hot and cool EF has both a biological basis and behavioral corollaries. Neuroimaging evi-
dence reveals two discrete brain regions are invoked for problem-solving: one that coordinates emotional processing
(orbitofrontal cortex) and one that coordinates cognitive processing (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; Bechara, Damasio,
Damasio, & Anderson, 1994; Bush, Luu, & Posner, 2000). These two regions are functionally related to hot and cool EF,
respectively. Adults with brain damage to the region responsible for cool EF lose the ability to learn novel material, or prob-
lem solve new solutions, while brain damage to the region associated with hot EF results in impulsivity, an inability to engage
in perspective-taking, and inappropriate behavior (see Ward, 2006).
Several tasks have been validated that primarily tap either hot or cool EF. Hot EF tasks have an emotional component that
children must negotiate in order to successfully problem solve. Examples include (a) snack delay: children presented with a
treat have the option to receive a small portion immediately or wait a period of time for a larger portion (Mischel, Shoda, &
Rodriguez, 1989); (b) the gift wrap task: children must not peek while a researcher noisily wraps a gift (Kochanska, Murray,
& Harlan, 2000); (c) whisper: children must whisper the names of favorite cartoon characters; in so doing they demonstrate
an ability to down-regulate responses to excitatory stimuli (Kochanska et al., 2000).
Relative to hot EF tasks, cool tasks do not introduce emotional consequences. Examples include (a) the Stroop test (1935):
children presented with color names written with a non-matching ink must say the color of the ink and inhibit reading the
name; (b) the pencil tap (Smith-Donald, Raver, Hayes, & Richardson, 2007): children tap a pencil once if the researcher taps
twice or twice if the researcher taps once; (c) Bear & Dragon (Kochanska et al., 2000): children follow directions given by
bear, but not dragon. It is worth noting that cool EF tasks can be modified to be hot EF tasks if children are rewarded for
positive performance or punished for poor performance, thus introducing an emotionally charged component to the task.
Context plays an important role in the administration of hot and cool EF tasks. In this study, assessors were instructed not
to offer any feedback or praise (a form of reward) in relation to EF task performance.

2. EF and children’s outcomes

Although hot and cool EF are related, the unique aspects differentially predict emotional, behavioral, and tempera-
mental characteristics in children, suggesting a hot and cool EF distinction is useful (Hongwanishkul, Happaney, Lee, &
Zelazo, 2005). The classroom environment offers a wealth of opportunities for children to demonstrate emotional and cog-
nitive problem-solving. As such, hot and cool EF may be critical competencies for children’s learning and behavior in the
classroom.

2.1. Academic achievement

In the classroom, children’s achievement relies on the ability to remember instructions and represent the goal of the
lesson (working memory), attend to the important features of the lesson (executive attention), and stay on task (inhibitory
control), suggesting cool EF may play an important role in kindergarteners’ achievement. In addition, the extent to which
 L.L. Brock et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24 (2009) 337–349 339

children are able to down-regulate their emotions and attend to academic content may depend in large part upon hot EF
abilities.

2.1.1. Cool EF
Empirical evidence suggests a link between cool EF and academic achievement with notable contributions to math
achievement. An analysis of six large-scale datasets found that cool EF-related abilities were an important indicator of
school readiness (Duncan et al., 2007). Studies conducted with preschoolers (McClelland et al., 2007), and kindergarten-
ers (Blair & Razza, 2007) implicate cool EF with growth in reading, writing, and math. In elementary school, cool EF was
related to achievement in language arts, math, and science (St. Clair-Thompson & Gathercole, 2006). Longitudinally, cool EF-
related abilities at school entry predict achievement in second grade after controlling for prior achievement and family risk
(McClelland, Morrison, & Holmes, 2000). Preschoolers’ cool EF predicted verbal comprehension, understanding directions,
and math at first grade, but uniquely predicted math when cognitive ability was held constant (Clark & Woodward, 2007).
In a sample of children from low-income families, cool EF accounted for up to 40% of the variance in standardized test scores
(Waber, Gerber, Turcios, Wagner, & Forbes, 2006), suggesting that cool EF plays an important role in achievement for children
at risk for school failure.

2.1.2. Hot EF
Research also shows a pattern of associations between children’s hot EF and academic outcomes. Hot EF appears to play
a role in adolescent achievement, but findings are scant in early childhood. An analysis of indicators of school readiness
across six large datasets suggests that children’s display of hot EF abilities (e.g., emotion regulation) upon kindergarten entry
does not significantly add to achievement growth in elementary school (Duncan et al., 2007). Preschool (Howse, Calkins,
Anastopoulos, Keane, & Shelton, 2003) and kindergarten (Graziano, Reavis, Keane, & Calkins, 2007; Trentacosta & Izard,
2007) teacher ratings of hot EF abilities were related to achievement outcomes in three studies, contradicting Duncan et al.’s
(2007) finding.
Longitudinal research suggests hot EF in early childhood plays a role in later achievement. One study found that preschool-
ers’ hot EF predicted SAT scores 10 years later (Mischel et al., 1989). In eighth grade, hot EF abilities accounted for more variance
in GPA than IQ (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005). Taken together, evidence suggests both hot and cool EF may be important
predictors of achievement. Cool EF may play a more critical role in achievement in the early years of school, or it may be that
the link between hot EF and achievement in kindergarten is an understudied phenomenon. In this study, we concurrently
examine links between hot EF, cool EF, and kindergarteners’ achievement to address this question.

2.2. Learning-related behavior and engagement

Children’s learning-related behavior in the classroom relies on mental representation of rules and routines (working
memory), the ability to comply with teacher demands without distraction (executive attention), and the ability to control
impulses in favor of doing what is required by the teacher (inhibitory control). Engagement describes the extent to which
children focus on a task or teacher-endorsed activity without interruption. As such, both hot and cool EF may be implicated
in children’s display of learning-related behaviors and engagement.

2.2.1. Cool EF
Low cool EF has been associated with poor behavioral regulation in preschool (Cole, Usher, & Cargo, 1993), problem
behaviors in kindergarten (McGlamery, Ball, Henley, & Besozzi, 2007), and observed off-task behavior in second grade
(Snell, 1998). Longitudinally, empirical evidence suggests a relation between cool EF and teacher-rated classroom behav-
iors from kindergarten through adolescence, even after controlling for cognitive ability, memory, and motivation (Seguin,
Nagin, & Tremblay, 2004). Cool EF deficits predicted steep problem behavior trajectories (Eisenberg et al., 2000; Zhou et al.,
2007). Cool EF deficits in kindergarten were more predictive of high school dropout than observed aggression or opposition
(Vitaro, Brendgen, Larose, & Tremblay, 2005). Of interest to prevention science, children appear to manifest cool EF deficits
before problem behaviors, suggesting low cool EF may serve as an early marker of future problem behaviors (Riggs, Blair, &
Greenberg, 2003).
Although low cool EF has been linked with problem behaviors, the extent to which high cool EF is linked to learning-
related behaviors or engagement in the classroom is less known. One aim of this study is to examine the relation between EF
and children’s display of learning-related behaviors as well as observed engagement in learning, both thought to promote
achievement.

2.2.2. Hot EF
Hot EF in early childhood may be an important contributor to learning-related behaviors from kindergarten through
adolescence (Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988). In preschool, hot EF abilities are related to teacher-rated social competence in
the classroom (Blair, Denham, Kochanoff, & Whipple, 2004). High hot EF upon school entry has been shown to predict teacher-
rated prosocial skills and positive relationships in kindergarten, whereas low EF was associated with problem behaviors
(McIntyre, Blacher, & Baker, 2006).
340 L.L. Brock et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24 (2009) 337–349

In sum, mounting evidence suggests that both hot and cool EF relate to children’s achievement and classroom behavior.
Yet, previous studies have not measured both components of EF simultaneously, therefore the unique contributions of each
type of EF, while hypothesized here, have not been systematically examined.

2.3. Can learning-related behaviors and engagement account for the relation between EF and achievement?

Previous studies have demonstrated a relation between EF and achievement (e.g., Blair & Razza, 2007), with numerous
studies suggesting a distinct relation between EF and math (e.g., Bull & Scerif, 2001; Espy et al., 2004). For example, cool EF
at age six was related to performance on two standardized math assessments, both concurrently and for three subsequent
years, suggesting moderate stability in the relation between EF and math performance (Mazzocco & Kover, 2007). As well,
there is an association between EF and classroom behavior (e.g., McGlamery et al., 2007).
Also well documented is the relation between classroom behavior and achievement (Valiente, Lemery-Chalfant, Swanson,
& Reiser, 2008; Welsh, Parke, Widaman & O’Neil, 2001). Learning-related behaviors exhibited in kindergarten predict chil-
dren’s achievement through second grade (McClelland et al., 2000). Likewise, growth in mathematics performance from
kindergarten through third grade can be partially explained by children’s engagement in learning (Bodovski & Farkas,
2007). The question becomes whether EF has a direct association with achievement or whether the relation between EF
and achievement can be explained by learning-related behaviors and engagement.

2.4. Present study

The present study examines whether hot and cool EF upon kindergarten entry predicts successful school transition. Three
research questions are addressed: (a) What are the unique contributions of hot and cool EF to kindergarteners’ academic
achievement? (b) What are the contributions of hot and cool EF to kindergarteners’ learning-related behaviors and engage-
ment? (c) To what extent do learning-related behaviors and engagement account for the relation between EF and academic
outcomes?
Several hypotheses guided these questions. First, it was anticipated that cool EF would have a stronger association with
children’s achievement outcomes than hot EF because academic tasks are directly associated with cognitive problem-solving.
Next, it was anticipated hot EF would be more predictive of learning-related behaviors and engagement, as the classroom
would present children with opportunities for ‘real-life’ decision-making (e.g., taking turns) requiring emotional restraint
and self-control in tempting situations. Further, expectations were that children’s learning-related behaviors and engage-
ment would partially account for the relation between EF and achievement, but that math and EF may retain some unique
association.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

Participants attended one of 36 kindergarten classrooms at seven elementary schools located in four rural school dis-
tricts in the southeast. Participants were 173 children, 90 (52%) male, 83 (48%) female. Parents reported children’s ethnicity
as follows: 126 (72.5%) Caucasian American, 29 (17%) African American, 6 (3%) other, 12 (7.5%) unreported. Participants
also included 36 kindergarten teachers (1 male, 35 female). Teaching experience ranged from 1 to 37 years (mean = 18
years).

3.2. Procedure

Parents of incoming kindergarten students were invited in person to participate during kindergarten registration and
open house night. Parents completed a Family Demographic Questionnaire as they gave consent for their child to participate
in the study. Parents of 333 kindergarteners signed consents representing roughly 60% of the children who enrolled in
kindergarten prior to the first day of school. To obtain a final sample of 173 child participants, between four to six children
were randomly selected from the consented students in each classroom. Chi-squared analyses indicated selected and non-
selected children did not differ on gender, parent marital status, income, or maternal educational attainment, according
to information collected from parents via questionnaire at recruitments. Teachers and principals were invited in person to
participate in the study and received a stipend for their time.
In the fall and spring of kindergarten, research assistants administered EF and achievement tasks; children were also
given a cognitive abilities test during a different session. These tasks were given to each child individually in a quiet location
at school in the morning. Each study child was observed approximately five times on three separate days throughout the
school year for a period of 10 min. Research assistants blind to the aims of the study observed in the classroom then rated
Children’s Observed Engagement in Learning (Rimm-Kaufman, 2005). In the spring, teachers rated children’s learning-related
behaviors.
 L.L. Brock et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24 (2009) 337–349 341

3.3. Measures

The Family Demographic Questionnaire is a 10-item questionnaire describing the demographic characteristics of families.
In terms of demographic risk, 35% of families reported an annual income of less than $30,000 (M = .35, SD = .48), 68% of
mothers reported educational attainment at or below high school diploma (M = .68, SD = .47), and 26% of mothers reported
single-parent status (M = .26, SD = .44). The presence of each risk factor (i.e., family income less than $30,000, maternal
education high school or less, or single parent status) was coded as 1 and summed to create a composite indicator of family
risk. Of the 173 families, 126 or 72% were identified as having one or more risk factors. Parents were also asked to report on
children’s preschool experience. Preschool experience was reduced to a dichotomous variable, representing whether or not
children went to preschool at age 4 (yes = 1). If children were with a parent, relative, or friend, they were considered not to
have attended preschool; 61% of families reported no formal preschool experience. If children attended a public or private
pre-kindergarten, group child care outside of the home, or Head Start, they were considered to have gone to preschool; 39%
of families reported some formal preschool experience.
The Woodcock–Johnson III Test of Cognitive Abilities-Brief Intellectual Assessment (BIA) is a widely recognized test of chil-
dren’s cognitive ability (Woodcock, McGrew & Mather, 2001b). The BIA is comprised of three subtests: verbal comprehension
(a test of general knowledge using picture vocabulary), visual matching (a test of processing speed using shape match-
ing), and concept formation (a test of fluid reasoning using pattern recognition). Children’s raw scores were converted into
standardized W-scores.

3.3.1. Hot and cool EF

A live-coding battery, adapted from the Preschool Self-Regulation Assessment—PSRA (Cameron & Morrison, 2007; Smith-
Donald et al., 2007), was comprised of four tasks designed to tap different dimensions of executive function. Modifications
during a piloting phase confirmed variability in a sample of kindergarten students. Raters administered the tasks during a
piloting phase of the battery and dual coded to collect reliability data. An intraclass correlation coefficient between the two
raters (two-way random model) across nine children equaled .99.
Cool EF was measured using the Balance Beam task and the Pencil Tap task. In the Balance Beam task, children were asked
to walk along a 6-ft. long piece of tape on the floor for three timed trials. The first trial, they were simply instructed to
pretend the tape was a balance beam to habituate to the task. The second trial, children were asked to walk along the line
as slowly as possible and research assistants verified children understood the directions. Research assistants repeated the
instructions and timed the third trial. Children’s rating on this task was determined by the time in seconds on the third trial.
In the Pencil Tap task, children were asked to tap a pencil once when the examiner tapped the pencil twice and to tap twice
when the examiner tapped once. Research assistants verified children’s understanding of the task during a warm-up phase
consisting of three trials. After children demonstrated an understanding of the task, they were given 16 scored trials. The
incorrect number of taps (including errors and omissions) were tallied. These tasks have been validated and widely used in
other research (see Blair & Razza, 2007; Diamond & Taylor, 1996; Kochanska et al., 2000).
Hot EF was measured through a Toy Sort task and two components of the Gift Wrap task. The Toy Sort task required children
to sort a variety of attractive toys (e.g., toy cell phones) into bins without playing with them. A research assistant instructed,
“These are a few of my favorite toys, but we don’t have time to play with them today. Please don’t play with these toys.” The
research assistant modeled the toy sort activity by placing one of each of the toys correctly in the bins then asked children
to sort the remainder of the toys. Children were rated on whether they played with the toys at any time during the task. For
children who did play with the toys, the elapsed time until they first played with the toys was recorded in seconds. During the
Gift Wrap task, a research assistant explained to the child she brought a surprise, but forgot to wrap it. Children were situated
with their backs to the table and instructed not to ‘look’ while the researcher noisily wrapped the gift for 1 min. Children
were rated on whether they looked (i.e., turned around) while the gift was being wrapped. The time at which they first
looked was recorded in seconds. After the minute passed, children were reoriented toward the table and the gift was placed
6 in. away. Children were asked to wait an additional minute before opening the gift. Children were then rated on whether
or not they touched the gift. The time at which they first touched the gift was recorded in seconds. In sum, two performance
measures were extracted from the gift wrap task—the time elapsed until children peeked during the gift wrapping phase
and the time elapsed until children touched the gift during the waiting phase. These tasks have been validated and widely
used in other research (see Carlson, 2005; Kochanska, Murray, Jacques, Koenig, & Vandegeest, 1996; Kochanska et al., 2000;
Li-Grining, 2007).
The Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement letter-word identification and applied problems subtests (Woodcock,
McGrew, & Mather, 2001a) are commonly used measures of children’s early literacy and math skills. Children’s raw scores
were converted into standardized W-scores for both fall and spring measures.
Learning-Related Behaviors represents a summed composite of four highly correlated behavior constructs reported by
teachers (r = .69–.85, p < .01). Two constructs were obtained from the Social Competence and Adjustment Scale (Ladd, Profilet,
& Muth, 1996): (a) self-directed learning style (5 items, alpha = .85, e.g., “this child keeps working on tasks when he/she
encounters difficulty”) and (b) hyperactive-distractibility, reverse scored (5 items, alpha = .87, e.g., “This child has poor con-
centration or short attention span”). Teachers rated self-directing learning and hyperactive-distractibility on a scale of 1–3
(where 1 indicated “does not apply” and 3 indicated “definitely applies”). The third construct, work habits, was derived from
the Mock Report Card (Pierce, Hamm, & Vandell, 1999) (6 items, alpha = .95, e.g., “works well independently”). Teachers rated
342 L.L. Brock et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24 (2009) 337–349

children’s work habits on a scale of 1–5 (where 1 indicated “very poor” and 5 indicated “very good”). The fourth construct,
self-control, was assessed using the Teacher’s Self-Control Rating Scale (Humphrey, 1982) was a 15-item questionnaire using
a 5-point frequency scale, alpha = .92, e.g., “this student makes careless errors because he/she rushes through work”, “this
student has to have things right away.” An exploratory factor analysis revealed the four teacher-rated behavior constructs
loaded onto one factor. Factor scores were compared with a summed composite of z-scores of the same four constructs and
results were identical in subsequent analyses.
The Observed Engagement in Learning Scale (Rimm-Kaufman, 2005) was an observational tool adapted from the NICHD
Study of Early Child Care (NICHD-ECCRN, 2005). A research assistant observed a study child during 15 min of academic
classroom time then rated five classroom behaviors on a scale from 1 to 7 (7 indicating high evidence or frequency of behav-
ior): (a) self-reliance, (b) attention, (c) disruptive behavior (reverse coded), (d) compliance, and (e) engagement. Multiple
observations were averaged and then summed to form a composite measure of engagement in learning (alpha = .88). The
intraclass correlation was .89 across 20 dual-rated cases.

4. Results

The aim of the present study was to analyze the concurrent contributions of hot and cool EF to academic and behavior
outcomes in kindergarten. A secondary aim was to examine whether learning-related behavior or engagement partially
explained the relation between EF and achievement. Preliminarily, hot and cool EF factor scores were created and then
employed as predictors in subsequent HLM analyses.

4.1. Hot and cool EF factor scores

The conventional approach is to examine EF under a one-factor model comprised of all EF variables (i.e., balance beam,
pencil tap, gift wrap, and toy sort). Theoretically, hot and cool EF suggests a two-factor model may be a better a better fit.
To test this alternative approach, the fit of a one factor model was compared to the fit of a two-factor model in Mplus using
maximum likelihood estimation.
To appropriately model the variables, the number of incorrect pencil tap trials and the time measurements for the bal-
ance beam, toy sort, and gift wrap were treated as censored variables (Joreskog, 2002). Censored variables account for a large
proportion of cases at the minimum or maximum, in this case, the uneven distribution of children who tended not to peek
at the gift or touch the toys. The two-factor model fit slightly better than the one factor model ( − 2LL = 6, parameters = 1,
p < .05). The standardized factor loadings for hot EF were .82, .75, and .52 for toy sort, and the two gift wrap variables, respec-
tively, and the standardized factor loadings for cool EF were .23 and .90 for the balance beam and pencil tap, respectively.
The contribution of the balance beam to the cool EF factor was smaller than anticipated. The decision was made to run
analyses using the combined cool EF factor as well as perform analyses with balance beam and pencil tap raw scores entered
separately to better understand the contribution of each task to the cool EF construct. Results were similar, the contribu-
tion of the cool EF factor score is presented in tables and the results of all three analyses are presented in the following
text.
There was a moderate correlation (r = .50) between the hot and cool factors. Estimated factor scores were output from
the two-factor model and used as predictors in subsequent regressions analyzing academic achievement and classroom
behaviors in the kindergarten year. In the model, the hot and cool factors were identified by fixing the variances to one
and means to zero providing the scale for the estimated factor scores. Even though the observed variables were treated as
censored in the factor analyses, the distributions of the factor scores remained skewed. The hot and cool factor scores were
negatively skewed (−.94 and −.83, respectively).

4.2. Descriptive statistics

Means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables included in analyses are reported in Table 1. Raw scores for
the EF variables, prior to factor modeling, were as follows: pencil tap (16 trials, number of incorrect trials tallied; M = 3.36,
SD = 4.29), balance beam (timed request to walk along a line as slowly as possible, in seconds; M = 11.60, SD = 8.32), toy sort
(time to complete sort, in seconds; M = 96.31, SD = 44.79), gift wrap phase one (time until first peek, in seconds with 1 min
time limit; M = 55.94, SD = 12.44), and gift wrap phase two (time until first touch, in seconds with 1 min time limit; M = 54.09,
SD = 13.95). Raw scores for the learning-related behavior variables, prior to z-score transformations, were as follows: self-
directed behavior (M = 2.43, SD = .48), hyperactive-distractibility (M = 1.53, SD = .58), work habits (M = 3.65, SD = 1.06), and
self-control (M = 3.70, SD = .81).
Hot and cool EF factor scores were positively correlated, r = .50, p < .01. Children who demonstrated greater hot EF at
school entry tended to experience less family risk, r = −.16, p < .05, and score higher on cognitive ability, r = .17, p < .05. Hot EF
was mildly positively correlated with all academic and behavioral outcomes (r = .15–.35) with the exception of fall reading
performance. Children who demonstrated greater cool EF at school entry tended to experience less family risk, r = −.31,
p < .01, and possess more cognitive ability, r = .42, p < .01. Cool EF was moderately correlated with all academic and behavioral
outcomes (r = .29–.46). Behavioral and academic outcomes were moderately positively correlated (r = .26–.41).
 L.L. Brock et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24 (2009) 337–349 343

Table 1
Means, standard deviations and correlations of predictor and outcome variables.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Mean .00 .00 .54 1.28 .39 445.34 −.04 18.74 351.72 424.05 408.22 440.36
Standard deviation .72 .87 .50 1.04 .49 14.22 3.62 4.22 23.76 18.76 23.19 14.66
1. Hot executive function –
2. Cool executive function .50** –
3. Gender (male = 1) −.06 −.12 –
4. Family risk −.16* −.31** .01 –
5. Preschool (yes = 1) .03 −.04 .01 −.09 –
6. Cognitive ability .17* .42** −.18* −.21* .08 –
7. Learning-related behaviors .35** .41** −.24* −.13 .20* .41** –
8. Observed engagement .15* .29** −.31** −.16* .15 .29** .59** –
9. Fall reading scores .12 .37** −.14 −.26** −.15* .54** .31** .14 –
10. Fall math scores .19* .46** −.07 −.29** −.02 .67** .36** .23** .59** –
11. Spring reading scores .16* .38** −.16* −.25** −.04 .56** .36** .40** .64** .49** –
12. Spring math scores .18* .46** −.11 −.23** .09 .56** .41** .26** .58** .67** .52** –

*p < .05; **p < .01.

4.3. Classroom-level variance

Variability in children’s behavior and achievement outcomes were modeled at the child and classroom level. Four uncon-
ditional models were fit to compute intraclass correlations (ICCs) using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM 6.05) software.
Classroom level variability was significant for two of four outcomes with ICC’s ranging from .02 to .34 (applied problems
ICC = .34, p < 000; letter word ID ICC = .09, p = .037; learning-related behaviors ICC = .02, p = .333; observed self-regulation
ICC = .05, p = .114). In order to appropriately account for the nested structure of the data by adjusting standard errors,
subsequent analyses were conducted in HLM.
The final model was built by adding hot and cool EF as well as theoretically important control variables, all at the child
level. The final model for children’s behavior and achievement outcomes is represented by the equation below.

Yij = ˇ0j + ˇ1 (fall WJ scores) + ˇ2 (gender) + ˇ3 (risk) + ˇ4 (preschool) + ˇ5 (cognitive ability) + ˇ6 (hot EF)

+ ˇ7 (cool EF) + rij

ˇ0j = 00 + uj

Yij or the model intercept is the average achievement/behavior outcome score for child i in classroom j, accounting for
the contributions of prior achievement, gender, risk, preschool experience, cognitive ability, fall hot EF, fall cool EF, and
error at the child level; the intercept is further defined as a function of the average of the classroom mean and variation
between classrooms (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Effects for slopes ˇ1 –ˇ7 were fixed. All variables were centered for ease of
interpretation, with the exception of gender (female = 0; male = 1). Analyses conducted in linear regression produced similar
findings.

4.4. The contribution of hot and cool EF to achievement

HLM results predicting achievement outcomes by hot and cool EF in the fall are presented in Table 2. Several significant
predictors emerged for spring math scores (WJ applied problems). Cool EF, t = 3.09, p < .01, d = .21, cognitive ability, t = 2.96,
p < .01, d = .20, and fall math scores, t = 6.95, p < .001, d = .45, all accounted for variance in spring math scores, such that higher
scores for each predictor was associated with higher math achievement. To further investigate the differential contribution
of pencil tap and balance beam, analyses were conducted with either pencil tap or balance beam raw scores entered into
the equation instead of the cool EF composite. Results were similar for covariates—both in terms of direction and strength.
Both pencil tap, t = 3.14, p < .01, d = .17, and balance beam, t = 2.06, p < .05, d = .15, emerged as significant predictors of math
achievement. Prior achievement, t = 5.35, p < .001, d = .48, and cognitive ability, t = 4.20, p < .001, d = .28, were the only salient
predictors to emerge when predicting spring reading scores (WJ letter-word ID). Cool EF, pencil tap, and balance beam were
all nonsignificant predictors of reading achievement. Hot EF did not predict any achievement outcomes. Effect sizes suggest
small associations between cool EF and math achievement —similar to the effect of cognitive ability —after controlling for
math performance at school entry.

4.5. The contribution of hot and cool EF to learning-related behavior and engagement

HLM results predicting behavioral outcomes by hot and cool EF are presented in Table 3. Children with higher cool
EF, t = 2.52, p < .05, d = .22, children who scored higher on a test of cognitive ability, t = 3.45, p < .001, d = .28, children who
attended preschool, t = 3.32, p < .001, d = .19, and girls, t = −2.78, p < .01, d = .15, were all rated by their teachers as displaying
more learning-related behaviors. Subsequently, analyses were re-run with either pencil tap or balance beam raw scores
344 L.L. Brock et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24 (2009) 337–349

Table 2
The contribution of hot and cool EF to academic outcomes.

Fixed effects WJ applied problems WJ letter-word ID

Coeff. df t Coeff. df t

Intercept 439.92 33 313*** 409.14 33 159.43***

Fall WJ scores .35 159 6.95*** .47 159 5.35***
Gender (male = 1) −.92 159 −.62 −2.27 159 −.97
Family risk −.17 159 −.23 −1.39 159 −1.37
Preschool (yes = 1) 2.19 159 1.65 .69 159 .23
Cognitive ability .20 159 2.96** .45 159 4.20***
Hot EF −.73 159 −.64 .05 159 .02
Cool EF 3.61 159 3.09** −2.01 159 −1.12

Random effects Var. x2 p Var. x2 p

Intercept 12.76 52.55 .02 55.39 70.06 .00

Level-1 effects 97.38 229.26

Note. Coeff.: fixed effect HLM coefficient estimate; Var.: variance component.
**p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.

entered into the equation instead of the cool EF composite. Results differed in an important way. While other covariates
remained similar, hot EF emerged as a significant predictor of learning-related behaviors in both cases. When pencil tap,
t = 2.10, p < .05, d = .17, replaced cool EF in analyses, hot EF, t = 2.01, p < .05, d = .17, also emerged as a predictor of learning-
related behaviors. When balance beam, t = 2.45, p < .05, d = .14, replaced cool EF in analyses, hot EF, t = 2.68, p < .01, d = .24, also
emerged as a predictor of learning-related behaviors.
Children with higher cool EF, t = 1.99, p < .05, d = .18, children who scored higher on a test of cognitive ability, t = 2.26, p < .05,
d = .17, children who attended preschool, t = 2.54, p < .01, d = .16, and girls, t = −3.86, p < .001, d = .25, were observed to display
more classroom engagement. Effect sizes suggest small associations between cool EF and classroom behaviors (.18–.22) after
controlling for other child attributes and demographics. We conducted separate HLM analyses with either pencil tap or
balance beam raw scores entered into the equation in place of the cool EF composite. Balance beam, t = 2.51, p < .05, d = .16,
predicted observed engagement, whereas there was no association between pencil tap and observed engagement.
In sum, cool EF emerged as a significant predictor of both behavioral outcomes, whereas hot EF did not predict either
outcome when analyzed concurrently with cool EF. When cool EF tasks (pencil tap and balance beam) were analyzed sepa-
rately, both were significant predictors of learning-related behaviors and hot EF emerged as a significant predictor as well.
When predicting observed engagement using the pencil tap and balance beam tasks separately (as opposed to combining
them in a composite), only the balance beam task, not pencil tap, was associated with observed engagement.

4.6. Can learning-related behavior or engagement account for the relation between EF and achievement?

As a next step, classroom behavior variables were added to the original model analyzing the contribution of EF to achieve-
ment in order to test whether cool EF remained a significant predictor of math or whether the relation could be explained
by classroom behavior, similar to a test of mediation in linear regression (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Results presented in Table 4
indicate cool EF, t = 2.75, p < .01, d = .19, cognitive ability, t = 2.33, p < .05, d = .17, and prior math performance, t = 6.57, p < .001,
d = .44, all remained significant, whereas learning-related behaviors and observed engagement emerged as nonsignificant
predictors of spring math achievement. When analyses were conducted with pencil tap, t = 2.90, p < .01, d = .15, in place of cool

Table 3
The contribution of hot and cool EF to classroom behavior.

Fixed effects Learning-related behaviors Observed engagement

Coeff. df t Coeff. df t

Intercept .10 31 .30 19.41 33 38.72***

Gender (male = 1) −1.11 149 −2.78** −2.14 162 −3.86***
Family risk .01 149 .02 −.31 162 −1.28
Preschool (yes = 1) 1.38 149 3.32*** 1.38 162 2.54**
Cognitive ability .07 149 3.45*** .05 162 2.26*
Hot EF .67 149 1.53 −.20 162 −.53
Cool EF .93 149 2.52* .88 162 1.99*

Random effects Var. x2 p Var. x2 p

Intercept .06 30.76 >.50 1.08 45.33 .08

Level-1 effects 9.04 13.01

Note. Coeff.: fixed effect HLM coefficient estimate. Var.: variance component.
*p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001
 L.L. Brock et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24 (2009) 337–349 345

Table 4
The contribution of hot and cool EF and classroom behaviors to math outcomes.

Fixed effects WJ applied problems

Coeff. df t

Intercept 440.2 33 285.88***

Fall WJ scores .34 144 6.57***
Gender (male = 1) −.13 144 −.08
Family risk −.16 144 −.20
Preschool (yes = 1) 1.26 144 .98
Cognitive ability .17 144 2.33*
Learning-related behaviors .54 144 1.89
Observed engagement −.06 144 −.21
Hot EF −.97 144 −.74
Cool EF 3.20 144 2.75**

Random effects Var. x2 p

Intercept 16.30 53.17 .01

Level-1 effects 98.56

Note. Coeff.: fixed effect HLM coefficient estimate; Var.: variance component.
*p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.

EF, results were similar. When analyses were conducted with balance beam in place of cool EF, balance beam did not emerge
as a significant predictor, whereas learning-related behaviors, t = 2.11, p < .05, d = .14, did emerge as a significant predictor
of math achievement. Overall, these findings suggest behaviors exhibited in the classroom do not account for the relation
between EF and math achievement.

5. Discussion

The present study offers insight into aspects of EF that contribute to adjustment to kindergarten in both academic and
behavioral domains via direct assessment, teacher report, and observation data. Three major findings emerge. First, cool EF
predicted math achievement, learning-related behaviors, and engagement. This finding was evident even after controlling
for many factors often linked to these outcomes, implicating the importance of cool EF in children’s successful transition to
school. Second, hot EF did not predict kindergarteners’ academic achievement nor did hot EF predict behavioral outcomes
when examined concurrently with cool EF. Third, learning-related behaviors and observed engagement did not account
for the relation between cool EF and math achievement, thus supporting the notion that cool EF and math performance
are uniquely associated. When cool EF was disaggregated results for both hot and cool EF changed slightly, suggesting that
the component parts of cool EF measure unique and shared aspects of cool EF and that hot and cool EF also have shared
variance—both underscoring the need for more empirical work in EF measurement development. In sum, it is important to
understand these findings in light of current discussions about what child abilities constitute school readiness.
Despite correlations, family risk did not explain variance in the models analyzing academic achievement. It is likely
the case that the variance attributed to family risk factors was sufficiently captured by children’s fall cognitive ability and
achievement test scores, thus nonsignificance may indicate that family risk did not contribute to gains in achievement, rather
than mean level. Preschool experience also failed to predict academic achievement in this sample. Results may also be due
to the rural nature of the sample. Rural families with increased financial resources do not necessarily have more options for
exposing children to enriching preschool environments as geographical constraints limit choices for preschool settings.

5.1. Cool EF

Cool EF predicted every child outcome, both academic and behavioral, with the exception of gains in standardized reading
scores. The consistency with which cool EF predicted children’s outcomes is noteworthy in light of the fact that cognitive
ability, test scores at school entry, and family risk factors were all held constant.
As hypothesized, cool EF predicted standardized math scores. The skills required to perform well on cool EF tasks, including
executive attention, inhibitory control, and working memory, are necessary precursors to mathematical learning (Bull &
Scerif, 2001). Other recent empirical investigations corroborate these findings. An analysis that included six large-scale
longitudinal studies found that attentional indicators of cool EF were consistently predictive of children’s math outcomes,
above and beyond cognitive ability and achievement levels at school entry (Duncan et al., 2007). In a sample of low-income
children, inhibitory control (as measured by a peg-tap task similar to the pencil-tap administered in this study) prior to
kindergarten entry predicted math achievement in kindergarten, above and beyond cognitive ability (Blair & Razza, 2007). In
elementary school, cool EF has likewise shown strong associations with math achievement (St. Clair-Thompson & Gathercole,
2006).
In this study, cool EF did not predict gains in standardized reading scores during the kindergarten year. One reason for our
lack of findings may be that the intense focus on reading achievement in kindergarten is such that most children show gains,
346 L.L. Brock et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24 (2009) 337–349

regardless of EF skills. Studies of kindergarten classrooms indicate children spend a large proportion of time in teacher-
directed literacy instruction (Pianta, La Paro, Payne, Cox, & Bradley, 2002). One study of rural kindergarten classrooms,
comparable to classrooms in this study, found that children spent an average of 28% of the school day in literacy instruction
(also the largest amount of time spent on any subject), whereas only 6% of the school day was devoted to math (Hofer, Farran,
Lipsey, Hurley, & Bilbrey, 2006). If kindergarten teachers exert most of their energy toward literacy instruction, perhaps
the majority of children receive a sufficient dose to make gains regardless of EF at school entry. The fact that kindergarten
children spend very little time in class developing math skills may also help explain our significant findings for math scores
(Early et al., 2005; Hofer et al., 2006). Children with stronger EF upon entry to kindergarten may be more sensitive to small
amounts of math instruction because of their ability to attend to and persist at a task.
Children who demonstrated strong cool EF skills were also more likely to be rated by their teachers as exhibiting better
classroom behaviors. Independent observers also rated these same children as exhibiting more engagement in learning. Skills
required for cool EF performance include paying attention, waiting for a turn, and staying on task. These are the same skills
that are most often cited by teachers as being the critical ingredients for children’s successful transition to kindergarten (Lin et
al., 2003; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000). The school readiness literature indicates that learning-related behavior is a necessary
precursor to learning (Blair, 2002; Raver, 2002). Further, children who are engaged in learning and exhibit learning-related
behavior are likely to make gains in achievement outcomes relative to those who are not engaged (Duckworth & Seligman,
2005).

5.2. Hot EF

Results of this study clearly point to a lack of association between our measures of hot EF and achievement in kindergarten.
This finding is consistent with other research on children’s school readiness. For example, Thorell (2007) similarly found cool
but not hot EF was related to math and language skills upon school entry. Hot EF was not associated with classroom behaviors,
with the singular exception of learning-related behavior analyses that examined cool EF (pencil tap and balance beam) tasks
separately. Thus, as measures of cool EF become more specific and narrowly defined, the affective qualities of children (i.e.,
hot EF) begin to explain some of the variance associated with teacher’s report of learning-related behaviors. These mixed
results speak to the overlapping variance that is shared by hot and cool EF, particularly in relation to behavioral outcomes,
and to the need for future investigation into the contribution of hot EF to classroom processes.
One explanation for the overall lack of hot EF associations may lie in the nature of kindergarten classrooms. Teachers
anticipate many children will enter kindergarten lacking the capacity to regulate their emotional responses (Rimm-Kaufman
et al., 2000). One hypothesis, which merits empirical inquiry, is that kindergarten teachers may structure the learning
environment to support and compensate for students with poor hot EF skills. Because of the structure of the kindergarten
classroom (e.g., less choice, more teacher-directed activities) children with emergent hot EF skills may not spend less time
engaged in learning (as evidenced by the nonsignificant relation between hot EF and observed engagement in learning). In
classrooms where children’s learning is teacher-managed, children may have the same opportunities for learning regardless
of hot EF skills, and thus achieve at a similar pace. Beyond kindergarten, classroom contexts may not be as well aligned
with children’s developmental needs. Teachers may expect children to regulate their own emotions in order to attend to
academic tasks, thus impacting achievement outcomes for children with poor hot EF skills. Bembenutty and Karabenick
(2004) suggest that hot EF skills play an important role in academic achievement later in schooling when adolescents are
expected to delay immediate gratification (e.g., watching television) in lieu of less tangible and less immediate rewards (e.g.,
studying for college entrance exams).

5.3. Children’s behavior does not explain the relation between EF and math achievement

Children’s learning-related behaviors and observed engagement failed to account for the relation between cool EF and
gains in math, indicating that cool EF has an association with math performance that is distinct from prior math knowledge,
cognitive ability, family risk factors, learning-related behaviors, and engagement. These findings corroborate other studies
drawing a link between cool EF and math ability (see Bodovski & Farkas, 2007; Clark & Woodward, 2007; Espy et al., 2004)
and strengthen the argument that cool EF and math performance are directly related. Research emanating from cognitive
science suggests that cool EF and math ability might be connected at the neural level (Blair et al., 2007). Brain imaging studies
reveal the prefrontal cortical regions responsible for children’s conceptual math understanding (as opposed to learning rote
math) share space with the regions associated with EF development (see Blair et al., 2007). Bull and Scerif (2001) suggest
that inhibitory control and working memory are required in switching strategies (e.g., subtracting instead of adding) and
evaluating which strategy to employ in a given task (whether a math problem should be solved by adding or subtracting).
Thus, children who perform well on cool EF tasks may have a unique advantage on tests of mathematical ability. Further, the
link between cool EF and math achievement cannot be explained by differences in classroom behavior.

5.4. Limitations and strengths

The focus of this study was to examine the relation between children’s hot and cool EF upon school entry and behavior
and achievement outcomes at the end of kindergarten. Hot and cool EF tasks were selected for this study because they did
 L.L. Brock et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24 (2009) 337–349 347

not rely on prior knowledge of numbers, letters, colors or other symbolic representations that might give children with
some formal schooling an advantage over others. As such, EF tasks that were selected did tax children’s fine and gross motor
functioning. Although there is compelling evidence for a link between motor development, cognitive development, and
executive function in early childhood (see Diamond, 2000), it is important to acknowledge that the EF tasks included in this
study may represent a proximal measure of motor skills and a distal measure of higher order cognitive processes. Future
work in EF measurement development may elucidate the contribution of motor skills to EF task performance. In addition,
the scope of this study did not allow for a more nuanced analysis of the contribution of hot EF to children’s outcomes. Other
research suggests hot EF measured at school entry plays a role in later achievement (Mischel et al., 1988). Hot EF may also
be implicated in some classroom settings but not others (e.g., center time versus individual seat work). Future studies that
take into account context and extend beyond kindergarten may elucidate the role of hot EF in children’s successful school
adjustment.
Although there is more work to be done in EF measurement development and in understanding the shared and unique
aspects of hot and cool EF, findings from this study suggest EF is an important topic to explore. It is worth reiterating
that associations between EF and achievement and behavior were detected after controlling for cognitive ability, prior
achievement, family risk, gender, and preschool experience. Moreover, results span a relatively small period of time—EF at
kindergarten entry predicted gains at the end of one school year. Thus EF, notably cool EF, emerges as a salient predictor of
early school success, even under rigorous testing conditions.

5.5. Practical significance

Results from this study can inform classroom practice. First, the finding that cool EF upon school entry predicts kinder-
garten outcomes adds to a body of literature on school readiness. Traditional measures of school readiness that focus solely
on pre-academic skills may not provide a complete picture of children’s preparedness to meet the demands of the classroom
(Raver, 2002). Cool EF tasks can identify children who will need additional academic support during the transition to kinder-
garten. In terms of prevention, cool EF deficits may precede behavior problems (Riggs et al., 2003). The EF tasks in this study
were inexpensive, quick to administer, did not require additional knowledge about the child (as with teacher-report data),
and predicted children’s achievement and behavior outcomes above and beyond family risk factors, cognitive ability, and
academic skills at school entry. Thus, administration of cool EF tasks may compliment other school readiness assessments
aimed at early identification of children in need of additional support.
Second, this study provides early evidence for embedding classroom practices that foster EF development in the classroom.
New evidence suggests EF can be improved with opportunity for practice (Dowsett & Livesey, 2000; Klingberg et al., 2005;
Oleson, Westerberg, & Klingberg, 2005; Rueda, Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccomanno, & Posner, 2005). Exposure to certain
classroom settings has also shown an association with gains in EF (Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007; Lillard &
Else-Quest, 2006). Classroom practices that promote cool EF may be an effective strategy for improving children’s behavioral
and academic competence. The next step is to explore optimal instructional practices for improving children’s EF and to
examine the contributions of both hot and cool EF over time.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Grant #0418469 to the second author. The first, third, and
fourth authors were Fellows in the University of Virginia Interdisciplinary Doctoral Training Program in the Education Sci-
ences. This research was supported by the Institute of Education Science U.S. Department of Education Award #R305B040049.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the Department of Education. We thank
Timothy W. Curby, Stacy Klein, Angeline Lillard, Robert C. Pianta, Bess Romberg, and the schools and families who participated
in the project.

References

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex.
Cognition, 50, 7–15.
Bembenutty, H., & Karabenick, S. A. (2004). Inherent association between academic delay of gratification, future time perspective, and self-regulated learning.
Educational Psychology Review, 16, 35–57.
Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American
Psychologist, 57, 111–127.
Blair, C., Knipe, H., Cummings, E., Baker, D., Gamson, D., Eslinger, P., et al. (2007). A developmental neuroscience approach to the study of school readiness.
In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox, & K. L. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 149–174). Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false-belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in
kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647–663.
Blair, K. A., Denham, S. A., Kochanoff, A., & Whipple, B. (2004). Playing it cool: Temperament, emotion regulation, and social behavior in preschoolers. Journal
of School Psychology, 42(6), 419–443.
Bodovski, K., & Farkas, G. (2007). Mathematics growth in early elementary school: The roles of beginning knowledge, student engagement and instruction.
The Elementary School Journal, 108, 115–130.
348 L.L. Brock et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24 (2009) 337–349

Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive function as a predictor of children’s mathematics ability: Inhibition, switching, and working memory. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 19, 273–293.
Bush, G., Luu, P., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Cognitive and emotional influences in the anterior cingulated cortex. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4–6, 215–222.
Cameron, C. E., & Morrison, F. J. (2007, March) Remember, don’t peek! Delay of gratification on the home gift-wrap over time. Poster presented at the biennial
meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development, Boston, MA.
Carlson, S. M. (2005). Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 595–616.
Clark, C. A. C., & Woodward, L. J. (2007, March). Preschool executive functioning as a predictor of children’s academic achievement at age six years. Poster
presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development, Boston, MA.
Cole, P. M., Usher, B. A., & Cargo, A. P. (1993). Cognitive risk and its association with risk for disruptive behavior disorder in preschoolers. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 22, 154–164.
Diamond, A. (2000). Close interrelation of motor development and cognitive development and of the cerebellum and prefrontal cortex. Child Development,
71, 44–56.
Diamond, A., Barnett, S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387–1388.
Diamond, A., & Taylor, C. (1996). Development of an aspect of executive control: Development of the abilities to remember what I said and to “do as I say,
not as I do”. Developmental Psychobiology, 29, 315–334.
Dowsett, S. M., & Livesey, D. M. (2000). The development of inhibitory control in preschool children: Effects of “Executive Skills” training. Developmental
Psychobiology, 36, 161–174.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939–944.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental
Psychology, 43, 1428–1446.
Early, D. M., Barbarin, O., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Chang, F., Clifford, R., et al. (2005). Pre-kindergarten in 11 states: NCEDL’s multi-site study of pre-kindergarten
and study of Statewide Early Education Programs (SWEEP): Preliminary descriptive report. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from the Foundation for Child Development
Web site: http://www.fcd-us.org/usr doc/Prekindergartenin11States.pdf.
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S., Losoya, S., Murphy, B. C., et al. (2000). Prediction of elementary school children’s externalizing problem
behaviors from attention and behavioral regulation and negative emotionality. Child Development, 71, 1367–1382.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Cumberland, A., Shepard, S., et al. (2004). The relations of effortful control and impulsivity to children’s
resiliency and adjustment. Child Development, 75, 25–46.
Espy, K., McDiarmid, M., Kwik, M., Stalets, M., Hamby, A., & Senn, T. (2004). The contribution of executive functions to emergent mathematics skills in
preschool children. Developmental Neuroscience, 26, 465–486.
Graziano, P. A., Reavis, R. D., Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2007). The role of emotion regulation in children’s early academic success. Journal of School
Psychology, 45, 3–19.
Hofer, K. G., Farran, D. C., Lipsey, M., Hurley, S., & Bilbrey, C. (2006, June). Transitioning to school: Describing the classroom environment of rural, low-income
children in kindergarten and 1st grade. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Institute for Education Sciences, Washington, DC.
Hongwanishkul, D., Happaney, K. R., Lee, W. S. C., & Zelazo, P. D. (2005). Assessment of hot and cool executive function in young children: Age-related
changes and individual differences. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 617–644.
Howse, R. B., Calkins, S. D., Anastopoulos, A. D., Keane, S. P., & Shelton, T. L. (2003). Regulatory contributors to children’s kindergarten achievement. Early
Education and Development, 14(1), 101–119.
Humphrey, L. L. (1982). Children’s and teacher’s perspectives on children’s self-control: The development of two rating scales. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 50, 624–633.
Joreskog, K. G. (2002, December, 3). Censored variables and censored regression. Retrieved January 19, 2007, from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/
techdocs/censor.pdf.
Klingberg, T., Fernell, E., Oleson, P. J., Johnson, M., Gustafsson, P., Dahlstrom, K., et al. (2005). Computerized training of working memory in children with
ADHD—A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 177–186.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., Jacques, T. Y., Koenig, A. L., & Vandegeest, K. A. (1996). Inhibitory control in young children and its role in emerging internalization.
Child Development, 67, 490–507.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents and implications for social
development. Developmental Psychology, 36, 220–232.
Ladd, G., Profilet, W., & Muth, S. (1996). The Child Behavior Scale: A teacher-report measure of young children’s aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial
behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1008–1024.
Li-Grining, C. P. (2007). Effortful control among low-income preschoolers in three cities: Stability, change and individual differences. Developmental
Psychology, 43, 208–221.
Lillard, A., & Else-Quest, N. (2006). Evaluating Montessori education. Science, 313, 1893–1894.
Lin, H., Lawrence, F. R., & Gorrell, J. (2003). Kindergarten teachers’ views of children’s readiness for school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18,
225–237.
Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Kover, S. T. (2007). A longitudinal assessment of executive function skills and their association with math performance. Child
Neuropsychology, 13, 18–45.
McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., McDonald Connor, C., Farris, C. L., Jewkes, A. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2007). Links between early self-regulation and
preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary, and math skills. Developmental Psychology, 33, 947–959.
McClelland, M. M., Morrison, F. J., & Holmes, D. L. (2000). Children at-risk for early academic problems: The role of learning-related social skills. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 307–329.
McGlamery, M. E., Ball, S. E., Henley, T. B., & Besozzi, M. (2007). Theory of mind, attention, and executive function in kindergarten boys. Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties, 12, 29–47.
McIntyre, L. L., Blacher, J., & Baker, B. L. (2006). Transition to school: Adaptation in young children with and without developmental delays. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 349–361.
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106, 3–19.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P. K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 687–696.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933–938.
NICHD-ECCRN (2005). A day in third grade: A large-scale study of classroom quality and teacher and student behavior. The Elementary School Journal, 105,
305–323.
Oleson, P. J., Westerberg, H., & Klingberg, T. (2005). Increased prefrontal and parietal activity after training of working memory. Nature Neuroscience, 7,
75–79.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K., Payne, C., Cox, M., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school
characteristics and child outcomes. Elementary School Journal, 102, 225–238.
Pierce, K. M., Hamm, J. V., & Vandell, D. L. (1999). Experiences in after-school programs and children’s adjustment in first-grade classrooms. Child Development,
70, 756–767.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE publications.
Raver, C. C. (2002). Emotions matter: Making the case for the role of young children’s emotional development for early school readiness. Social Policy Report, 16(3).
Ann Arbor, MI: The Society for Research in Child Development.
 L.L. Brock et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24 (2009) 337–349 349

Raver, C. C., Garner, P. W., & Smith-Donald, R. (2007). The roles of emotion regulation and emotion knowledge for children’s academic readiness: Are the
links causal? In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox, & K. L. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 121–148).
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Riggs, N. R., Blair, C. B., & Greenberg, M. T. (2003). Concurrent and 2-year longitudinal relations between executive function and behavior of 1st and 2nd
grade children. Child Neuropsychology, 9, 267–276.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2005). Children’s Early Learning Study Implementation Manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teacher’s judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
15, 147–166.
Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., McCandliss, B., Saccomanno, L., & Posner, M. I. (2005). Training, maturation, and genetic influences on the development of
executive attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 14931–14936.
St. Clair-Thompson, H. L., & Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Executive functions and achievements in school: Shifting, updating, inhibition, and working memory.
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 745–759.
School Readiness Act of 2005, H.R. 2123, 109th Cong. (2005).
Seguin, J. R., Nagin, D., & Tremblay, R. E. (2004). Cognitive-neuropsychological function in chronic physical aggression and hyperactivity. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 113, 603–613.
Smith-Donald, R., Raver, C. C., Hayes, T., & Richardson, B. (2007). Preliminary construct and concurrent validity of the Preschool Self-Regulation Assessment
(PSRA) for field based research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 173–187.
Snell, J. L. (1998). Performance on neuropsychological measures of executive function and behavioral adjustment in second-graders. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59, 3075B. (UMI No. AAM9836248).
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
Thorell, L. (2007). Do delay aversion and executive function deficits make distinct contributions to the functional impact of ADHD symptoms? A study of
early academic skill deficits. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 1060–1070.
Trentacosta, C. J., & Izard, C. E. (2007). Kindergarten children’s emotion competence as a predictor of their academic competence in first grade. Emotion,
7(1), 77–88.
Valiente, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., Swanson, J., & Reiser, M. (2008). Prediction of children’s academic competence from their effortful control, relationships,
and classroom participation. Journal of School Psychology, 100, 67–77.
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Larose, S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2005). Kindergarten disruptive behaviors, protective factors, and educational achievement in early
adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 617–629.
Waber, D. P., Gerber, E. B., Turcios, V. Y., Wagner, E. R., & Forbes, P. W. (2006). Executive functions and performance on high stakes testing in children from
urban schools. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(3), 459–477.
Ward, J. (2006). The student’s guide to cognitive neuroscience. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Welsh, M., Parke, R. D., Widaman, K., & O’Neil, R. (2001). Linkages between children’s social and academic competence: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of
School Psychology, 39, 463–482.
Woodcock, T. A., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001a). Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Woodcock, T. A., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001b). Woodcock–Johnson III Test of cognitive abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Zelazo, P. D., & Muller, U. (2002). Executive function in typical and atypical development. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development
(pp. 445–469). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Zelazo, P. D., Mueller, U., Frye, D., & Marcovitch, S. (2003). The development of executive function in early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research
in Child Development, 68(3) [Serial No. 274]
Zhou, Q., Hofer, C., Eisenberg, N., Reiser, M., Spinrad, T., & Fabes, R. (2007). The developmental trajectories of attention focusing, attentional behavioral
persistence, and externalizing problems during school-age years. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 369–385.