Executive functions (EF) are a set of effortful cognitive processes that allow children to control their thoughts, emotions, behaviors, update information in their memory and be mentally flexible. The literature shows that the development of EF is essential for school success, in addition to being an important predictor of quality of life in adulthood. As a result, numerous interventions have sought to stimulate EF development through different programs and formats, typically reporting moderate effectiveness in improving core EF components. However, evidence for effects on untrained, domain-specific areas, such as academic performance, is less consistent. One explanation for these mixed findings may lie in the heterogeneity of interventions and participant characteristics; particularly regarding the modality of the intervention (e.g., using digital media versus traditional media) and children's stage of development. Although the current literature suggests these factors moderate intervention efficacy, there is a lack of randomized controlled trials that compare these variables within a single design. To address this gap, a randomized controlled study has been proposed, aimed at examining an EF intervention delivered in one of three modalities-traditional (paper-and-pencil), digital (computer-based), and mixed-in low-income, urban Chilean school children at two developmental stages (5-6 years and 9-10 years). Each program will target core EF components and measure both efficacy in EF improvement and outcomes in literacy and math skills. By contrasting these intervention modalities across distinct age groups, this study seeks to identify whether developmental level and format have moderating effects on EF improvement and academic performance. Our findings will contribute to ongoing debates about the best practices for EF stimulation, potentially informing evidence-based interventions that can be scaled or adapted for children at different developmental stages and in under-resourced settings. In doing so, this research seeks to clarify how, when, and for whom EF interventions yield lasting benefits beyond immediate cognitive skills.
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Change from baseline in working memory
Timeframe: From baseline to end of intervention at 12 weeks
Change from baseline in inhibitory control
Timeframe: From baseline to end of intervention at 12 weeks
Change from baseline in cognitive flexibility
Timeframe: From baseline to end of intervention at 12 weeks