Cognitive flexibility and academic performance of children in care and children from a community sample: the contrasting mediator effect of task persistence

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and between-group differences.

	In-care Group (Ni = 46)	Community Sample (Nc = 48)	Between-group differences Estimate
	Freq./M (SD)	Freq./M (SD)	All (N = 94)	Girls (Ng = 49)	Boys (Nb = 45)
Sex (Female)	24	25	.004
Age	7.56 (.92)	7.60 (.94)	.005	−.02	.03
Type of Maltreatment (Negligence)	22	0
Length of Institutionalization (>15 months)	25
Cognitive flexibility (Time 1)
RCPM-B	4.35 (2.49)	5.79 (2.43)	.29**	.20	.38*
Temperament dimensions (Time 2)
Negative reactivity	2.48 (.85)	2.15 (.82)	−.14*	−.23*	−.06
Task persistence	3.44 (.93)	3.63 (1.00)	.06	.12	−.01
Approach/Withdrawal	3.37 (.76)	3.38 (.81)	.004	.03	−.03
Activity	2.42 (.76)	2.15 (.91)	−.12	−.17	−.08
Academic performance (Time 2)
Global performance	2.83 (.95)	2.94 (.91)	.04	.09	−.01
Portuguese performance	5.61 (1.88)	5.77 (1.64)	.03	.05	.003
Mathematics performance	5.50 (1.93)	5.83 (1.93)	.06	.05	.06
Intellectual functioning	2.91 (1.02)	3.08 (.79)	.06	.10	.01

Abbreviations: M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation, Freq. = Frequency, N = sample size, N_i = Number of children in the In-care group, N_c = Number of children in the Control group, N_g = Number of girls in the whole sample, N_b = Number of boys in the whole sample. Between-group differences were conducted through regression modelling, using a suitable distribution for each variable: for binary data (sex) we used a binomial distribution, for positive discrete data (age, cognitive RCPM-B scale, and academic performance) we used the CMP distribution, and for general positive continuous data (temperament subscales) we used the Tweedie family of distributions. Significance: *p < .05, **p < .01.

Table 2. Correlations between the main variables of the study.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Age (Time 1)	1
2. RCMP-B (Time 1)	.18	1
3. Task Persistence (Time 2)	.06	.34**	1
4. Activity (Time 2)	.01	−.26**	−.34**	1
5. Negative reactivity (Time 2)	−.08	−.28**	−.59***	.55***	1
6. Approach/withdrawal (Time 2)	.02	.02	.17	.12	−.15	1
7. Global academic performance (Time 2)	.01	.33**	.59***	−.08	−.28**	.18	1
8. Performance in Portuguese (Time 2)	−.01	.30**	.59***	−.13	−.33**	.15	.89***	1
9. Performance in mathematics (Time 2)	−.01	.36***	.60***	−.07	−.34**	.12	.89***	.85***	1
10. Intellectual performance (Time 2)	.03	.35***	.55***	−.09	−.33**	.09	.85***	.81***	.83***	1

Significance: **p < .01., ***p < .001.

Table 3. Predictor effects on academic performance.

Academic Performance (Time 2)	Length of institutionalization (>15 months)	Group	RCMP-B (Time 1)	Temperament dimensions (Time 2)
				Negative reactivity	Activity	Task Persistence	Approach/withdrawal
Global performance	−.08	In-care	.06**	−.09	.01	.22***	.04
		Community sample	.03	−.13*	−.05	.19***	.10
Portuguese performance	−.09	In-care	.05**	−.11	−.01	.23***	.07
		Community sample	.02	−.14**	−.07	.17***	.05
Mathematics performance	−.17*	In-care	.06**	−.14*	−.02	.25***	−.04
		Community sample	.03	−.15*	−.02	.20***	.12*
Intellectual functioning	−.15*	In-care	.06**	−.16**	−.06	.24***	.02
		Community sample	.02	−.08	−.01	.13***	.05

Age, Sex, and Type of maltreatment (children that suffered from negligence or from physical and emotional/psychological maltreatment and negligence) did not show significant effects (in any case). Thus, for simplification, these variables are not shown in this table. Predictor effects were assessed using Conway-Maxwell Poisson regressions with a unique predictor. Significance: *p < .05, **p < .01., ***p < .001.

Figure 1. The mediating role of temperament dimension task persistence in the relationship between cognitive flexibility and academic performance.

Note. Each rectangle denotes an observed variable (factor score). All endogenous variables are associated with errors which, for the sake of simplicity, are not shown in this figure. Arrows represent relationships and the attached values are the unstandardized path coefficients. All lines are significant, except the dashed ones. Significance was assessed through the 95% bootstrap confidence interval (CI): intervals that do not include zero indicate significant values. The total effect is the sum of the direct and indirect effects.

Figure 2. Conceptual form of the moderator mediation model.

Note.G_I denotes the In-care Group and G_C denotes the Control Group. Each rectangle denotes an observed variable (factor score). All endogenous variables are associated with errors which, for the sake of simplicity, are not shown in this figure. Arrows between variables represent relationships and the attached values are the (standardized) path coefficients. Arrows targeting relationships represent moderator effects and, in each case, the attached value is the direct effect of the interaction term (Group x Cognitive flexibility) on the corresponding academic performance. All lines are significant, except the dashed one. Significance was assessed through the 95% bootstrap confidence interval (CI): intervals that do not include zero indicate significant values. The total effect is the sum of the direct and indirect effects.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study is available upon request to the corresponding author. The data is not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.