See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229956809

Self-Regulation Early Childhood: Improving

Conceptual Clarity and Developing Ecologically
Valid Measures

Article in Child Development Perspectives · July 2011

DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00191.x

CITATIONS READS

76 1,632

2 authors:

Megan M Mcclelland Claire Elizabeth Cameron

Oregon State University University at Buffalo, The State University of N…
63 PUBLICATIONS 2,660 CITATIONS 51 PUBLICATIONS 2,142 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing a Measure of Self-Regulation for Children at Risk for School Difficulty View project

Red Light, Purple Light! Developing a Self-Regulation Intervention for Children at Risk for School
Difficulty View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Megan M Mcclelland on 26 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 CHILD DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES

Self-Regulation in Early Childhood: Improving

Conceptual Clarity and Developing Ecologically
Valid Measures
Megan M. McClelland and Claire E. Cameron
Oregon State University Human Development & Family Sciences

ABSTRACT—Children’s ability to direct their attention and bility of controlling or directing one’s attention, thoughts, emo-
behavior to learning tasks provides a foundation for tions, and actions. These skills show rapid growth in early
healthy social and academic development in early school- childhood. As children move from preschool or home-based care
ing. Although an explosion of research on this topic has into a more structured kindergarten environment, they face
occurred in recent years, the field has been hindered by a increasing demands on their social and self-regulation skills, in
lack of conceptual clarity, as well as debate over underly- addition to literacy, numeracy, and writing skills. Yet disturbing
ing components and their significance in predicting school reports reveal that many children are not behaviorally ready for
success. In addition, few measures tap these skills as chil- kindergarten (McClelland, Morrison, & Holmes, 2000; Rimm-
dren move into formal schooling. This article describes Kaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000), as many have been expelled
the aspects of self-regulation that are most important for from preschool classrooms (Gilliam & Shahar, 2006). Children
early school success. It then discusses methodological who enter kindergarten without adequate self-regulation are at
challenges in reliably and validly assessing these skills in high risk for a host of difficulties, including peer rejection and
young children and describes recent advances in direct low academic achievement (Blair, 2002). Furthermore, evidence
measures of self-regulation that are reliable and ecologi- indicates that key components of self-regulation predict aca-
cally valid and that predict children’s school success. It demic achievement, before kindergarten (McClelland, Cameron,
concludes by summarizing critical issues in the study of Connor, et al., 2007), throughout formal schooling (Blair &
self-regulation in school contexts and discussing next Razza, 2007; Liew, McTigue, Barrois, & Hughes, 2008;
steps. McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006; McClelland et al., 2000;
Valiente, Lemery-Chalfant, Swanson, & Reiser, 2008), and into
KEYWORDS—self-regulation; measurement; academic
adulthood (McClelland, Piccinin, & Stallings, 2010). Thus, pro-
achievement; early childhood; culture
moting the development of adaptive self-regulation in early
childhood may be an effective way to ensure long-term school
success.
The transition to formal schooling is a critical time in young chil- Research in early childhood self-regulation, despite consensus
dren’s lives. Growing evidence indicates that successful transi- on its practical importance, has been hindered by a lack of con-
tions require strong self-regulation in order for students to ceptual clarity on the meaning of the broad construct, its under-
successfully function and learn in classrooms (Blair, 2002; Blair lying components, and their significance for predicting school
& Diamond, 2008). Self-regulation generally refers to the capa- success. There are also few ecologically valid measures of self-
regulation for children transitioning to school that reliably tap
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
the key components, assess the integrative nature of self-regula-
Megan M. McClelland, Oregon State University Human Develop- tion, and show differential predictive validity for school success
ment & Family Sciences, 322 Milam Hall, Vorcallis, OR 97331; and achievement (Blair, Zelazo, & Greenberg, 2005; Carlson,
e-mail: [email protected]. 2005; Morrison, Cameron Ponitz, & McClelland, 2010;
ª 2011 The Authors Smith-Donald, Raver, Hayes, & Richardson, 2007). This article
Child Development Perspectives ª 2011 The Society for Research in Child Development
describes self-regulation and its underlying components, reviews
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00191.x

Volume 6, Number 2, 2012, Pages 136–142

 Self-Regulation in Early Childhood: Improving Conceptual Clarity and Measures 137

evidence supporting links between self-regulation and learning components because we believe they are most relevant for
outcomes, and discusses recent advances in direct measures of school-related demands, enabling children to control their
self-regulation that are reliable, are ecologically valid, and pre- behavior, remember instructions, pay attention, and complete
dict children’s school success. We view self-regulation as an tasks. Moreover, successfully navigating the demands of the
integrative ability that is conceptually distinct from its underly- classroom requires integrating all three processes.
ing components, and thus should be defined and measured as
such. SELF-REGULATION AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

DEFINITION OF SELF-REGULATION A broad and accumulating body of literature indicates that

effective self-regulation provides a foundation for positive class-
Evidence generally supports the notion that self-regulation is room behavior and academic achievement (Blair & Razza, 2007;
multidimensional (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004; McClelland, Connor, Morrison, & Slominski, 2006; McClelland et al., 2000;
Cameron Ponitz, Messersmith, & Tominey, 2010; Schunk & McClelland et al., 2006; McClelland, Cameron, Connor, et al.,
Zimmerman, 1997) and critical for early school success, but 2007; Pears, Fisher, Heywood, & Bronz, 2007). In contrast,
considerable debate remains about its definition and specific children who struggle with behaviors such as talking out of turn
components (Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004; Kochanska, Murray, and failing to complete assignments have more difficulty in
& Harlan, 2000; Rueda, Posner, & Rothbart, 2004; Zelazo & school (Ladd, 2003; McClelland et al., 2006). In general,
Müller, 2002). This is due in part to self-regulation’s relevance aspects of self-regulation predict long-term school achievement,
for researchers from multiple perspectives, including cognitive even after taking into account initial achievement levels and
(e.g., executive function) and personality (e.g., temperament) important background characteristics (such as child IQ; Blair &
perspectives. Our focus is on the importance of studying self-reg- Razza, 2007; McClelland et al., 2000; McClelland et al., 2006;
ulation in the school context, which tends to place multiple van Suchodoletz, Trommsdorff, Heikamp, Wieber, & Gollwitzer,
complex demands on behavior. This is similar to research from 2009). Although effect sizes vary depending on the assessment
cognitive perspectives (Kerr & Zelazo, 2004; Zelazo, Carlson, & used and whether relations focus on level of or gains in aca-
Kesek, 2008; Zelazo & Müller, 2002) that differentiates between demic achievement, effects reported across studies are uniformly
regulation in motivationally significant contexts and regulation positive, with many inquiries documenting long-term contribu-
processes in more affectively neutral contexts. tions of self-regulation (Duncan et al., 2007; McClelland,
Research from the cognitive perspective also highlights spe- Piccinin, et al., 2010; Vitaro, Brendgen, Larose, & Tremblay,
cific components of executive function, including attentional or 2005). For example, children’s attentional flexibility (including
cognitive flexibility, working memory, and inhibitory control, sustained attention measured via caregiver reports and direct
which all contribute to successful self-regulation (Happaney, assessments) uniquely predicts academic success, with predic-
Zelazo, & Stuss, 2004). Examples of adaptive classroom self- tive coefficients ranging from .10 to .43 for literacy and mathe-
regulation include taking turns when playing with a desirable toy matics achievement throughout school (Duncan et al., 2007;
or game, persisting on a task, or remembering the directions for McClelland, Piccinin, et al., 2010). In one recent study, a child
an activity (Cameron Ponitz et al., 2008; McClelland, Cameron, with 1 SD higher ratings of sustained attention by parents at
Wanless, & Murray, 2007; McClelland, Cameron, Connor, et al., age 4 were 44% more likely to complete college by age 25
2007; Morrison et al., 2010). (McClelland, Piccinin, et al., 2010). Research also points to
Attentional or cognitive flexibility includes being able to vol- attentional flexibility as a mediator of children’s early emotion
untarily focus and sustain attention on a task while ignoring regulation and their school success. In one study, the relation
other distractions (such as focusing on a classroom project), and between teacher ratings of emotional regulation in kindergarten
to shift attention to new tasks when necessary (such as moving to and academic competence in first grade was mediated by first-
a new learning center in the classroom; Barkley, 1997; Rothbart grade teacher ratings of sustained attention (Trentacosta & Izard,
& Posner, 2005). Working memory is keeping information in 2007). Together these findings suggest that attentional flexibility
mind while processing it (Gathercole & Pickering, 2000; Kail, may help children focus on what they need to learn even when
2003); it helps children remember classroom rules while partici- they struggle with emotional volatility.
pating in activities (McClelland, Cameron, Wanless, et al., 2007; Closely related to attentional flexibility is working memory,
Senn, Espy, & Kaufmann, 2004). Finally, inhibitory control is where researchers have found that children with working mem-
involved when children stop an impulsive response, ideally in ory problems have more difficulty with reading and math skills
favor of a more adaptive behavior such as raising a hand instead in elementary school (Gathercole & Pickering, 2000; Kail,
of shouting out an answer (Dowsett & Livesey, 2000). All three 2003). Reading requires decoding words and simultaneously
aspects of executive function develop rapidly during early child- understanding them in the context of the reading material; simi-
hood, which may be a sensitive period for developing self-regula- larly, doing math problems requires holding quantities in mind
tion (Diamond, 2002). We focus on the integration of these and manipulating them. Finally, research has documented the

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 6, Number 2, 2012, Pages 136–142

138 Megan M. McClelland and Claire E. Cameron

importance of inhibitory control for achievement. In one study, to develop brief assessments for measuring executive function
kindergarteners with stronger inhibitory control demonstrated between the ages of 3 and 85 (Weintraub et al., in press).
higher performance on concurrent measures of math and letter However, most of the self-regulation measures currently avail-
knowledge (Blair & Razza, 2007). able are usable only with a narrow age range.
Overall self-regulation—assessed by measures that require Moreover, relatively little research has examined the relation
the integration of inhibitory control, attentional flexibility, and between ratings of self-regulation in the classroom and tradi-
working memory—is also predictive of academic success, with tional executive function measures, and documented correlations
predictive coefficients ranging from .21 to .54. Although research have been fairly modest (Blair, 2003; Lan, Legare, Cameron
is limited, recent studies suggest that an integrative measure is a Ponitz, Li, & Morrison, 2011). For example, Blair (2003) found
stronger predictor of achievement than individual component that preschoolers’ teacher-rated on-task behavior was not signifi-
measures (Duncan & McClelland, 2010; Kinnucan & Kuebli, cantly related to scores on inhibitory control tasks. Both contex-
2010). Finally, McClelland et al. (2006) found that kindergarten tual and methodological differences may account for some of the
learning-related skills (including self-regulation and social com- low correlations. Although researchers have typically measured
petence) significantly predicted reading and math achievement aspects of executive function in laboratory settings using experi-
between kindergarten and sixth grade, and growth in literacy mental measures, behavioral self-regulation is observable in
and math from kindergarten to second grade. This research sug- naturalistic classroom contexts, where children need to apply
gests that self-regulation is vital for children to do well academi- attentional flexibility, working memory, and inhibitory control to
cally and may be a key factor for understanding, and intervening carry out specific tasks.
with, students who are at risk for academic difficulties. Context is also important for understanding how a child regu-
lates his or her behavior depending on the various demands in
ADVANCING THE MEASUREMENT OF the classroom (Bulotsky-Shearer, Fantuzzo, & McDermott,
SELF-REGULATION IN YOUNG CHILDREN 2008). That is, a child might perform well on an individually
administered attentional flexibility task but may not be able to
The ability of researchers, parents, and teachers to support pay attention in a more distracting classroom setting. Studies
children’s behavior as they enter kindergarten has been some- indicate that children have more difficulty regulating effectively
what limited because few appropriate, ecologically valid, and when task demands increase, for example with directions (such
predictive measures exist to assess and identify children with as remembering more rules) or within a situation such as working
self-regulation difficulties who are transitioning to school (Blair independently (Hala, Hug, & Henderson, 2003; Rimm-Kaufman,
et al., 2005; Carlson, 2005; Smith-Donald et al., 2007). Much La Paro, Downer, & Pianta, 2005; Wilson, Kipp, & Daniels,
of the research on self-regulation relies on teacher ratings of 2003). Thus, it is important that measures be relevant in the con-
children’s behavior, which are useful, but are also subject to text in which the behavior is important. In other words, assess-
observer bias. Direct observational measures exist, but many ments should tap the aspects of self-regulation that are similar to
are intended for the laboratory or clinical populations or are the behaviors required of children in learning contexts.
part of longer batteries that are impractical for school-based Finally, it has been common practice to measure aspects of
research (Fahie & Symons, 2003; Pickering & Gathercole, attentional flexibility, inhibitory control, and working memory
2004). For example, many assessments require specialized separately and then combine the individual scores into an overall
materials and ⁄ or substantial time to administer (Hughes, 1998). score (Carlson, 2005; Smith-Donald et al., 2007). This may be
In addition, although recent research has examined tasks in problematic both conceptually and psychometrically. Conceptu-
socioeconomically disadvantaged samples (Blair & Razza, ally, as we noted above, self-regulation as an integrative activity
2007; Smith-Donald et al., 2007), few measures are intended is related to, but also distinct from, the individual components.
for multiple-language populations, such as students who speak Aggregating scores is problematic for measurement because sep-
both English and Spanish. arate measures of self-regulation or executive function are often
Another shortcoming in the assessment of self-regulation is weakly related to each other (Blair, 2003; Lan et al., 2011). For
the narrow age range for many measures. Until recently, few example, in one study with preschool children, the correlation
measures have been available for use with children between pre- between measures of working memory and attentional flexibility
kindergarten and first grade (ages 4–6). This is important was r = .34 (Hongwanishkul, Happaney, Lee, & Zelazo, 2005),
because measures that cover this age range are necessary to and another investigation with elementary students revealed that
effectively assess school transitions. For example, in one review measures of working memory and inhibitory control were only
of self-regulation measures, children successfully performed the moderately correlated (r = .23; Archibald & Kerns, 1999). Cre-
majority of the tasks by 5 years of age (Rothbart, Posner, & ating composite variables based on low intercorrelations may
Kieras, 2006), and Carlson (2005) reported a similar pattern increase measurement error and minimize the chance of detect-
where children could pass most measures of executive function ing significant effects. Recent research has started to address this
by 5 years. Recent efforts such as the NIH Toolbox project aim problem. Willoughby, Wirth, and Blair (2011) use a structural

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 6, Number 2, 2012, Pages 136–142

 Self-Regulation in Early Childhood: Improving Conceptual Clarity and Measures 139

equation modeling framework to create latent variables based levels and gains. One study found that fall prekindergarten self-
on individual measures to capture the integrative nature of regulation significantly predicted children’s spring achievement
self-regulation, and Wiebe, Espy, and Charak (2008) found that in a diverse sample drawn from two locations in the United
the three components constitute one dimension, especially in States (McClelland, Cameron, Connor, et al., 2007). Moreover,
young children. Approaches like these are important because gains in self-regulation over the prekindergarten year predicted
ecological validity is likely to be enhanced by measures that children’s gains in early math, literacy, and vocabulary skills,
integrate attentional flexibility, working memory, inhibitory con- after controlling for initial achievement, self-regulation, and
trol, and other behavioral demands children encounter in natu- other background variables. Practically speaking, the children’s
ralistic settings such as classrooms. gains in self-regulation and their effects on achievement were
equivalent to having an extra month of literacy learning, almost
RECENT ADVANCES IN MEASURING 2 extra months of vocabulary learning, and 3 weeks of extra
SELF-REGULATION math learning in preschool (McClelland, Cameron, Connor,
et al., 2007). Similar results have been found for children in kin-
A number of recent advances have improved the measurement of dergarten, although results were stronger for self-regulation pre-
self-regulation in young children. The NIH Toolbox project aims dicting gains in early math skills compared to literacy and
to develop brief assessments of motor, cognitive (including vocabulary skills.
aspects of self-regulation), sensory, and emotional skills that are There is ample evidence of criterion-related validity, with
appropriate for use with individuals between 3 and 85 years of scores on the HTKS significantly correlating with teacher ratings
age (Weintraub et al., in press). Although data related to child of children’s self-regulation in preschool (McClelland, Cameron,
outcomes are not yet available, the project will make important Connor, et al., 2007) and with teacher ratings of self-regulation
progress in improving the measurement of executive function and parent ratings of attention and inhibitory control in kinder-
and self-regulation in young children. Another example of a garten (Cameron Ponitz et al., 2009). Although more research is
task designed to assess integrative self-regulation is Head- needed, a recent study also found that the HTKS was signifi-
Toes-Knees-Shoulders (HTKS; Cameron Ponitz, McClelland, cantly related to individual measures of cognitive flexibility and
Matthews, & Morrison, 2009; McClelland, Cameron, Connor, inhibitory control. All measures were significantly related to chil-
et al., 2007), which was developed as a quick, easy-to-use, direct dren’s achievement, but the HTKS was the strongest overall pre-
measure of self-regulation for children ages 4–6. Although this is dictor of early achievement (Duncan & McClelland, 2010).
a relatively narrow age range, measures assessing self-regulation However, additional research must demonstrate that the task has
during this period are important because the transition to school unique predictive validity beyond the influence of child IQ.
is an important time for children’s cognitive and social develop- Together, these studies indicate that although more work on the
ment (Diamond, 2002). The HTKS integrates multiple aspects of HTKS task is necessary, it is a reliable and valid measure of
executive function in a short game involving four paired behav- self-regulation that taps skills that are especially predictive of
ioral rules: ‘‘touch your head’’ and ‘‘touch your toes’’; ‘‘touch your children’s academic achievement, particularly over the transition
shoulders’’ and ‘‘touch your knees.’’ Children first respond natu- to kindergarten.
rally, and then are instructed to switch and respond in an alter-
native, or ‘‘opposite’’ way (such as touching their head when told CULTURE AS A CONTEXT FOR ASSESSING
to touch their toes). The task taps self-regulation by requiring SELF-REGULATION
children to pay attention, use working memory to remember the
instructions while responding, and demonstrate inhibitory control Related to the development of ecologically valid measures is the
by controlling an initial response and initiating a correct, but importance of considering culture when assessing self-regulation.
unnatural response. These multiple requirements make the For example, a number of recent studies have documented that
HTKS potentially useful for gauging self-regulation because it is children in Asian countries have significantly better executive
designed to measure how children apply cognitive skills to overt function (including attentional flexibility, working memory, and
behavior, which is particularly relevant for the classroom. The inhibitory control) than their same-age peers in Western coun-
task also asks children to respond using gross motor skills, which tries (Oh & Lewis, 2008; Sabbagh, Xu, Carlson, Moses, & Lee,
are implicated as they control and direct behavior in classrooms. 2006). However, it is also common for instruments to be trans-
The HTKS shows promising psychometric properties. Inter- lated into other languages without examining the psychometric
rater reliability, scoring agreement, and test–retest reliability is properties of the measures in another culture or country (Tsai,
high, with alphas of .93 over a 3-month period (Cameron Ponitz, McClelland, Pratt, & Squires, 2006; Wanless, McClelland,
2008; Cameron Ponitz et al., 2009; McClelland, Cameron, Acock, Chen, & Chen, 2011). Thus, results could be due to cul-
Connor, et al., 2007; Wanless, McClelland, Tominey, & Acock, ture differences or measurement. Recent studies have started to
2011). The task also shows strong predictive validity, with mod- address this by validating measures cross-culturally, although
erate to strong effect sizes for the task predicting achievement more work is clearly needed. For example, researchers have

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 6, Number 2, 2012, Pages 136–142

140 Megan M. McClelland and Claire E. Cameron

examined self-regulation cross-culturally, especially when rated Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in
by parents and teachers (Ahadi, Rothbart, & Ye, 1993; Eisen- a neurobiological conceptualization of children’s functioning at
berg, Liew, & Pidada, 2004; Eisenberg, Smith, Sadovsky, & school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 111–127.
Blair, C. (2003). Behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation in
Spinrad, 2004; Zhou, Eisenberg, Wang, & Reiser, 2004). There
young children: Relations with self-regulation and adaptation to
is, however, less research on direct assessments of self-regulation preschool in children attending Head Start. Developmental
that have been evaluated for use in different cultures. In our Psychobiology, 42, 301–311.
work with the HTKS, we have found that it and a simpler version Blair, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in prevention and
called the Head-to-Toes Task reliably and significantly predict intervention: The promotion of self-regulation as a means of
children’s early reading and math achievement in the United preventing school failure. Development and Psychopathology, 20,
States, Taiwan, South Korea, and China (Cameron Ponitz et al., 899–911. doi:10.1017/S0954579408000436
Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive
2008; Cameron Ponitz et al., 2009; Wanless, Lan, et al., 2011;
function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and
Wanless, McClelland, et al., 2011). This suggests that the HTKS literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647–663.
may be ecologically valid and may predict children’s academic Blair, C., Zelazo, P. D., & Greenberg, M. T. (2005). The measurement of
performance in a variety of cultures. executive function in early childhood. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 28, 561–571.
CONCLUSION Bulotsky-Shearer, R. J., Fantuzzo, J. W., & McDermott, P. A. (2008). An
investigation of classroom situational dimensions of emotional and
A large body of evidence points to the importance of children’s behavioral adjustment and cognitive and social outcomes for Head
self-regulation for successfully navigating academic and social Start children. Developmental Psychology, 44, 139–154.
settings. This research, however, has been hampered by a lack of Cameron Ponitz, C. (2008). Designing activities to improve preschoolers’
behavioral regulation: A pilot study. Unpublished manuscript.
conceptual clarity, and work in this area would benefit from stud-
Cameron Ponitz, C., McClelland, M. M., Jewkes, A. M., Connor, C. M.,
ies that clearly define and operationalize the underlying con- Farris, C. L., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Touch your toes! Developing
structs that are most important for children’s academic success. a direct measure of behavioral regulation in early childhood. Early
Research has also been limited by an inability to adequately Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 141–158.
measure these key constructs. Future work must develop sensi- Cameron Ponitz, C., McClelland, M. M., Matthews, J. M., & Morrison, F.
tive and ecologically valid measures of self-regulation that are J. (2009). A structured observation of behavioral self-regulation
appropriate for children in a variety of cultures. A greater trans- and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes. Developmental
Psychology, 45, 605–619.
lation of this research into practice is also needed. Practitioners
Carlson, S. M. (2005). Developmentally sensitive measures of executive
including teachers, school psychologists, and parents must have function in preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28,
increased access to information about how to assess and support 595–616.
children’s self-regulation in early learning contexts. This will Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as
assist the growing number of educational interventions that seek a scientific construct: Methodological challenges and directions for
to improve self-regulation and ensure that empirically supported child development research. Child Development, 75, 317–333.
programs are widely disseminated (Connor et al., 2010; Dia- Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Slominski, L. (2006). Preschool
instruction and children’s emergent literacy growth. Journal of
mond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007; Domitrovich, Cortes, &
School Psychology, 98, 665–689.
Greenberg, 2007; Tominey & McClelland, 2011). Self-regulation Connor, C. M., Cameron Ponitz, C., Phillips, B. M., Travis, Q. M.,
represents behaviors that are essential for succeeding in social Glasney, S., & Morrison, F. J. (2010). First graders’ literacy and
and learning situations. Creating environments in which children self-regulation gains: The effect of individualizing student
have many opportunities to practice these skills may be a critical instruction. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 433–455. doi:
next step in optimizing their development. 10.1016/j.jsp.2010.06.003
Diamond, A. (2002). Normal development of prefrontal cortex from birth
REFERENCES to young adulthood: Cognitive functions, anatomy, and
biochemistry. In D. T. Stuss & R. T. Knight (Eds.), Principles of
Ahadi, S. A., Rothbart, M. K., & Ye, R. (1993). Children’s temperament frontal lobe function (pp. 466–503). London: Oxford University
in the US and China: Similarities and differences. European Press.
Journal of Personality, 7, 359–377. Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool
Archibald, S. J., & Kerns, K. A. (1999). Identification and description of program improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387–1388.
new tests of executive functioning in children. Child Domitrovich, C. E., Cortes, R. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2007). Improving
Neuropsychology, 5, 115–129. young children’s social and emotional competence: A randomized
Barkley, B. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and trial of the preschool ‘‘PATHS’’ curriculum. Journal of Primary
executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Prevention, 28, 67–91.
Psychological Bulletin, 121, 65–94. Dowsett, S. M., & Livesey, D. J. (2000). The development of inhibitory
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: control in preschool children: Effects of ‘‘Executive Skills’’
Research, theory, and applications. New York: Guilford. training. Developmental Psychobiology, 36, 161–174.

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 6, Number 2, 2012, Pages 136–142

 Self-Regulation in Early Childhood: Improving Conceptual Clarity and Measures 141

Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. analysis of Chinese and American preschoolers. Journal of
C., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness and later Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 677–692.
achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1446. Liew, J., McTigue, E., Barrois, L., & Hughes, J. (2008). Adaptive and
Duncan, R., & McClelland, M. M. (2010). Relations among individual effortful control and academic self-efficacy beliefs on achievement:
measures of self-regulation. Manuscript in preparation. A longitudinal study of 1st through 3rd graders. Early Childhood
Eisenberg, N., Liew, J., & Pidada, S. (2004). The longitudinal relations Research Quarterly, 23, 515–526.
of regulation and emotionality to quality of Indonesian children’s McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2006). The impact
socioemotional functioning. Developmental Psychology, 40, 790– of kindergarten learning-related skills on academic trajectories at
804. the end of elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). 21, 471–490.
Effortful control: Relations with emotion regulation, adjustment, McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L.,
and socialization in childhood. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs Jewkes, A. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2007). Links between behavioral
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and regulation and preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary and math skills.
applications (pp. 259–282). New York: Guilford. Developmental Psychology, 43, 947–959.
Fahie, C. M., & Symons, D. K. (2003). Executive functioning and theory McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Wanless, S. B., & Murray, A.
of mind in children clinically referred for attention and behavior (2007). Executive function, behavioral self-regulation, and social-
problems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 51–73. emotional competence: Links to school readiness. In O. N. Saracho
Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2000). Working memory deficits in & B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on social learning in
children with low achievements in the national curriculum at early childhood education (pp. 83–107). Charlotte, NC: Information
7 years of age. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, Age.
177–194. McClelland, M. M., Morrison, F. J., & Holmes, D. L. (2000). Children
Gilliam, W. S., & Shahar, G. (2006). Preschool and child care expulsion at-risk for early academic problems: The role of learning-related
and suspension: Rates and predictors in one state. Infants and social skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 307–329.
Young Children, 19, 228–245. McClelland, M. M., Piccinin, A., & Stallings, M. C. (2010). Relations
Hala, S., Hug, S., & Henderson, A. (2003). Executive function and between preschool attention and sociability and later achievement
false-belief understanding in preschool children: Two tasks are outcomes. Manuscript under review.
harder than one. Journal of Cognition and Development, 4, 275– McClelland, M. M., Cameron Ponitz, C., Messersmith, E., & Tominey, S.
298. (2010). Self-regulation: The integration of cognition and emotion.
Happaney, K., Zelazo, P. D., & Stuss, D. T. (2004). Development of In W. Overton (Vol. Ed.) & R. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of life-span
orbitofrontal function: Current themes and future directions. Brain human development: Vol. 1. Cognition, biology and methods, pp.
and Cognition, 55, 1–10. 509–553). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hongwanishkul, D., Happaney, K. R., Lee, W. S. C., & Zelazo, P. D. Morrison, F. J., Cameron Ponitz, C., & McClelland, M. M. (2010). Self-
(2005). Assessment of hot and cool executive function in young regulation and academic achievement in the transition to school. In
children: Age-related changes and individual differences. S. D. Calkins & M. Bell (Eds.), Child development at the
Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 617–644. intersection of emotion and cognition. (pp. 203–224). Washington,
Hughes, C. (1998). Finding your marbles: Does preschoolers’ strategic DC: American Psychological Association.
behavior predict later understanding of mind? Developmental Oh, S., & Lewis, C. (2008). Korean preschoolers’ advanced inhibitory
Psychology, 34, 1326–1339. control and its relation to other executive skills and mental state
Kail, R. V. (2003). Information processing and memory. In M. H. understanding. Child Development, 79, 80–99.
Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes, & K. A. Moore (Eds.), Pears, K. C., Fisher, P. A., Heywood, C. V., & Bronz, K. D. (2007).
Crosscurrents in contemporary psychology (pp. 269–279). Mahwah, Promoting school readiness in foster children. in O. N. Saracho &
NJ: Erlbaum. B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on social learning in
Kerr, A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2004). Development of ‘‘hot’’ executive early childhood education (pp. 173–198). Charlotte, NC:
function: The children’s gambling task. Brain and Cognition, 55, Information Age.
148–157. Pickering, S. J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2004). Distinctive working memory
Kinnucan, C., & Kuebli, J. (2010). Mothers’ self-as-teacher perceptions profiles in children with special educational needs. Educational
and children’s math achievement: Executive functioning processes as Psychology, 24, 393–408.
links. Paper presented at the Jean Piaget Society, St. Louis, MO. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., La Paro, K. M., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control (2005). The contribution of classroom setting and quality of
in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and instruction to children’s behavior in the kindergarten classroom.
implications for social development. Developmental Psychology, 36, Elementary School Journal, 105, 377–394.
220–232. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers’
Ladd, G. W. (2003). Probing the adaptive significance of children’s judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten. Early
behavior and relationships in the school context: A child by Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 147–166.
environment perspective. In R. V. Kail & H. W. Reese (Eds.), Rothbart, M. K., & Posner, M. I. (2005). Genes and experience in
Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 31, pp. 43–103). the development of executive attention and effortful control.
New York: Academic Press. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 109, 101–
Lan, X., Legare, C. H., Cameron Ponitz, C., Li, S., & Morrison, F. J. 108.
(2011). Investigating the links between the subcomponents of Rothbart, M. K., Posner, M. I., & Kieras, J. (2006). Temperament,
executive function and academic achievement: A cross-cultural attention, and the development of self-regulation. In K. McCartney

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 6, Number 2, 2012, Pages 136–142

 142 Megan M. McClelland and Claire E. Cameron

& D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood educational achievement by early adulthood. Journal of
development (pp. 338–357). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Educational Psychology, 97, 617–629.
Rueda, M. R., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2004). Attentional Wanless, S. B., Lan, X., McClelland, M. M., Son, S.-H., Cameron Ponitz,
control and self-regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs C., Morrison, F. J., et al. (2011). Gender differences in behavioral
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and regulation in four cultures. Manuscript in preparation.
applications (pp. 283–300). New York: Guilford. Wanless, S. B., McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., Chen, F.-M., &
Sabbagh, M. A., Xu, F., Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Lee, K. (2006). Chen, J.-L. (2011). Behavioral regulation and early academic
The development of executive functioning and theory of mind: A achievement in Taiwan. Early Education & Development, 22, 1–
comparison of Chinese and U.S. preschoolers. Psychological 28.
Science, 17, 74–81. Wanless, S. B., McClelland, M. M., Tominey, S. L., & Acock, A. C.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self- (2011). The influence of demographic risk factors on children’s
regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32, 195–208. behavioral regulation in prekindergarten and kindergarten. Early
Senn, T. E., Espy, K. A., & Kaufmann, P. M. (2004). Using path Education & Development, 22, 461–488.
analysis to understand executive function organization in preschool Weintraub, S., Dikmen, S. S., Heaton, R. K., Tulsky, D. S., Zelazo, P.
children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26, 445–464. D., Bauer, P. J., et al. (in press). NIH toolbox for the assessment of
Smith-Donald, R., Raver, C. C., Hayes, T., & Richardson, B. (2007). behavioral and neurological function: Cognition domain
Preliminary construct and concurrent validity of the Preschool Self- instruments. Neurology.
regulation Assessment (PSRA) for field-based research. Early Wiebe, S. A., Espy, K. A., & Charak, D. (2008). Using confirmatory
Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 173–187. factor analysis to understand executive control in preschool
Tominey, S., & McClelland, M. M. (2011). Red light, purple light: children: I. Latent structure. Developmental Psychology, 44, 575–
Findings from a randomized trial using circle time games to 587. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.575.
improve behavioral self-regulation in preschool. Early Education & Willoughby, M. T., Wirth, R. J., & Blair, C. B. (2011). Contributions of
Development, 22, 489–519. modern measurement theory to measuring executive function in
Trentacosta, C. J., & Izard, C. E. (2007). Kindergarten children’s early childhood: An empirical demonstration. Journal of
emotion competence as a predictor of their academic competence Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 414–435.
in first grade. Emotion and Academic Competence, 7, 77–88. Wilson, S. P., Kipp, K., & Daniels, J. (2003). Task demands and age-
Tsai, H.-L. A., McClelland, M. M., Pratt, C., & Squires, J. (2006). related differences in retrieval and response inhibition. British
Adaptation of the 36-month ages and stages questionnaire in Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 599–613.
Taiwan: Results from a preliminary study. Journal of Early Zelazo, P. D., Carlson, S. M., & Kesek, A. (2008). The development of
Intervention, 28, 213–225. executive function in childhood. In C. Nelson & M. Luciana (Eds.),
Valiente, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., Swanson, J., & Reiser, M. (2008). Handbook of developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed., pp.
Prediction of children’s academic competence from their effortful 553–574): Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
control, relationships, and classroom participation. Journal of Zelazo, P. D., & Müller, U. (2002). Executive function in typical and
Educational Psychology, 100, 67–77. atypical development. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of
van Suchodoletz, A., Trommsdorff, G., Heikamp, T., Wieber, F., & childhood cognitive development (pp. 445–469). Malden, MA:
Gollwitzer, P. M. (2009). Transition to school: The role of Blackwell.
kindergarten children’s behavior regulation. Learning and Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Wang, Y., & Reiser, M. (2004). Chinese
Individual Differences, 19, 561–566. children’s effortful control and dispositional anger ⁄ frustration:
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Larose, S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2005). Relations to parenting styles and children’s social functioning.
Kindergarten disruptive behaviors, protective factors, and Developmental Psychology, 40, 352–366.

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 6, Number 2, 2012, Pages 136–142

View publication stats