Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Influence of Team-Based Learning on Self-Directed Learning and Team Dynamics in Large-Class General Education Courses
Previous Article in Journal
Bridging Cultures: A Japanese Student’s Path to Intercultural Communication
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/educsci15091206
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs About the Executive Functions of Gifted Students

by
Purificacion Checa Fernández
1,
Carmen Ferrándiz
2,*,
Mercedes Ferrando-Prieto
2 and
Rosa Pons Parra
2
1
Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
2
Faculty of Education, Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(9), 1206; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091206
Submission received: 26 March 2025 / Revised: 25 July 2025 / Accepted: 8 September 2025 / Published: 11 September 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine pre-service teachers’ beliefs about the executive functions (EFs) of gifted and talented (G&T) students. To accomplish this, 580 pre-service teachers were asked to think of a hypothetical G&T child and a hypothetical non-G&T child and rate their EFs using the Childhood Executive Functioning Inventory (CHEXI, Spanish version). We determined the mean differences between the EF ratings for G&T and non-G&T children. We also analyzed the differences according to the gender attributed to the G&T student, training in G&T, and familiarity with a G&T person. The results showed that G&T students were perceived as better than non-G&T students in working memory, planning, regulation, and inhibition, which is in line with previous outcomes when using performance tasks but not when using parents’ and teachers’ rating scales. Therefore, despite possessing theoretical knowledge, teachers may still fail to identify gifted students in real-life educational contexts.

1. Introduction

Teachers are the first, and sometimes the only, people to attend to gifted and talented (G&T) students’ educational needs. To be successful in this mission, teachers need to recognize these students and what strategies to use with them. However, despite its relevance, teachers rarely receive information about giftedness in their initial training (Barrera-Algarín et al., 2021). Teachers may make up for their lack of training by using their own previous ideas and preconceptions, which may affect their ability to identify students with high abilities. These beliefs guide decision-making and behavior and influence attitudes. Understanding these beliefs can prevent the emergence of prejudices and stereotypes that make it difficult to identify G&T students (Golle et al., 2023; Gómez Labrador, 2021; Pasarín-Lavín et al., 2021). Whereas most studies focus on beliefs about G&T students’ socio-emotional characteristics (e.g., Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Matheis et al., 2020; Preckel et al., 2015; Sanchez et al., 2022; Weyns et al., 2021), attitudes towards students (e.g., Barrera et al., 2021; Jawabreh et al., 2022; Ferrándiz et al., 2025), and their education (Gagné, 2018), very little research has focused on teacher perceptions or beliefs about students’ executive functions (EFs).
Some research about teachers’ understanding and perception of EFs and their importance in the learning process has emerged (Gilmore & Cragg, 2014; Rapoport et al., 2016; Sosic-Vasic et al., 2015).
The literature distinguishes between basic and complex EFs. Basic EFs include the ability to inhibit or inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility or shifting (Diamond, 2013; Miyake et al., 2000). The ability to inhibit refers to the capacity to refrain from impulsive or automatic responses, ignore distractions, or suppress irrelevant information to produce an appropriate reaction. Working memory is related to maintaining and managing relevant information in the brain. Finally, flexibility refers to abilities such as switching between two rules or reacting to change, adjusting accordingly (Miyake et al., 2000; Miyake & Friedman, 2012; Zelazo et al., 2016). In contrast, advanced and complex EFs entail cognitive abilities such as problem-solving, reasoning, and critical thinking. They build on foundational EFs and merge two or more of the basic EF components (Diamond, 2013; Miyake et al., 2000).
EFs play a critical role in regulating information processing and behavior coordination. They function as the bedrock of cognitive processes that bolster intelligence, creativity, and critical thinking (Diamond, 2013). EFs aid in attention regulation, supporting the retention of goals and information, the inhibition of impulsive reactions, the mitigation of distractions, the tolerance of frustration, and reflection on the consequences of past behaviors (Owens, 2021).
Differences in individual components of EFs have been the subject of research in G&T students, with comparisons made between G&T and average students. Several studies found no significant differences in EFs between students of different IQ levels (Montoya-Arenas et al., 2010, 2018), while others suggested that G&T students show better working memory (Bucaille et al., 2022; Rodríguez-Naveiras et al., 2019; Aubry et al., 2021; López-Rivas & Calero-García, 2018; Orozco-Zevada, 2018; Rocha et al., 2020; Viana-Sáenz et al., 2021) and planning skills (López-Rivas & Calero-García, 2018; Orozco-Zevada, 2018; Tanabe et al., 2014). Regarding the remaining components of EFs, contradictory results have been reported, with some suggesting higher inhibition levels (Duan & Shi, 2014; Orozco-Zevada, 2018; Tanabe et al., 2014; Shi et al., 2013) and higher flexibility in G&T students (Viana-Sáenz et al., 2021) and others finding no difference (Bucaille et al., 2023; Rocha et al., 2020; Viana-Sáenz et al., 2020).
Research on EFs is not limited to task assessment: rating scales for teachers are also commonly used as representative measures of EFs in everyday contexts (Gioia et al., 2000). Questionnaires offer valuable information that performance-based tasks cannot provide (Zelazo et al., 2016).
In studies on external observers’ perspectives on the EFs of G&T students, the Clinical Assessment of Behavior (CAB, Bracken & Keith, 2004), the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF; Gioia et al., 2000), and the Childhood Executive Functioning Inventory (CHEXI; Thorell & Nyberg, 2008) have been used.
Applying the CAB scale, Bracken and Brown (2006) found that teachers, in general, perceive G&T students as having fewer attention deficits and better EFs than their non-gifted peers. Similar results were found when Asensio et al. (2023) used the CAB, measuring areas such as attention, coordination, memory, perception, and reasoning. Differences in favor of G&T students were found in all major areas except for reasoning, which comprised planning, processing speed, and shifting dimensions.
Kenney (2010) used the BRIEF scale to examine the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of students’ EFs and their cognitive levels based on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale. The results indicated that teachers perceived similar scores in inhibition, initiation, and monitoring across all groups (normal, mildly gifted, and highly gifted). However, gifted students scored higher in emotional control, working memory, and organization. Moderately gifted students had the highest scores on the shift scale. Additionally, teachers more frequently nominated students with better EFs as gifted, while parents included students with EF difficulties. When comparing nominations with the IQ identification criteria, the group identified as gifted showed more difficulties with EFs than non-gifted students, according to teachers’ ratings. In contrast, the results by Kornmann et al. (2015) showed that the working memory of gifted students nominated by their teachers was higher than that of students not nominated as gifted.
Similarly, Bucaille et al. (2023) studied G&T students’ EFs using the BRIEF scale and found that both parents and teachers perceived G&T students to have poorer executive functioning than non-G&T students, although no differences were found in the performance task.
The results using CHEXI support “the claim that teachers can accurately identify that working memory and inhibition are closely aligned with the profile of a gifted child” (Sofologi et al., 2022, p. 17).
Understanding teachers’ perceptions and beliefs is essential for implementing educational strategies that meet the unique needs of G&T students. It is therefore imperative to assess the perceptions of pre-service teachers regarding the cognitive processing of G&T students.
The general purpose of our study was to investigate pre-service teachers’ beliefs about G&T students’ EFs. To accomplish this, teachers were asked to think of both a hypothetical gifted student and a hypothetical non-gifted student and rate/score their EF abilities (working memory, planning, regulation, and inhibition). Our hypothesis is that there are statistically significant differences in the EFs valued by pre-service teachers when considering a gifted student (HA) versus a non-gifted student (non-HA). We hypothesize that aside from differences depending on giftedness, differences will also be found depending on gender, as previous research has shown that, when using surveys, boys tend to be scored more highly than girls on working memory (Conesa et al., 2023; Giménez de la Peña et al., 2022), and inhibition (Giménez de la Peña et al., 2022). Those differences may be due to the cultural context rather than actual performance differences, as previous research using BRIEF in an international context favored boys over girls (Wierenga et al., 2019; Spataro et al., 2023).

2. Materials and Methods

This study employed a descriptive design with a quantitative approach. Convenience sampling was used.
The study participants were pre-service teachers (n = 580; 467 women), attending two universities in the southeast of Spain, recruited through convenience sampling. The participants came from three degree programs related to education: 417 undertaking a Primary Education Degree, 114 in Preschool Education, and 49 in the combined Preschool and Primary Education. Of these, 428 were based in first grade, 11 in second grade, 136 in third grade, and 5 in fourth grade. Their ages ranged from 18.3 to 49.8 years (M = 20.5, SD = 3.1). Of the total sample, 11.1% said they had training in G&T, and 56% said that they knew someone with G&T.
To examine pre-service teachers’ beliefs on executive functioning, an adaptation of the Spanish version of the Childhood Executive Functioning Inventory (CHEXI, Thorell and Nyberg (2008), Spanish adaptation Giménez de la Peña et al. (2022)) was administered. The CHEXI includes 24 items using a four-point Likert scale; the items belong to four different subscales: tapping working memory (e.g., has difficulty remembering what he/she is doing in the middle of an activity), planning (e.g., has difficulty with task or activities that involve several steps), regulation (e.g., has clear difficulties doing things he/she finds boring), and inhibition (e.g., has difficulty holding back his/her activity despite being told to do so). These 4 dimensions are grouped into 2 main factors: total working memory (composed of working memory and planning) and total inhibition (composed of inhibition and regulation) (Conesa et al., 2023; Giménez de la Peña et al., 2022). Higher scores indicate deficient executive functioning. As the purpose of our study was to focus on participants’ beliefs, instead of scoring a specific child, participants were asked to think of both a G&T and a non-G&T student and rate the EFs of each one. Participants were also asked about what gender they considered for a G&T student (female, male, or both). For this study, the Cronbach’s alphas were as follows: total CHEXI inventory thinking about G&T students = 0.921; working memory = 0.887; planning = 0.770; regulation = 0.788; inhibition = 0.771; total working memory = 0.95; total inhibition = 0.77. Cronbach’s alpha for the CHEXI inventory thinking about non-G&T students was 0.936; working memory = 0.892; planning = 0.792; regulation = 0.736; inhibition = 0.772; total working memory= 0.91.; and total inhibition = 0.78.
In addition, the participants were asked for information about sociodemographic variables (gender, degree, university, and course level), specific training in G&T, and whether they knew someone G&T.
This study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the agreement of the Ethical Committee of the university was obtained (2756/CEIH/2022). The questionnaire was distributed using the university tool for surveys. The students logged in using their university account, but the answers were anonymous. Their written and informed consent was obtained prior to participation.
Descriptive statistics of the study variables (mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum, asymmetry, and kurtosis) were calculated. As the normality assumption was not met according to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, for the CHEXI items, non-parametric tests were used (Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon and Kruskal–Wallis) to determine the influence of the exceptionality profile (G&T vs. non-G&T), gender of the G&T they considered when responding (male, female, or any/both), previous training in G&T, and knowing someone G&T. The p value reported was controlled by Bonferroni (p < 0.0125).
For statistical analyses, SPSS version 28 software was used.

3. Results

The descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) and the results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test are shown in Table 1. G&T students obtained lower scores, which means fewer difficulties with EFs.
A Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon test was conducted to examine the difference between teachers’ beliefs about EFs of G&T and non-G&T students (see Table 2 and Figure 1).
We found significant differences for working memory, planning, inhibition, and regulation between G&T and non-G&T students. The results showed that G&T students were perceived by the pre-service teachers as better than the non-G&T students in all variables. The effect size was large for working memory and planning, moderate for inhibition, and small for regulation.
As Figure 1 shows, G&T students always obtained lower scores in the CHEXI. There was a bit more dispersion in the scores for G&T students than for non-G&T students, as the range of scores was further away from the mean.
One of the study’s objectives was to determine whether there are biases or preconceptions depending on gender; thus, after rating the EFs of a hypothetical G&T student, participants were asked whether they considered a boy, a girl, or any/both. The results of the Kruskal–Wallis test (considering three options of gender: boy, girl, or any/both) showed statistically significant differences. Higher scores were evident for boys in working memory and planning, with girls having a higher score in regulation. This would indicate that pre-service teachers perceive poorer executive functioning in planning and working memory when thinking about a boy compared to when not considering a specific gender. However, they believe that girls have poorer regulation compared to when not considering a specific gender (see Table 3 and Figure 2 and Figure 3).
The comparative analyses, depending on training in G&T and knowledge of someone with G&T, of the four EFs’ variables are presented in Table 4. Firstly, we examined whether pre-service teachers’ beliefs could be influenced by previous training in G&T. Secondly, we examined how pre-service teachers’ beliefs could be influenced by knowing someone with G&T. The results of the Mann–Whitney test were not statistically significant in either case.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to analyze pre-service teachers’ beliefs about the EFs of G&T and non-G&T students and whether knowing a G&T person influenced these beliefs. The data showed that pre-service teachers perceived G&T students’ working memory, planning, inhibition, and regulation as better than non-G&T students, and these differences were maintained whether or not the pre-service teachers knew someone G&T.
Similarly, using the BRIEF scale, Kenney (2010) studied the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of their students’ EFs and their cognitive level according to the Wechsler Intelligence Scale. Kenney (2010) categorized students into three groups: normal development, mildly gifted (120 > IQ < 130), and highly gifted (IQ > 130). The descriptive results based on the frequency percentiles in the BRIEF showed that, according to teachers’ perceptions, scores in inhibition, initiation, and monitoring were similar in all three groups. In emotional control, working memory, organization, and material organization scales, HA students (both groups) tended to be scored more highly than non-HA students. Moreover, moderately gifted students received the highest scores above the 75th percentile on the shift scale. Using the CAB scale, Bracken and Brown (2006) found that teachers perceived HA students as having fewer attention deficits and better executive functions than their peers. Asensio et al. (2023) used the CAB, measuring areas such as attention, coordination, memory, perception, and reasoning. Differences in favor of HA students were found in all major areas except for reasoning, which comprised planning, processing speed, and shifting dimensions.
However, Bucaille et al. (2023), using the BRIEF scale, found that parents and teachers considered gifted students to have poorer executive functioning. These differences were more pronounced in parents’ perceptions for all dimensions. Teachers’ perception of the EFs of gifted and non-gifted students was more pronounced in the dimensions of working memory and material organization. It is interesting to bear in mind that Bracken and Brown (2006) and Asensio et al. (2023) found that teachers tend to perceive gifted students as better than their peers in EFs.
Another of our objectives was to examine whether there are gender-related differences in pre-service teachers’ beliefs. Tanabe et al. (2014) found differences in the Wisconsin Card-Sorting Test that favored boys, but the authors noted a sample effect. In the neurotypical population, when analyzing gender differences in EFs, research results are contradictory. For instance, Yamamoto and Imai-Matsumura (2019) did not find differences in EFs in a sample of preschoolers, whereas Palomino and Brudvig (2022) found differences in favor of girls. Our results align with those found by Wierenga et al. (2019) using the BRIEF, in two versions (parent-reported in individuals under 18 and self-reported in those over 18), who showed that parents rated girls as having higher working memory, planning and organization, and metacognition index. These results are similar to those obtained in self-reported measures (except for working memory, where there are no differences). Additionally, girls reported higher performance in inhibition compared to boys, while boys reported higher performance in emotional control (Wierenga et al., 2019). Similarly, Spataro et al.’s (2023) study, also using the BRIEF scale, found that teachers’ scores differed between boys and girls on the inhibition, working memory, and planning subscales and for the inhibitory self-control index, with girls having fewer difficulties with EFs than boys. In contrast, previous research using the CHEXI in a Spanish-speaking population found that boys were rated as having higher EFs (Conesa et al., 2023; Giménez de la Peña et al., 2022). These differences are most likely due to stereotypes rather than real potential, as gender differences seem to emerge when using teachers’ ratings but not when using performance tasks. Our results may be attributed to either because stereotypes affecting gender work differently for the gifted population or due to the higher rate of female responders.
In studying the profile described by teachers, what empirical support can we find for their perceptions? Research has found some contradictory data regarding the EFs of gifted students. For example, regarding working memory, although they may score the same as their peers on some specific tasks (Bucaille et al., 2022; Leikin et al., 2013), gifted students generally have better working memory skills (Rodríguez-Naveiras et al., 2019; Viana-Sáenz et al., 2020). Johnson et al. (2024) also discovered better working memory for G&T students on tasks taxing mental attention but not for tasks supported by perceptual attention.
In terms of planning skills, some studies point to better planning skills in gifted students (López-Rivas & Calero-García, 2018; Orozco-Zevada, 2018), while others have not found differences between the two groups (Montoya-Arenas et al., 2018; Rocha et al., 2020). Moreover, in the meta-analysis by Viana-Sáenz et al. (2020), they found a small magnitude negative effect size for this variable (d = −0.038).
Similarly, some studies have failed to identify differences in inhibition between gifted and non-gifted individuals (Arffa, 2007; Rocha et al., 2020). However, other studies suggest that gifted students may indeed demonstrate enhanced inhibition (Orozco-Zevada, 2018; Shi et al., 2013; Viana-Sáenz et al., 2021). It is worth considering that a characteristic trait of G&T students, namely creativity, has often been associated with inefficient attention reallocation, aligning with the concept that diffuse attention and flexibility are linked to individual creativity (Takeuchi et al., 2011). Viana-Sáenz et al.’s (2020) meta-analysis affirmed that differences in inhibition tend to favor non-gifted students slightly (d = −0.014).
If we weigh the empirical evidence, G&T students score higher than their non-G&T peers in performance tests. Therefore, we could assert that the participants in this study have a fairly accurate perception of EFs in G&T students. Future teachers can use this understanding to implement differentiated instruction, tailoring teaching methods to address the unique cognitive profiles of G&T students. This could involve providing more challenging tasks, offering enrichment opportunities, or adjusting instructional strategies to cater to individual learning styles. Research has also demonstrated the importance of training in EFs to enhance control skills, especially working memory and cognitive flexibility (see Karbach & Unger, 2014). Therefore, teacher training on the characteristics of executive functioning is of the utmost importance.
As pre-service teachers’ preconceptions or beliefs about the EFs of G&T students align with experimental research, we suggest that when faced with an actual gifted student, teachers’ beliefs may be influenced by the fact that the specific behaviors of gifted students may not meet their expectations. As a result, teachers may tend to underestimate the EFs of these students.
Pre-service teachers can benefit from understanding the cognitive strengths and challenges associated with G&T students, enabling them to better meet the needs of these students in their future classrooms. For instance, the effectiveness of different interventions may vary for individuals with different levels of EF skills, particularly when effectiveness is measured not only by improvements in EF skills but also by their transfer to learning and school behavior (Zelazo et al., 2016).

Limitations

Certain limitations should be acknowledged in this study. For instance, the study does not encompass twice-exceptional children, an area that demands further investigation. In addition, methodological challenges in the existing research must be considered (for instance, most responders were female, they came from just two universities, and they were in their first year), and caution is warranted in the interpretation of findings due to potential ceiling effects in the identification tools.

5. Conclusions

This article highlights the paramount importance of comprehending the EFs of G&T students. The role of teachers, both in training and in practice, is crucial in shaping perceptions and understanding the cognitive nuances of G&T learners. However, challenges in research methodologies, the effectiveness of interventions, and the persistent gap between perceived and actual capabilities warrant continued exploration. There will always be a gap or margin of error between what is estimated and what is measured. Some authors question whether the teachers’ rating really corresponds to the EFs measured by performance tasks. The correlation indices between observation scales and performance measures fluctuate around 0.2 (Toplak et al., 2013); however, these correlation indices are expected for any construct when measured through observation or report scales and objective or performance tests.
Future research should prioritize addressing the identified methodological challenges to enhance the reliability and validity of these findings. For instance, assessment tools for teachers oriented toward facilitating educational intervention will be of benefit (Hattie, 2023).
Exploring the transferability of EF improvements to broader learning and behavioral contexts remains a critical avenue for investigation. Systematic research on the unique cognitive aspects of twice-exceptional children is imperative. Moreover, there is a pressing need for research focusing on the identification of intellectually gifted children with learning disabilities, aiming to inform more inclusive educational practices. Recent research has suggested that these students may exhibit a distinctive pattern of EFs (Pasarín-Lavín et al., 2024; François-Sévigny et al., 2022).
This article lays the groundwork for a comprehensive understanding of EFs in G&T students while recognizing the existing limitations and paving the way for future research endeavors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.F., and P.C.F., M.F.-P., R.P.P.; methodology, C.F., P.C.F., M.F.-P., R.P.P.; validation, C.F. and P.C.F.; formal analysis, M.F.-P.; manuscript writing, C.F., and P.C.F., M.F.-P., R.P.P.; writing, revision and editing, C.F., and P.C.F., M.F.-P., R.P.P.; supervision, C.F.; funding acquisition, P.C.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by PROGRAMA INVESTIGACIÓN INCLUSIÓN, VICERRECTORADO DE IGUALDAD, SOSTENIBILIDAD E INCLUSIÓN, Granada University, project reference number 2022 INV-INC203-2022.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) (protocol code 2756/CEIH/2022, 7 April 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be link to the following database https://digibug.ugr.es/handle/10481/25025 (accessed on 25 July 2025).

Acknowledgments

The authors express sincere gratitude to all participants, as well as the institutions that provided funding for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Arffa, S. (2007). The relationship of intelligence to executive function and non-executive function measures in a sample of average, above average, and gifted youth. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology: The Official Journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 22(8), 969–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Asensio, D., Fernández-Mera, A., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2023). The cognitive profile of intellectual giftedness. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(3), 233–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aubry, A., Gonthier, C., & Bourdin, B. (2021). Explaining the high working memory capacity of gifted children: Contributions of processing skills and executive control. Acta Psychologica, 218, 103358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Barrera, A., Monge-López, C., & Gómez-Hernández, P. (2021). Percepciones docentes hacia las altas capacidades intelectuales: Relaciones con la formación y experiencia previa [Teachers perceptions towards high intelectual capacities: Relations with training and previous experience]. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 24(1), 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Barrera-Algarín, E., Sarasola-Sánchez-Serrano, J. L., Fernández-Reyes, T., & García-González, A. (2021). Déficit en la formación sobre altas capacidades de egresados en magisterio y pedagogía: Un hándicap para la educación primaria en Andalucía [Deficit in training on high abilities of graduates in education and pedagogy: A handicap for primary education in Andalucia]. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 39(1), 209–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Baudson, T. G., & Preckel, F. (2013). Teachers’ implicit personality theories about the gifted: An experimental approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Bracken, B. A., & Brown, E. F. (2006). Behavioral identification and assessment of gifted and talented students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(2), 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bracken, B. A., & Keith, L. K. (2004). CAB, clinical assessment of behavior: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bucaille, A., Jarry, C., Allard, J., Brochard, S., Peudenier, S., & Roy, A. (2022). Neuropsychological profile of intellectually gifted children: A systematic review. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 28(4), 424–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bucaille, A., Jarry, C., Allard, J., Brosseau-Beauvir, A., Ropars, J., Brochard, S., Peudenier, S., & Roy, A. (2023). Intelligence and executive functions: A comprehensive assessment of intellectually gifted children. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology: The Official Journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 38(7), 1035–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Conesa, P. J., Onandía-Hinchado, I., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2023). Validation and reliability of the Childhood Executive Function Inventory (CHEXI) in Spanish primary school students. Revista de Psicología Clínica con Niños y Adolescentes, 10(3), 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Duan, X., & Shi, J. (2014). Attentional switching in intellectually gifted and average children: Effects on performance and ERP. Psychological Reports, 114(2), 597–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ferrándiz, C., Ferrando-Prieto, M., Infantes-Paniagua, Á., Fernández Vidal, M. C., & Pons, R. M. (2025). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of physical, socioemotional and cognitive traits in gifted students: Unveiling bias? Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 6, 1472880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. François-Sévigny, J., Pilon, M., & Gauthier, L. A. (2022). Differences in parents and teachers’ perceptions of behavior manifested by gifted children with ADHD compared to gifted children without ADHD and non-gifted children with ADHD using the conners 3 scale. Brain Sciences, 12(11), 1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gagné, F. (2018). Attitudes toward gifted education: Retrospective and prospective update. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 60(4), 403. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gilmore, C., & Cragg, L. (2014). Teachers’ understanding of the role of executive functions in mathematics learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 8(3), 132–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Giménez de la Peña, A., López-Zamora, M., Vila, O., Sánchez, A., & Thorell, L. B. (2022). Validation of the Spanish version of the Childhood Executive Functioning Inventory (CHEXI) in 4–5-year-old children. Anales de Psicología, 38(1), 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). Behavior rating inventory of executive function: BRIEF. Psychological Assessment Resources. [Google Scholar]
  20. Golle, J., Schils, T., Borghans, L., & Rose, N. (2023). Who is considered gifted from a teacher’s perspective? A representative large-scale study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 67(1), 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gómez Labrador, C. M. (2021). Actitudes y cambios en las actitudes de los docentes extremeños hacia las altas capacidades, a través de la formación en el tratamiento educativo de estos alumnos [Attitudes and changes in the attitudes of extremadura teachers towards high abilities, through training in the educational treatment of these students] [Doctoral thesis, Universidad de Extremadura]. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel: A synthesis of over 2100 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jawabreh, R., Danju, İ., & Salha, S. (2022). Exploring the characteristics of gifted pre-school children: Teachers’ perceptions. Sustainability, 14(5), 2514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Johnson, J., Howard, S. J., & Pascual-Leone, J. (2024). Two attentional processes subserving working memory differentiate gifted and mainstream students. Journal of Cognition, 7(1), 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Karbach, J., & Unger, K. (2014). Executive control training from middle childhood to adolescence. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kenney, A. V. (2010). Link between executive functioning and teacher referrals for gifted testing [Doctoral dissertation, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine]. PCOM Psychology Dissertations. Paper 69. Available online: https://digitalcommons.pcom.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=psychology_dissertations (accessed on 18 September 2022).
  27. Kornmann, J., Zettler, I., Kammerer, Y., Gerjets, P., & Trautwein, U. (2015). What characterizes children nominated as gifted by teachers? A closer consideration of working memory and intelligence. High Ability Studies, 26(1), 75–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Leikin, M., Paz-Baruch, N., & Leikin, R. (2013). Memory abilities in generally gifted and excelling-in-mathematics adolescents. Intelligence, 41(5), 566–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. López-Rivas, L., & Calero-García, M. D. (2018). Sobredotación, talento e inteligencia normal: Diferencias en funciones ejecutivas, potencial de aprendizaje, estilo cognitivo y habilidades interpersonales [Giftedness, talent and normal intelligence: Differences in executive functions, learning potential, cognitive style and interpersonal skills]. Revista de Educación Inclusiva, 11(1), 91–111. [Google Scholar]
  30. Matheis, S., Keller, L. K., Kronborg, L., Schmitt, M., & Preckel, F. (2020). Do stereotypes strike twice? Giftedness and gender stereotypes in pre-service teachers’ beliefs about student characteristics in Australia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 213–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Miyake, A., Emerson, M. J., & Friedman, N. P. (2000). Assessment of executive functions in clinical settings: Problems and recommendations. Seminars in Speech and Language, 21(2), 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(1), 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Montoya-Arenas, D. A., Aguirre-Acevedo, D. C., Díaz Soto, C. M., & Pineda Salazar, D. A. (2018). Executive functions and high intellectual capacity in school-age: Completely overlap? International Journal of Psychological Research, 11(1), 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Montoya-Arenas, D. A., Trujillo-Orrego, N., & Pineda-Salazar, D. (2010). Capacidad intelectual y función ejecutiva en niños intelectualmente talentosos y en niños con inteligencia promedio [Intellectual capacity and executive function in intellectually gifted children and in children with average intelligence]. Universitas Psychologica, 9(3), 737–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Orozco-Zevada, M. E. (2018). Análisis conductual y electrofisiológico de funciones ejecutivas en adolescentes con capacidad intelectual alta y capacidad intelectual media [Behavioral and electrophysiological analysis of executive functions in adolescents with high intellectual capacity and average intellectual capacity] [Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos]. Available online: http://riaa.uaem.mx/handle/20.500.12055/1407 (accessed on 12 November 2022).
  36. Owens, A. (2021). Teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about executive functions utilized in reading instruction (Publication number 28542717) [Dissertation thesis, McKendree University]. ProOuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]
  37. Palomino, C. I., & Brudvig, A. (2022). Examining the role of demographic characteristics, attachment, and language in preschool children’s executive function skills. Early Child Development and Care, 192(12), 1967–1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pasarín-Lavín, T., García, T., Abín, A., & Rodríguez, C. (2024). Neurodivergent students. A continuum of skills with an emphasis on creativity and executive functions. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 25, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Pasarín-Lavín, T., Rodríguez, C., & García, T. (2021). Conocimientos, percepciones y actitudes de los docentes hacia las altas capacidades. Revista de Psicología y Educación, 16(2), 183–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Preckel, F., Baudson, T. G., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Glock, S. (2015). Gifted and maladjusted? Implicit attitudes and automatic associations related to gifted children. American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1160–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rapoport, S., Rubinsten, O., & Katzir, T. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the role of executive functions in reading and arithmetic. Frontiers of Psychology, 7, 1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rocha, A., Almeida, L., & Perales, R. G. (2020). Comparison of gifted and non–gifted students’ executive functions and high capabilities. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(4), 1397–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rodríguez-Naveiras, E., Verche, E., Hernández-Lastiri, P., Montero, R., & Borges, Á. (2019). Differences in working memory between gifted or talented students and community samples: A meta-analysis. Psicothema, 31(3), 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Sanchez, C., Brigaud, E., Moliner, P., & Blanc, N. (2022). The social representations of gifted children in childhood professionals and the general adult population in France. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 45(2), 179–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shi, J., Tao, T., Chen, W., Cheng, L., Wang, L., & Zhang, X. (2013). Sustained attention in intellectually gifted children assessed using a continuous performance test. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e57417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Sofologi, M., Papantoniou, G., Avgita, T., Lyraki, A., Thomaidou, C., Zaragas, H., Ntritsos, G., Varsamis, P., Staikopoulos, K., Kougioumtzis, G., Papantoniou, A., & Moraitou, D. (2022). The gifted rating scales-preschool/kindergarten form (GRS-P): A Preliminary examination of their psychometric properties in two Greek Samples. Diagnostics, 12(11), 2809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sosic-Vasic, Z., Keis, O., Lau, M., Spitzer, M., & Streb, J. (2015). The impact of motivation and teachers’ autonomy support on children’s executive functions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(6), 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Spataro, P., Morelli, M., Pirchio, S., Costa, S., & Longobardi, E. (2023). Exploring the relations of executive functions with emotional, linguistic, and cognitive skills in preschool children: Parents vs. teachers reports. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39, 1045–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., Hashizume, H., Sassa, Y., Nagase, T., Nouchi, R., & Kawashima, R. (2011). Failing to deactivate: The association between brain activity during a working memory task and creativity. NeuroImage, 55(2), 681–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Tanabe, M. K., Whitaker, A. M., O’Callaghan, E. T., Murray, J., & Houskamp, B. M. (2014). Intellectual ability as a predictor of performance on the Wisconsin card-sorting test. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 3(4), 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Thorell, L. B., & Nyberg, L. (2008). The Childhood Executive Functioning Inventory (CHEXI): A new rating instrument for parents and teachers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(4), 536–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Practitioner review: Do performance-based measures and ratings of executive function assess the same construct? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 54(2), 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Viana-Sáenz, L., Sastre-Riba, S., & Urraca-Martínez, M. L. (2021). Executive function and metacognition: Relations and measure on high intellectual ability in typical schoolchildren. Sustainability, 13, 13083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Viana-Sáenz, L., Sastre-Riba, S., Urraca-Martínez, M. L., & Botella, J. (2020). Measurement of executive functioning and high intellectual ability in childhood: A comparative meta-analysis. Sustainability, 12(11), 4796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Weyns, T., Preckel, F., & Verschueren, K. (2021). Teachers-in-training perceptions of gifted children’s characteristics and teacher-child interactions: An experimental study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, 103215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wierenga, L. M., Bos, M. G. N., van Rossenberg, F., & Crone, E. A. (2019). Sex effects on development of brain structure and executive functions: Greater variance than mean effects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(5), 730–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yamamoto, N., & Imai-Matsumura, K. (2019). Gender differences in executive function and behavioural self-regulation in 5 years old kindergarteners from East Japan. Early Child Development and Care, 189(1), 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zelazo, P. D., Blair, C. B., & Willoughby, M. T. (2016). Executive function: Implications for education. NCER 2017–2000. National Center for Education Research. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED570880 (accessed on 25 July 2025).
Education 15 01206 g001
Figure 1. Diagram of pre-service teachers’ beliefs about G&T vs. non-G&T students’ EFs.
Figure 1. Diagram of pre-service teachers’ beliefs about G&T vs. non-G&T students’ EFs.
Education 15 01206 g001
Education 15 01206 g002
Figure 2. Diagram of pre-service teachers’ beliefs on EFs according to G&T students’ gender for total working memory.
Figure 2. Diagram of pre-service teachers’ beliefs on EFs according to G&T students’ gender for total working memory.
Education 15 01206 g002
Education 15 01206 g003
Figure 3. Diagram of pre-service teachers’ beliefs on EFs according to G&T students’ gender for total inhibition.
Figure 3. Diagram of pre-service teachers’ beliefs on EFs according to G&T students’ gender for total inhibition.
Education 15 01206 g003
Table 1. Descriptive analysis and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of the EF variables for G&T vs. non-G&T students.
Table 1. Descriptive analysis and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of the EF variables for G&T vs. non-G&T students.
Executive Functions M (SD)SkewnessKurtosisKolmogorov–Smirnov
G&TWorking memory2.21 (0.71)0.4920.386ks = 0.052 ***
Planning2.31 (0.78)0.205−0.108ks = 0.085 ***
Total WM 2.26 (0.73)0.3390.168ks = 0.042 **
Regulation3.12 (0.87)0.071−0.42ks = 0.089 ***
Inhibition2.74 (0.74)−0.0640.154ks = 0.086 ***
Total Inhibition 4.31 (1.08)−0.0910.10ks = 0.05 **
Non-G&TWorking memory2.86 (0.74)−0.20.697ks = 0.118 ***
Planning2.75 (0.78)−0.0270.552ks = 0.121 ***
Total WM 2.81 (0.73)−0.110.10ks = 0.092 ***
Regulation3.22 (0.71)−0.2560.654ks = 0.112 ***
Inhibition2.99 (0.70)−0.3750.806ks = 0.114 ***
Total Inhibition 4.60 (0.98)−0.391.136ks = 0.081 ***
Note: ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001; M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Table 2. Differences between pre-service teachers’ beliefs about EFs of G&T and non-G&T students.
Table 2. Differences between pre-service teachers’ beliefs about EFs of G&T and non-G&T students.
EFs Mean Rank Positive (Favor G&T)Mean Rank Negative (Favor Non-G&T)Related Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test SummaryEffect Size (r)
Working memory307.74 (442)119.8 (102)Z = −16.87 **−0.700
Planning200.58 (294)123.92 (75)Z = −12.16 **−0.505
Total WM 302.22 (438)149.71 (106)Z = −15.89 ***−0.724
Regulation195.32 (244)209.82 (157)Z = −3.17 **−0.132
Inhibition152.69 (144)203.42 (261)Z = −8.52 **−0.354
Total Inhibition 234.31 (295)202.39 (151)Z = −7.08 ***−0.681
** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; Bonferroni adjustment p < 0.0125.
Table 3. Kruskal–Wallis tests of pre-service teachers’ considerations of EFs, according to the gender of G&T students.
Table 3. Kruskal–Wallis tests of pre-service teachers’ considerations of EFs, according to the gender of G&T students.
Independent Samples Kruskal–Wallis TestAdjusted Significance Values of Pairwise Comparisons
Boy/GirlBoy/AnyGirl/Any
Working memoryks(2) = 7.158, p = 0.0280.5340.0461.000
Planningks(2) = 9.588, p = 0.0080.1500.0141.000
WM Totalks(2) = 8.67, p = 0.0130.2880.0211
Regulationks(2) = 8.266, p = 0.0160.46831.0000.024
Inhibitionks(2) = 4.687, p = 0.091.0000.5010.63
Inhibition Totalks = 7.184, p = 0.0281.000.7550.078
Note: Significance values have been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests. n thinking of a boy = 110; n thinking of a girl = 83; n thinking of any/both = 382.
Table 4. Differences depending on knowledge of a G&T person or previous training in G&T.
Table 4. Differences depending on knowledge of a G&T person or previous training in G&T.
Differences Depending on Previous Training in G&TDifferences Depending on Whether They Know Someone with G&T
Training in G&T (n = 63)No Training in G&T (n = 63) Know G&T (n = 324)Not Know G&T (n = 255)
EFs Mean RankMean RankZEffect Size (r)Mean RankMean RankZEffect Size (r)
WM60.1868.68−1.290.11279.18303.75−1.750.07
Planning61.1067.79−1.02−0.09277.50305.89−2.04 *−0.08
Total WM 60.4068.47−1.23−0.11278.13306.15−2.00 *−0.08
Regulation69.9559.22−1.64−0.14287.93292.63−0.33−0.01
Inhibition66.7262.35−0.660.05278.68304.38−1.840.07
Total Inhibition 68.7260.41−1.27−0.11280.58303.05−1.60−0.07
Note: * p = 0.041. The difference found in planning disappears when corrected for Bonferroni, as p < 0.0125 is considered the critical value; knowing someone G&T = Know G&T, not knowing someone G&T = Not know G&T. EFs = executive functions, WM = working memory.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Checa Fernández, P.; Ferrándiz, C.; Ferrando-Prieto, M.; Pons Parra, R. Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs About the Executive Functions of Gifted Students. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1206. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091206

AMA Style

Checa Fernández P, Ferrándiz C, Ferrando-Prieto M, Pons Parra R. Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs About the Executive Functions of Gifted Students. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(9):1206. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091206

Chicago/Turabian Style

Checa Fernández, Purificacion, Carmen Ferrándiz, Mercedes Ferrando-Prieto, and Rosa Pons Parra. 2025. "Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs About the Executive Functions of Gifted Students" Education Sciences 15, no. 9: 1206. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091206

APA Style

Checa Fernández, P., Ferrándiz, C., Ferrando-Prieto, M., & Pons Parra, R. (2025). Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs About the Executive Functions of Gifted Students. Education Sciences, 15(9), 1206. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091206

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop