Is Cognitive Training Effective for Improving Executive Functions in Preschoolers? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Nicoletta Scionti, Marina Cavallero, Cristina Zogmaister, Gian Marco Marzocchi · 2020 · 191 citationsRead the paper
In the present meta-analysis, we examined the effect of cognitive training on the Executive Functions (EFs) of preschool children (age range: 3–6 years). We selected a final set of 32 studies from 27 papers with a total sample of 123 effect sizes. We found an overall effect of cognitive training for improving EF (g = 0.352; k = 123; p < 0.001), without significant difference between near and far transfer effects on executive domains. No significant additional outcome effects were found for behavioral- and learning-related outcomes. Cognitive training programs for preschoolers are significantly more effective for developmentally at-risk children (ADHD or low socio-economic status) than for children with typical development and without risks. Other significant moderators were: individual vs. group sessions and length of training. The number of sessions and computerized vs. non-computerized training were not significant moderators. This is the first demonstration of cognitive training for transfer effects among different executive processes. We discuss this result in relationship to the lower level of modularization of EFs in younger children.
What the full text shows
Tested in real conditions- Cognitive training significantly improves executive functions (EF) in preschoolers. — g = 0.352, p < 0.001 (Children aged 3–6 years)
- Cognitive training produces both near and far transfer effects on executive functions with similar effect sizes. — Near transfer g = 0.352; Far transfer g = 0.318 (Children aged 3–6 years)
- Cognitive training is significantly more effective for developmentally at-risk children than for typically developing children. — '' (At-risk defined as ADHD or low socio-economic status)
- Cognitive training has no significant effect on non-EF outcomes (behavioral and learning-related). — g = 0.169, p = 0.122 (Non-EF outcomes across 15 studies)
- Setup
- 32 studies (27 papers) with 123 effect sizes; total participants included 977 in training, 341 in active control, and 719 in passive control groups.
- How
- A three-level meta-analysis was conducted using the Metafor package in R to evaluate 32 studies. The analysis compared pre-post outcome changes between experimental and control groups using Hedges' g to account for small sample sizes.
- Limitations
- Far transfer effects may be due to task impurity (tasks activating multiple cognitive processes). · Some studies had small sample sizes, potentially overestimating treatment effects. · Lack of diversity in neurodevelopmental disorders studied (only ADHD was represented).
Summarized by Gemma 4 from the open-access full text · 11 Oct 2026. Read it