Corrigendum to “When a spoon is not a spoon: Examining the role of executive function in young children's divergent thinking” [Trends in Education and Neuroscience, vol. 25, 2021] (S2211949321000132), (10.1016/j.tine.2021.100161)

The authors regret that, after publication, an error was discovered in the R code used to score the Children's Behavior Questionnaire - Very Short Form with EF Extension [1,2]. Two items in the Negative Affect subscale and one in the Effortful Control subscale had not been correctly reverse coded. Below we provide updated statistics for all analyses involving the CBQ-VSF or other variables for which it was included in the multiple imputation procedure. This correction did not affect any substantive conclusions of the article. It has also come to our attention that back-transforming the log-transformed AUT scores for plotting in Figs. 1 and 2.3.4. Object Familiarity and Executive Function If EF contributes to divergent thinking by helping children inhibit canonical knowledge, EF should be positively associated with AUT scores and this link should be stronger for more familiar objects. To test this, two sets of hierarchical linear regression analyses were conducted (for fluency and originality) with main effects of familiarity and verbal and nonverbal IQ entered in the first block; a main effect of EF entered in the second block; and an interaction between EF and familiarity entered in the third block. Age was controlled by using age-normed MEFS and Stanford-Binet scores. Analyses reported in this section represent the pooled results of ten imputed datasets. A model comparison Wald test indicated that a model with a main effect of EF predicted fluency significantly better than one without it, Wald χ² = 6.76, p =.01. However, an EF-by-familiarity interaction did not improve fit beyond the main effects of familiarity, verbal and nonverbal IQ, and EF, Wald χ² = 0.07, p =.93. Findings for originality were similar; a model with a main effect of EF fit significantly better than one without, Wald χ² = 6.31, p =.01, but an EF-by-familiarity interaction did not improve fit beyond main effects of familiarity, IQ, and EF, Wald χ² = 0.13, p =.88. Coefficients for the Block 2 models are shown in Table 4. Contrary to prediction, MEFS scores were negatively associated with AUT scores, controlling for verbal and nonverbal IQ. Because the effect of familiarity on AUT scores varied by age, and only the 4-year-old pattern was consistent with an interference effect, the EF-by-familiarity interaction was also examined separately for 4-year-olds. No significant interaction was found. 2.3.5. Object Familiarity and Effortful Control A parallel set of analyses was conducted for the Effortful Control subscale of the CBQ, to examine whether a similar pattern of results would emerge with a parent-report measure of children's self-regulation and attentional control. Model comparison Wald tests indicated no significant main effects of effortful control in predicting fluency and originality, and no significant interactions between effortful control and object familiarity (ps > .4). Experiment 2 Results, p. 8-9 3.3.6. Object Familiarity and Effortful Control To expand beyond lab tests of EF, we again ran parallel analyses to test whether the effect of familiarity varied by parent-rated effortful control. The model-building sequence, and results of LRTs comparing consecutive models, are available in the supplemental materials. For fluency, an effortful control-by-familiarity interaction significantly improved model fit, χ²(2) = 8.06, p =.02. Effortful control was negatively associated with fluency, and post hoc tests using Benjamani-Hochberg-corrected p-values suggested this association was strongest for moderately familiar objects. However, examination of the multivariate model residuals identified two outliers whose exclusion eliminated the interaction (p =.16). For originality, a model with an effortful control-by-familiarity interaction did not fit significantly better than one without it, χ²(2) = 4.37, p = .11.