View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Associations of Physical Activity and History of Sports Participation with Subjective and Objective Measures of Executive Functioning in University Students

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Associations of Physical Activity and History of Sports Participation with Subjective and Objective Measures of Executive Functioning in University Students
Language: English
Authors: Madeline M. Doucette, Juan Pablo Sánchez Escudero, Ryan E. Rhodes, Mauricio A. Garcia-Barrera
Source: Journal of American College Health. 2025 73(6):2433-2442.
Availability: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Athletics, College Students, Physical Activity Level, Executive Function, Student Participation, Correlation, Gender Differences, Physical Activities, Foreign Countries, Cognitive Processes
Geographic Terms: Canada
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2023.2299414
ISSN: 0744-8481
1940-3208
Abstract: This study examined how physical activity and history of sports participation affect subjective and objective executive functioning in university students. A total of 215 university students aged 18-25 (81% female) completed a virtual assessment of executive function. The correlates were age, sex, physical activity, and history of sports participation. Structural equation modeling was used to examine objective executive function using a three-factor model (shifting, updating, inhibition). The Executive Function Index (EFI) was used to measure subjective executive functioning, and linear regression was used to examine total EFI scores. Physical activity (b = 0.12, p < 0.01) was a significant correlate of subjective but not objective executive functioning. Male sex and history of sports participation were significantly positively related to the objective measure of inhibition (b = 0.64, p < 0.01; b = 0.18, p < 0.05). These findings suggest that subjective and objective measures of executive functioning should be differentiated when investigating their relationship with physical activity and history of sports participation.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1479609
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFItVILXGQtZEpKxmrI7Xg5AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGXc10EF2TQ-Xvn6KAIBEICBm1syj1RM0NUfHA-73nWt47fXTzBFsXOL9d0cPebwp0nAu43au5hVxIKGPyvLhM3rG-lQwLY1BLsTbFBZG3tG3Rm9TI0MPzI2zkiuRTE3i5Elb4e-TEfUxZ13AFt50FTuS3M4jVfofhb5o4yPWAifVLtgAI5yEyxjEmEyDfgBfT58oJLt0iYc2QH1F2fLPStVIEv77l-oaESJV0z9
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: &lt;anid&gt;AN0187189375;acl01jul.25;2025Aug11.02:23;v2.2.500&lt;/anid&gt; &lt;title id=&quot;AN0187189375-1&quot;&gt;Associations of physical activity and history of sports participation with subjective and objective measures of executive functioning in university students&#160;&lt;/title&gt; &lt;p&gt;This study examined how physical activity and history of sports participation affect subjective and objective executive functioning in university students. A total of 215 university students aged 18-25 (81% female) completed a virtual assessment of executive function. The correlates were age, sex, physical activity, and history of sports participation. Structural equation modeling was used to examine objective executive function using a three-factor model (shifting, updating, inhibition). The Executive Function Index (EFI) was used to measure subjective executive functioning, and linear regression was used to examine total EFI scores. Physical activity (b = 0.12, p &amp;lt;.01) was a significant correlate of subjective but not objective executive functioning. Male sex and history of sports participation were significantly positively related to the objective measure of inhibition (b = 0.64, p &amp;lt;.01; b = 0.18, p &amp;lt;.05). These findings suggest that subjective and objective measures of executive functioning should be differentiated when investigating their relationship with physical activity and history of sports participation.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Keywords: Executive functioning; physical activity; college students; athletics&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-2&quot;&gt;Introduction&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Executive function (EF) is a high-level cognitive function employed during novel situations by integrating lower-level processes to create and regulate goal-directed behaviors.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib1&quot; id=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;1&lt;/reflink&gt;] In the past, there has been debate on whether EF is a unitary, singular construct or if it consists of diverse, separate functions. Interdisciplinary research, including experimental psychology, neuropsychology, and neuroscience, seem to support the idea that while separate unique EFs can be isolated, they do work together to achieved novel tasks and everyday life goals.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref2&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;] In fact, Baars and colleagues[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref3&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;] found that first-year college students with higher self-reported executive functioning at the beginning of the school year had better academic performance at the end of the year. Thus, strong executive functioning skills play an important role in the success of university students in academics, and many other domains of their life.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Due to the complex nature of EF, its measurement can be quite varied. One of the most common approaches to studying and measuring EF was first discussed in Miyake and colleagues&#39;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib4&quot; id=&quot;ref4&quot;&gt;4&lt;/reflink&gt;] seminal paper. They determined three latent factors of EF, shifting, updating, and inhibition, that were distinguishable but moderately correlated. Shifting is thought to be the ability to change or shift perspective, attention, or responses.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib4&quot; id=&quot;ref5&quot;&gt;4&lt;/reflink&gt;]&lt;sups&gt;,&lt;/sups&gt;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib5&quot; id=&quot;ref6&quot;&gt;5&lt;/reflink&gt;] Updating (i.e., the updating of working memory) is the ability to hold, monitor and code information through the manipulation or revision of pertinent information within one&#39;s working memory.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib4&quot; id=&quot;ref7&quot;&gt;4&lt;/reflink&gt;]&lt;sups&gt;,&lt;/sups&gt;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib5&quot; id=&quot;ref8&quot;&gt;5&lt;/reflink&gt;] Lastly, inhibition is the ability to suppress inappropriate responses, stay focused, and ignore distractions.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib4&quot; id=&quot;ref9&quot;&gt;4&lt;/reflink&gt;] This approach to measuring and conceptualizing lower-order EF processes is attractive due to its ease of assessment in laboratory environments with computerized tasks. However, other approaches to assessing EF include self-report measures such as the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF),[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib6&quot; id=&quot;ref10&quot;&gt;6&lt;/reflink&gt;] the Behavior Assessment System for Children – Executive Function clinical scale (BASC-EF)[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib7&quot; id=&quot;ref11&quot;&gt;7&lt;/reflink&gt;] and the Executive Function Index (EFI),[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib8&quot; id=&quot;ref12&quot;&gt;8&lt;/reflink&gt;] among several others. The EFI was designed to assess subjective executive functioning in healthy individuals, which is unique, considering most other self-report EF measures were developed with a main aim to identify EF impairment in clinical populations.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib8&quot; id=&quot;ref13&quot;&gt;8&lt;/reflink&gt;] Interestingly, while self-report methods produce more ecologically valid ratings, are easy to deploy, and simple for participants to complete, participants&#39; ratings often do not correlate with objective neuropsychological assessments,[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref14&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;] and may be influenced by external factors such as depression.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib10&quot; id=&quot;ref15&quot;&gt;10&lt;/reflink&gt;] While cognitive tasks objectively measure performance with standardized administration, most EF tasks inevitably need multiple cognitive processes to complete the task, known as task impurity.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib4&quot; id=&quot;ref16&quot;&gt;4&lt;/reflink&gt;] Therefore, it has been proposed to be beneficial to use multiple methods to measure EF,[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref17&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;] and we believe this is particularly important when assessing its relationships with complex variables such as physical activity and sports participation.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Physical activity is well known to have several positive benefits, including preventing chronic diseases such as obesity, hypertension, cancer, depression.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib12&quot; id=&quot;ref18&quot;&gt;12&lt;/reflink&gt;]&lt;sups&gt;,&lt;/sups&gt;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib13&quot; id=&quot;ref19&quot;&gt;13&lt;/reflink&gt;] However, attention has also been focused on the benefits of physical activity on executive functioning.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib14&quot; id=&quot;ref20&quot;&gt;14&lt;/reflink&gt;] Hall and colleagues[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib15&quot; id=&quot;ref21&quot;&gt;15&lt;/reflink&gt;] found that aerobic activity primarily improved EF in older adults. In children, Best&#39;s review[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib16&quot; id=&quot;ref22&quot;&gt;16&lt;/reflink&gt;] determined that while all physical activity is beneficial, cognitively engaging activity produced the most benefit to EF. Since then, a growing number of studies have been dedicated to investigating the role of physical activity on EF across the lifespan.[[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref23&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;], [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib19&quot; id=&quot;ref24&quot;&gt;19&lt;/reflink&gt;]] With these findings, there is continued debate regarding the direction of the causal association of observed positive relationship between objective executive functioning performance and physical activity, with some arguing that high executive functioning leads to increased physical activity. Most researchers now believe it is a dual, reciprocal relationship.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref25&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;] While it is apparent that many forms of physical activity have a beneficial impact on EF across the lifespan, participation in sports, specifically, may lead to a unique &#39;athletic advantage&#39;. Athletes frequently perform better on a range of EF tasks, including inhibition, updating, switching, decision making and problem-solving tasks.[[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref26&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;], [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref27&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;], [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib26&quot; id=&quot;ref28&quot;&gt;26&lt;/reflink&gt;]] Further, elite athletes tend to outperform amateur or novice athletes on EF tasks.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib25&quot; id=&quot;ref29&quot;&gt;25&lt;/reflink&gt;]&lt;sups&gt;,&lt;/sups&gt;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib28&quot; id=&quot;ref30&quot;&gt;28&lt;/reflink&gt;]&lt;sups&gt;,&lt;/sups&gt;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref31&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;] A meta-analysis investigating the relationship between cognitive functions, skills, and sports performance found that testing cognitive functions or skills using sport-specific stimuli can differentiate between elite and nonelite athletes, but non-sport-specific cognitive function tests are unable to predict future sport performance.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib30&quot; id=&quot;ref32&quot;&gt;30&lt;/reflink&gt;]&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;While past research has focused on investigating the effects of physical activity and sport on executive functioning, none have looked at their effects using a robust online, multi-dimensional assessment of executive functioning. Considering researchers have yet to investigate the potential differential effects of physical activity and sports participation on subjective and objective measures of EF, this study will elucidate the effects on executive functioning in both reported everyday behavior and in computerized testing to provide further insight into how executive functioning is affected by lifestyle variables in university students. Consistent with previous studies, we hypothesize that greater physical activity levels will be associated with better performance on all measures of EF. Considering the positive benefits of sports participation, we also hypothesize that having greater history of sports participation will be positively associated with EF independent of physical activity levels.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-3&quot;&gt;Methods&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The initial sample consisted of 247 Canadian university students aged 18 to 25 (&lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 20.10, &lt;emph&gt;SD&lt;/emph&gt; = 1.86). Participants were 72% white, 23% Asian, 2.8% Indigenous, 2.4% Hispanic/Latinx, and 0.8% Black. In regard to sex, 83% of the sample was female. In regard to gender identity, 81% of the sample identified as a woman (&lt;emph&gt;n&lt;/emph&gt; = 2 identified as non-binary or gender fluid). Inclusion criteria included age (18 to 25 years old), normal or corrected-to-normal vision, no history of neurological or cardiovascular disease, and no medication or drugs that may affect cognition at the time of testing. Participants were recruited from the local university&#39;s psychology research participant pool and were awarded one-course credit for participating.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Participants completed an online study that lasted approximately one hour. There were nine computerized tasks along with demographic questions and two questionnaires. Gorilla (&lt;ulink href=&quot;http://www.gorilla.sc&quot;&gt;www.gorilla.sc&lt;/ulink&gt;), a cloud software platform specifically developed for the behavioral sciences, was used to collect data for the study.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib32&quot; id=&quot;ref33&quot;&gt;32&lt;/reflink&gt;] Participants were able to complete this study &lt;emph&gt;via&lt;/emph&gt; a desktop computer or laptop. Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the University of Victoria&#39;s Human Research Ethics Board (protocol #20-0535).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-4&quot;&gt;Computerized tasks&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-5&quot;&gt;Updating&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Three tasks were used to assess updating: (&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib1&quot; id=&quot;ref34&quot;&gt;1&lt;/reflink&gt;) &lt;emph&gt;N-back:&lt;/emph&gt; The 2-Back task measures updating of working memory.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib33&quot; id=&quot;ref35&quot;&gt;33&lt;/reflink&gt;] In our design, a series of letters appear on the screen for 400 ms, and participants must click &quot;F&quot; for &quot; yes&quot; if the current letter is the same as two letters ago, or &quot;J&quot; for &quot;no&quot; if it is different from 2 letters ago. There were 180 trials including 30 targets (16.66%). The outcome variable was the proportion of correct responses. (&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref36&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;) &lt;emph&gt;Reading Span&lt;/emph&gt; (RSpan): designed from the original task by Daneman and Carpenter[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib34&quot; id=&quot;ref37&quot;&gt;34&lt;/reflink&gt;] with computerized modifications.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib35&quot; id=&quot;ref38&quot;&gt;35&lt;/reflink&gt;] For this task, participants were shown a string of letters and were told to remember them. Then, participants had to read a series of short sentences and answer if they were true or false (e.g., &#39;Oranges live in water&#39;, &#39;Chickens lay eggs&#39;). Finally, the participants had to type the original string of letters into a text box on the screen. Participants initially completed practice trials of recalling the letter strings and answering the true or false statements before beginning the trials. The letter strings ranged from 2 letters to 7 letters, and the outcome variable is the proportion of correct text entry responses. (&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref39&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;) &lt;emph&gt;Digit Span Backwards&lt;/emph&gt; (DSB): This task was adapted from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS).[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib36&quot; id=&quot;ref40&quot;&gt;36&lt;/reflink&gt;] Participants are shown a string of numbers and then must repeat them backward by clicking on a number pad on the screen. Following two practice trials, five lists of two digits are presented. They must succeed on a minimum of four trials to move on to the next level, where three digits are presented. This procedure continues until participants fail on four continuous trials for a given string length. Participants receive a final score based on the proportion of correct number entries.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-6&quot;&gt;Inhibition&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;A battery of three tasks, including: (&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib1&quot; id=&quot;ref41&quot;&gt;1&lt;/reflink&gt;) &lt;emph&gt;Simon Task:&lt;/emph&gt;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib37&quot; id=&quot;ref42&quot;&gt;37&lt;/reflink&gt;] There is a fixation cross in the middle of the screen, and the words &quot;Left&quot; or &quot;Right&quot; appear randomly on either side of the fixation cross. In our design, if the word &quot;Left&quot; appears on either side, participants must click &quot;F&quot;; if the word &quot;Right&quot; appears on either side, participants must click &quot;J&quot;. There were 100 trials with an equal number of each stimulus presented. The outcome variable is the proportion of correct responses. (&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref43&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;) &lt;emph&gt;Stop-Signal Delay&lt;/emph&gt; (STS):[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib38&quot; id=&quot;ref44&quot;&gt;38&lt;/reflink&gt;] Left and right-pointing arrows are presented inside a white circle. Participants must click &quot;F&quot; if the arrow points left and &quot;J&quot; if the arrow points right. In some trials, the circle will flash red (the stop-signal), indicating that the participant should not respond. After eight practise trials with feedback, participants completed 92 trials. The outcome variable is the proportion of correct responses. (&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref45&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;) &lt;emph&gt;Flanker Task:&lt;/emph&gt;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib39&quot; id=&quot;ref46&quot;&gt;39&lt;/reflink&gt;] This task measures participants&#39; ability to inhibit irrelevant information.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib39&quot; id=&quot;ref47&quot;&gt;39&lt;/reflink&gt;] A row of five arrows is presented; all the arrows face the same direction except the middle arrow, which may face the same direction as the four other arrows (congruent) or face the opposite direction of the other four arrows (incongruent). If the middle arrow is facing left, participants click &quot;F&quot; and if the middle arrow is facing right, they click &quot;J&quot;. After 12 practice trials (equal congruent and incongruent), there were four blocks of 24 trials. The outcome variable is the difference in reaction time between congruent and incongruent trials.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-7&quot;&gt;Shifting&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Three tasks were used to assess shifting: (&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib1&quot; id=&quot;ref48&quot;&gt;1&lt;/reflink&gt;) &lt;emph&gt;Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting Task&lt;/emph&gt; (WCST): The WCST measures a participant&#39;s ability to switch between three sets of rules in a single task.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib40&quot; id=&quot;ref49&quot;&gt;40&lt;/reflink&gt;] Participants are presented with a target card and asked to categorize it with one of four reference cards. If the participants correctly categorize the target card with a reference card, they will be shown a thumbs-up before starting the subsequent trial. If they are incorrect, they will be shown a thumbs down. In the original WCST, the rule changes after participants have gotten ten consecutive trials correct. However, in this modified version, the categorizing attribute randomly changes after ten trials, and the participants must adjust accordingly. Another modification is that participants are told the cards can be categorized by one of three attributes: color (red, green, blue, yellow), shape (circle, cross, star or square) and number (&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib1&quot; id=&quot;ref50&quot;&gt;1&lt;/reflink&gt;, 2, 3, or 4). There are 64 trials. The outcome variable is the proportion of correct responses. (&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref51&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;) &lt;emph&gt;Alternate Task Switching&lt;/emph&gt; (ATS): measures a participant&#39;s ability to switch between two sets of rules in a single task.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib41&quot; id=&quot;ref52&quot;&gt;41&lt;/reflink&gt;] In our design, the stimulus can be a square or rectangle that is blue or green (i.e., blue rectangle, green rectangle, blue square, green square) and is presented at the top or bottom of the screen. Response keys are &quot;F&quot; and &quot;J&quot;. If the stimulus is presented at the top of the screen, the participant must click &quot;F&quot; if it is blue and &quot;J&quot; if it is green. If presented at the bottom of the screen, participants must click &quot;F&quot; if it is a square and &quot;J&quot; if it is a rectangle. There are 100 trials following 25 practice trials. The outcome variable is the proportion of correct responses. (&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref53&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;) &lt;emph&gt;Cued Task Switching&lt;/emph&gt; (CTS): measures a participant&#39;s ability to switch between two sets of rules in a single task.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib42&quot; id=&quot;ref54&quot;&gt;42&lt;/reflink&gt;] There are four sets of stimuli that vary by color and shape (square or rectangle; blue or green). First, a word is presented (either &quot;color&quot; or &quot;shape&quot;), followed by one of the four stimuli. If the word is &quot;color&quot;, participants must click &quot;F&quot; if the shape is blue and &quot;J&quot; if it is green. If the word is &quot;shape&quot;, participants must click &quot;F&quot; for square and &quot;J&quot; for a rectangle. After 25 practice trials, there are 100 trials. The outcome variable is the proportion of correct responses for the trials.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-8&quot;&gt;Questionnaires&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-9&quot;&gt;Demographics&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;We obtained basic demographic information &lt;emph&gt;via&lt;/emph&gt; self-report, including age, sex, gender, race/ethnicity, concussion history, and history of sports participation. Concussion history was assessed with two items. The first item asked participants if they have experienced none, one, two, or three or more concussions. If participants endorsed experiencing a concussion, the second item asked how long ago they received their most recent concussion. Participants were removed from the analysis if they had experienced two or more concussions (&lt;emph&gt;n&lt;/emph&gt; = 27) or if their concussion was less than a year ago (&lt;emph&gt;n&lt;/emph&gt; = 3) to ensure that concussion history was not a confounding factor in our analysis, due to possible executive function deficits following a recent concussion or after multiple concussions. History of sports participation was initially assessed with open-ended questions asking participants to select all the sports they have played. The checklist included the following: Baseball, Basketball, Biking, Golf, Hockey, Lacrosse, Rowing, Rugby, Running, Skiing/Snowboarding, Soccer, Swimming, Tennis, Volleyball, Yoga, I don&#39;t play any sports, and Other (please specify). Participants then reported their highest level of sport played. The responses were then coded for &#39;history of sport participation&#39; as &#39;0′ = never played/not an athlete, &#39;1′ = High school/community league level or lower, &#39;2′ = Club level, &#39;3′ = Provincial or Varsity level, &#39;4′ = National or International level.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-10&quot;&gt;Executive Function Inventory (EFI)&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The EFI is a brief 27-item questionnaire assessing subjective EF through five subscales: motivational drive, impulse control, strategic planning, empathy, and organization.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib8&quot; id=&quot;ref55&quot;&gt;8&lt;/reflink&gt;] Motivational Drive (e.g., activity level and drive) is assessed with items like, &quot;&lt;emph&gt;I have a lot of enthusiasm to do things&quot;.&lt;/emph&gt; Impulse Control (e.g., risk-taking, substance use, excessive spending) is assessed with items like &quot;&lt;emph&gt;I lose my temper when I get upset&lt;/emph&gt; (reverse scored)&quot;. The Strategic Planning subscales reflect tendencies to think ahead and plan (e.g., the anticipation of consequences, saving money) and is assessed with items like &quot;&lt;emph&gt;I think about the consequences of an action before I do it&lt;/emph&gt;&quot;. The Empathy subscale, which measures concern for the well-being of others, prosocial behaviors, and a cooperative attitude, is assessed with items such as &quot;&lt;emph&gt;I don&#39;t like it if my actions or words hurt someone else&lt;/emph&gt;&quot;. Lastly, the Organization subscale (i.e., the ability to carry organized goal-directed behavior such as multitasking) is assessed with items such as &quot;&lt;emph&gt;I have trouble summing up information in order to make a decision with it&lt;/emph&gt;&quot; (reverse-scored). All items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (&quot;Not at all) to 5 (&quot;Very much&quot;), with higher total scores indicating greater executive functioning.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-11&quot;&gt;Physical activity&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The Godin-Leisure Time Physical Activity questionnaire assessed weekly physical activity.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib43&quot; id=&quot;ref56&quot;&gt;43&lt;/reflink&gt;] This questionnaire has been compared to treadmill performance and maximum oxygen intake (VO&lt;subs&gt;2&lt;/subs&gt; max) and has been found to be a valid and reliable indicator of leisure-time physical activity.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib43&quot; id=&quot;ref57&quot;&gt;43&lt;/reflink&gt;]&lt;sups&gt;,&lt;/sups&gt;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib44&quot; id=&quot;ref58&quot;&gt;44&lt;/reflink&gt;] The questionnaire asks participants to report how many times in 7 days they engage in strenuous (e.g., running), moderate (e.g., tennis) and mild physical activity (e.g., yoga) for more than 15-minute increments. The outcome variable is the weekly leisure time activity score which is calculated with the following equation which has been validated in previous studies:[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib45&quot; id=&quot;ref59&quot;&gt;45&lt;/reflink&gt;]&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Graph&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;math display=&quot;block&quot; xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtable columnalign=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtd&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtext mathvariant=&quot;italic&quot;&amp;gt;Weekly Leisure&amp;lt;/mtext&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtext /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mo&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;&amp;lt;/mo&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtext /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtext mathvariant=&quot;italic&quot;&amp;gt;time Score&amp;lt;/mtext&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mo /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/mtd&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/mtr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtd&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mo&amp;gt;=&amp;lt;/mo&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtext /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mfenced&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mrow&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mn&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/mn&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mo /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mo&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#215;&amp;lt;/mo&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mo /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtext mathvariant=&quot;italic&quot;&amp;gt;Strenuous&amp;lt;/mtext&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/mrow&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/mfenced&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtext /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mo&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/mo&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtext /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mfenced&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mrow&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mn&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/mn&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mo /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mo&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#215;&amp;lt;/mo&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mo /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtext mathvariant=&quot;italic&quot;&amp;gt;Moderate&amp;lt;/mtext&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/mrow&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/mfenced&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtext /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mo&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/mo&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtext /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mfenced&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mrow&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mn&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/mn&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mo /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mo&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#215;&amp;lt;/mo&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mo /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mtext mathvariant=&quot;italic&quot;&amp;gt;Mild&amp;lt;/mtext&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/mrow&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/mfenced&amp;gt;&amp;lt;mo&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/mo&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/mtd&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/mtr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/mtable&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-12&quot;&gt;Statistical analysis&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, kurtosis, and skewness, were calculated. Pearson correlations were also used to test the association between the manifest variables and between the three latent factors and subjective executive functioning (EFI scores). An alpha level of &amp;lt;.05 was used as a cutoff for statistical significance. An initial statistical power analysis was performed for sample size estimation (GPower 3.1).[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib46&quot; id=&quot;ref60&quot;&gt;46&lt;/reflink&gt;] With an alpha =.05, power = 0.80, and four independent variables, the projected sample size needed for an effect size of 0.15 was approximately &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt; = 80 for a linear multiple regression. For the structural equation modeling, with three latent factors, thirteen observed variables, an alpha =.05 and power = 0.80, the projected sample size needed for an effect size of 0.25 was approximately 181. Thus, our sample size of &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt; = 217 was determined to be more than adequate.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The hypothesized model was tested in two steps. First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to create a measurement model that adequately fits the data. Second, the structural equation model (SEM) was determined after the CFA was tested. Then, we tested the fit of a three-factor model based on Miyake and colleagues&#39;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib4&quot; id=&quot;ref61&quot;&gt;4&lt;/reflink&gt;] model with shifting, updating, and inhibition as latent factors. The model&#39;s fit was assessed using the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Following guidelines for good fit, values below 0.08 for the SRMR, below 0.06 for the RMSEA, and above 0.90 for the CFI and TLI indicate a good model fit.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib47&quot; id=&quot;ref62&quot;&gt;47&lt;/reflink&gt;] We then attempted to test the fit of a nested, bifactor model based on Friedman and colleagues&#39;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib48&quot; id=&quot;ref63&quot;&gt;48&lt;/reflink&gt;] model with shifting, updating and a common EF as the bifactor. This model did not converge, and so we used the three-factor model to investigate the relationship between history of sports participation, physical activity, age, and sex and the three EF latent factors.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Multiple linear regressions were used to examine the behavioral measure of EF (using EFI total scores). Age, sex, history of sports participation, and physical activity were included simultaneously as independent variables. Regression coefficients were assessed in terms of statistical significance (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;. 05). Descriptive statistics were also calculated for these variables. Lastly, we calculated Pearson&#39;s correlation coefficients between the latent factor means (shifting, updating, and inhibition) and the subjective EF (EFI total scores). All analyses were conducted using the statistical computing environment &#39;R Studio&#39; version 1.2.1335.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-13&quot;&gt;Exploratory post-hoc analyses&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Considering the significant correlation between physical activity and history of sports participation, we decided to conduct a post-hoc moderation analysis. While physical activity itself was found to be significantly positively associated with EFI scores, it is plausible that the impact varies depending on an individual&#39;s prior engagement in sports. It is possible that individuals with a history of sports participation may have developed specific cognitive skills or attributes that interact with their current level of physical activity to enhance their executive functioning abilities. By examining the interaction between weekly physical activity and history of sports participation, the moderation analysis aims to explore whether the relationship between physical activity and subjective executive functioning is contingent upon an individual&#39;s sports background. With an alpha =.05, power = 0.80, the projected sample size needed for an effect size of 0.15 was approximately &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt; = 55 for a moderation analysis. The interaction term between weekly physical activity and history of sports participation was thus added to the regression model. The outcome variable was subjective executive functioning (i.e., EFI).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-14&quot;&gt;Results&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-15&quot;&gt;Descriptive and preliminary analyses&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Demographic characteristics of the sample are described in Table 1. Descriptive statistics were also calculated for the EFI, Godin Leisure-Time Physical Activity, concussion history, and history of sports participation. The EFI was normally distributed with an average score of 98.40 (&lt;emph&gt;SD&lt;/emph&gt; = 10.45). We identified two outliers for the Godin-Leisure Time Physical Activity scores. After their removal, it was normally distributed with a mean of 50.21 (&lt;emph&gt;SD&lt;/emph&gt; = 26.10). Thus, for the regression, there were a total of 215 participants.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table 1. Means and standard deviations or percentages of demographic characteristics, concussion history, history of sports participation, and physical activity in male participants, female participants, and in the total sample.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Male &amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt; = 40&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Female &amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt; = 175&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Total Sample &amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt; = 215&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mean or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;SD&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mean or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;SD&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mean or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;SD&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody valign=&quot;top&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Age&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;20.05&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;2.01&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;20.13&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;1.88&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;20.12&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;1.92&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Race/Ethnicity (% White)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;60.00%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;24&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;73.14%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;128&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;70.70%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;152&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;No Concussion History (%)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;85.00%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;34&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;83.43%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;146&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;83.72%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;180&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;History of Sports Participation (%)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt; Never played/Not an athlete&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;10.00%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;16.57%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;29&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;15.35%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;33&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt; High School/Community League Lower&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;35.00%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;30.29%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;53&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;31.16%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;67&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt; Club&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;32.50%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;30.86%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;54&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;31.16%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;67&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt; Provincial or Varsity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;12.50%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;14.86%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;26&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;14.42%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;31&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt; National or International&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;10.00%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;7.43%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;7.91&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Weekly Leisure-Time Physical Activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;48.65&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;26.06&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;57.05&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;24.45&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;50.21&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;26.1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The data were initially screened for univariate and multivariate outliers and normality. First, univariate outliers were identified using the 1.5 times the interquartile range criterion. We identified 20 univariate outliers (9% of the overall sample) within the nine EF task variables using this method. We used listwise deletion for a total &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt; of 197 for the SEM analysis. Then, we examined the data for multivariate outliers using Mahalanobis distance across the nine EF variables. No multivariate outliers were identified. Missing data (&amp;lt; 1%) were addressed using full information maximum likelihood estimation. Lastly, switch cost variables (e.g., the difference in RT between switch and non-switch trials) for cued task switching and alternate task switching were calculated in order to serve as task performance validity indicators. Cued Task Switching had an average switch cost of 123.26 milliseconds (&lt;emph&gt;SD&lt;/emph&gt; = 291.43) while Alternate Task Switching had an average switch cost of 242.17 milliseconds (&lt;emph&gt;SD&lt;/emph&gt; = 106.19). These values serve as task performance validity indicators as the values are in the expected direction, as it is anticipated that a participant will take longer during a switch trial than a non-switch trial (Wylie &amp;amp; Allport, 2000).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Descriptive statistics of the variables included in the SEM and regressions were determined to examine each variable&#39;s normality. Cued Task Switching and Alternate Task Switching accuracy variables (proportion of correct responses) were arcsine transformed to achieve normality (see Table 2). The Flanker RT difference variable was scaled from milliseconds to seconds and reversed so that higher RT indicated better performance. Pearson&#39;s correlations were calculated to examine the relationships between the nine variables, and the correlation coefficients are also presented in Table 2. Correlations between the three latent factor means (updating, shifting, and inhibition) and mean EFI scores are shown in Table 3. Only shifting was significantly correlated to the mean EFI scores with a small to moderate correlation, &lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.25, &lt;emph&gt;p &amp;lt;&lt;/emph&gt; 0.01.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table 2. Means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and correlations with confidence intervals.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Variable&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;SD&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Simon&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Flanker&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;STS&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;DSB&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N-Back&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;RSpan&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;WCST&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;CTS&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Skew-ness&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Kurtosis&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody valign=&quot;top&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1.Simon&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.91&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.05&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.98&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.98&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.Flanker&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;0.05&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.03&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.23&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.09,.36]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;1.89&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;4.37&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3.STS&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.73&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.13&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.37&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.24,.48]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.19&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.05,.32]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.59&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.44&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4. DSB&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.43&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.25&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.01 [-.13,.15]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.11 [-.03,.24]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.10 [-.04,.24]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.73&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.19&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5. N-Back&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.84&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.13&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.17&amp;amp;#42; [.03,.30]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.08 [-.06,.22]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.33&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.19,.45]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.07 [-.21,.07]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;1.95&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;5.91&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;6. RSpan&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.52&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.21&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.12 [-.02,.25]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.17&amp;amp;#42; [.03,.31]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.12 [-.02,.26]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.14 [-.00,.27]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.11 [-.03,.25]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.68&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7. WCST&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.72&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.10&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.05 [-.09,.19]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.23&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.09,.36]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.23&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.09,.36]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.09 [-.05,.23]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.18&amp;amp;#42; [.04,.31]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.09 [-.05,.23]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.20&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.38&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8. CTS&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;1.30&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.17&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.26&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.12,.38]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.16&amp;amp;#42; [.02,.29]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.52&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.41,.62]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.06 [-.19,.08]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.41&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.29,.52]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.16&amp;amp;#42; [.02,.30]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.23&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.09,.36]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;1.35&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;2.62&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;9. ATS&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;1.32&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.23&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.10,.36]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.16&amp;amp;#42; [.02,.30]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.30&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.17,.43]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.10 [-.24,.04]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.36&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.23,.48]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.08 [-.06,.22]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.18&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.05,.32]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.61&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.52,.69]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;1.02&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;1.62&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1 &lt;emph&gt;Note.&lt;/emph&gt; STS = Stop-signal; DSB = Digit Span Backwards; RSpan = Reading Span; WCST = Wisconsin Card Sorting Task; CTS = Cued Task Switcihing; ATS = Alternate Task Switching. &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; and &lt;emph&gt;SD&lt;/emph&gt; are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation. The confidence interval is a plausible range of population correlations that could have caused the sample correlation[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib49&quot; id=&quot;ref64&quot;&gt;49&lt;/reflink&gt;]. * indicates &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.05. ** indicates &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.01.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the subjective (EFI) and objective executive functioning variables with confidence intervals.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Variable&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;SD&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;EFI&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Inhibition&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Shifting&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody valign=&quot;top&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;EFI&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;98.40&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;10.45&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Inhibition&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.65&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.08&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.09 [-.05,.23]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Shifting&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;1.22&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.13&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.25&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.11,.38]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.51&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.39,.60]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Updating&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.75&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.12&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.09 [-.05,.23]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.34&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.21,.46]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.44&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42; [.32,.54]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2 &lt;emph&gt;Note. M&lt;/emph&gt; and &lt;emph&gt;SD&lt;/emph&gt; are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation. The confidence interval is a plausible range of population correlations that could have caused the sample correlation[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib50&quot; id=&quot;ref65&quot;&gt;50&lt;/reflink&gt;]. * indicates &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.05. ** indicates &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.01.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-16&quot;&gt;Structural equation modelling (SEM)&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Using maximum likelihood estimation, the final CFA model was examined. Digit Span Backwards was removed from the model as the factor loading (0.03) was not significantly contributing to the model (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; =.76). The model showed an acceptable fit to the data, χ&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; = 26.94, &lt;emph&gt;df&lt;/emph&gt; = 17 &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.06, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.05 [90% CI: 0.00–0.09], SRMR = 0.04. In addition, all the factor loadings were significant, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.05, and ranged from 0.20 − 0.89.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The SEM was also examined using maximum likelihood estimation. This model also showed an acceptable fit, χ&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; = 53.61, &lt;emph&gt;df&lt;/emph&gt; = 42 &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.11, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.04 [90% CI: 0.00–0.07], SRMR = 0.05. There was no significant (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;gt;.05) direct effect of age, or physical activity in this model. Male sex was a significant correlate of the factor, inhibition, &lt;emph&gt;b&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.64, β = 0.24, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.01, such that male participants had greater inhibition. History of sports participation was also significantly positively associated with the factor inhibition, &lt;emph&gt;b&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.18, β = 0.19, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.05, such that higher (or more competitive) level of sports participation was associated with greater inhibition. Lastly and unsurprisingly, weekly physical activity and history of sports participation were significantly positively correlated, &lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.33, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.01. These results are summarized in Figure 1.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Graph: Figure 1. Structural equation model (SEM) of objective EF. * indicates p &amp;lt;.05. ** indicates p &amp;lt;.01.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-17&quot;&gt;Multiple regression&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;A multiple linear regression was first calculated to explore the associations with the EFI and age, sex, physical activity and history of sports participation. Age, sex, and history of sports participation were not significantly related to EFI scores. Physical activity was a significantly associated with EFI scores, &lt;emph&gt;b&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.12, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.01, with greater physical activity associated with greater EFI scores. These results are further summarized in Table 4.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table 4. Regression results using EFI total scores as the criterion.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Variable&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt; 95% CI [LL, UL]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;sr&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;sr&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt; 95% CI [LL, UL]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Fit&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody valign=&quot;top&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;(Intercept)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;89.60&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;[74.73, 104.48]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Age&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.12&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;[-0.59, 0.83]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.00&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;[-.00,.01]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Sex (Male)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;2.53&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;[-6.05, 0.99]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.01&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;[-.01,.03]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Physical Activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.12&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;[0.06, 0.17]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.08&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;[.01,.15]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;History of Sports Participation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;0.43&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;[-0.84, 1.69]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;.00&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;[-.01,.01]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt; =.100&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot;&amp;gt;95% CI[.03,.17]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;3 &lt;emph&gt;Note.&lt;/emph&gt; A significant &lt;emph&gt;b&lt;/emph&gt;-weight indicates the semi-partial correlation is also significant. &lt;emph&gt;b&lt;/emph&gt; represents unstandardized regression weights. &lt;emph&gt;sr&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt;&lt;/emph&gt; represents the semi-partial correlation squared. &lt;emph&gt;LL&lt;/emph&gt; and &lt;emph&gt;UL&lt;/emph&gt; indicate the lower and upper limits of a confidence interval, respectively. *indicates &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.05. **indicates &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.01.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-18&quot;&gt;Post-Hoc analyses&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Moderation analysis was used to investigate the post-hoc hypothesis that history of sports participation may moderate the effect of weekly physical activity on EFI scores. The interaction effect was nonsignificant, &lt;emph&gt;b&lt;/emph&gt;= −0.02, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; =. 39. Thus, the effect of weekly physical activity on EFI scores is not moderated by history of sports participation.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-19&quot;&gt;Discussion&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the joint effects of physical activity and history of sports participation in university students on several measures of EF, including both objective and subjective instruments. While we hypothesized that reports of greater physical activity levels and higher history of sports participation would be associated with better performance on all measurements, including objective, computerized measures of EF, this hypothesis was not fully supported by our findings. Only our subjective measure of EF had an association with physical activity and only the latent factor, inhibition was associated with history of sports participation. Furthermore, inhibition and shifting were not significantly correlated with the EFI, while updating had a small-medium correlation. This observed lack of relationship between the subjective EFI and the factors, shifting and inhibition could be attributed to several explanations. Firstly, self-report measures of executive functioning and objective performance-based measures may tap into slightly different aspects of the underlying EF construct. Self-report measures capture an individual&#39;s subjective perception of their own executive functioning in real-world contexts, whereas objective measures assess performance on specific computerized cognitive tasks that may not fully reflect everyday functioning. This disparity between self-report and objective measures aligns with previous research that performance-based measures of executive functioning often do not correlate with self-report measures of executive functioning, suggesting they are complementary, but measuring slightly different aspects of the underlying EF construct.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref66&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]&lt;sups&gt;,&lt;/sups&gt;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib51&quot; id=&quot;ref67&quot;&gt;51&lt;/reflink&gt;]&lt;sups&gt;,&lt;/sups&gt;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib52&quot; id=&quot;ref68&quot;&gt;52&lt;/reflink&gt;] Furthermore, the measurement methods employed for subjective and objective executive functioning measures may also contribute to the observed differences. Subjective measures, such as questionnaires, rely on individuals&#39; self-awareness and introspection, which may introduce biases and variations in reporting. Objective measures, on the other hand, provide standardized assessments of specific cognitive processes but may lack ecological validity when it comes to real-world executive functioning. The partial support of our hypotheses in this study underscores the complexity of executive functioning assessment and the need for a multi-method approach. By incorporating both self-report and objective measures, we gain a more nuanced understanding of the construct, recognizing that they likely capture different aspects of executive functioning. These findings highlight the need for an integrated assessment approach that incorporates subjective and objective measures to comprehensively evaluate executive functioning in individuals.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-20&quot;&gt;Objective executive functioning&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;We identified a significant sex effect, indicating that male students had greater inhibition than female students, as reflected on task performance; however, this finding should be interpreted with caution due to our uneven sex distribution (81% female). While the result seems to support the concept of a male advantage in response inhibition found by previous researchers,[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib53&quot; id=&quot;ref69&quot;&gt;53&lt;/reflink&gt;]&lt;sups&gt;,&lt;/sups&gt;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib54&quot; id=&quot;ref70&quot;&gt;54&lt;/reflink&gt;] other studies have reported inconsistent results, with females having better inhibition than males.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib55&quot; id=&quot;ref71&quot;&gt;55&lt;/reflink&gt;] A recent meta-analysis concluded that men and women did not differ in response inhibition, updating or performance monitoring.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib56&quot; id=&quot;ref72&quot;&gt;56&lt;/reflink&gt;] However, Gaillard and colleagues[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib57&quot; id=&quot;ref73&quot;&gt;57&lt;/reflink&gt;] conducted a systematic review investigating sex differences in the neural networks of EF and determined that there are sex-specific strategies used that are task-dependent. So, it seems that there may be sex-specific strategies within the brain&#39;s neural networks that lead to similar task performance results. This aligns with our findings considering that besides inhibition, sex was not found to be significantly associated with the other latent factors or overall subjective executive functioning. Considering the mixed literature and our uneven sex distribution, future research should continue to explore the potential mechanisms and explanations for any observed sex differences in executive functioning, including the role of sex hormones.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Regarding history of sports participation, the results partially supported our hypotheses and are somewhat consistent with the extant literature regarding a positive relationship between objective EF tasks and history of sports participation. We found that individuals without a history of sports participation had significantly lower inhibition, but not shifting or updating. Studies with samples of elite athletes have demonstrated specific athletic advantages to cognition above and beyond the benefits from physical activity,[[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref74&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;], [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref75&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;]]&lt;sups&gt;,&lt;/sups&gt;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib26&quot; id=&quot;ref76&quot;&gt;26&lt;/reflink&gt;]&lt;sups&gt;,&lt;/sups&gt;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib27&quot; id=&quot;ref77&quot;&gt;27&lt;/reflink&gt;] but a recent critical review argues that the current state of the literature makes it difficult to draw any strong conclusions, and there may be important confounding variables with athletes that are not being considered such as sleep quality, healthy diet, positive mood, and aerobic fitness.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib31&quot; id=&quot;ref78&quot;&gt;31&lt;/reflink&gt;] Interestingly, our study was exploring the role of any participation in sport through a liberal approach (e.g., not college or professional athletes), and yet we still found an effect of history of sports participation on inhibition. Relatedly, Koch and Krenn[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib58&quot; id=&quot;ref79&quot;&gt;58&lt;/reflink&gt;] determined that past involvement in open-skilled sports (e.g., sports with a continuously changing environment such as soccer) was associated with greater working memory and cognitive flexibility. Thus, having been an athlete at any point in one&#39;s life may be beneficial to a university student&#39;s objective executive functioning; however, more research is needed to determine how factors such as sport type, level of competition, and athletic expertise may differentially impact different types of executive functions such as inhibition and cognitive flexibility.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-21&quot;&gt;Subjective executive functioning&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The results of our post-hoc moderation analyses showed that history of sports participation does not moderate the effect of physical activity on subjective EF. However, we recognize that this may be in part due to our variable of &#39;history of sports participation&#39; (compared to current elite athletes), which could lead to the actual amount of current physical activity playing a more important role. The results of our study supported our hypothesis regarding a positive relationship between physical activity and subjective executive functioning. This suggests that engaging in physical activity may have a positive impact on self-perceived EF in real-world everyday situations. Diamond[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib59&quot; id=&quot;ref80&quot;&gt;59&lt;/reflink&gt;] argues that physical activity utilizes EF through discipline and attention, thus improving EF and ultimately leading to optimal school performance. While previous research has demonstrated the benefits of physical activity on objective EF tasks, less research has investigated the effects of physical activity on subjective executive functioning. Thus, future research needs to continue to explore the relationship between physical activity and subjective executive functioning, as it may provide university students more benefits to engaging in physical activity than just the physical.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Although more research is needed to better understand the complex relationship between physical activity and the various EFs, there may be potential for incorporating physical activity interventions or recommendations into clinical practice for college students with executive dysfunction (e.g., students with ADHD). With continued research, clinicians and healthcare professionals in the future may provide education around the advantages of engaging in regular physical activity, emphasizing the possible positive effects on executive functioning in everyday life. Additionally, incorporating physical activity as part of a holistic treatment approach may complement other therapeutic interventions targeting executive dysfunction in college students. By recognizing the possible clinical implications of physical activity for EF difficulties, healthcare professionals can optimize treatment strategies and improve the overall well-being of college students.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-22&quot;&gt;Limitations and future directions&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;While the strength of this study was the robustness of the EF measurement, using a multi-method approach with multiple computerized tasks (objective testing), in addition to a behavioral self-report measure (subjective reporting), it is not without limitations. Due to the entirely online nature of the study, participants may not have been fully engaged or motivated during testing. Similarly, there is no way to ensure all participants have the same computerized testing experience due to the participants using their personal devices (i.e., laptops versus desktop computers). This online testing may have led to the univariate outliers (9% of the original sample) we had to remove, and our sample size is relatively small. However, once the outliers were removed, all the variables were normally distributed, and the effects such as switch costs were as expected. Moreover, previous research comparing online testing to in-lab testing has had positive results with no notable differences in performance.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib49&quot; id=&quot;ref81&quot;&gt;49&lt;/reflink&gt;][[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib60&quot; id=&quot;ref82&quot;&gt;60&lt;/reflink&gt;], [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib62&quot; id=&quot;ref83&quot;&gt;62&lt;/reflink&gt;]] Another limitation is that we only included two indicators for the updating factor; it would have been ideal to have three indicators for each factor, although the model still had an acceptable fit. Another possible limitation is that our independent variables (i.e., history of sports participation and weekly physical activity) were self-report measures and, thus, may not have been as accurate as if they were objectively measured or reported. Further, it would have been informative to have obtained information regarding other possible confounding variables including sleep, mood, diet and presence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) within our sample, considering all these factors may affect cognition and ADHD, particularly, is linked to executive dysfunction.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib63&quot; id=&quot;ref84&quot;&gt;63&lt;/reflink&gt;] Lastly, due to the recruitment through psychology classes from the local university for class credit (psychology undergraduates at this institution are 78% female), our sample is primarily female and highly active, which may not represent the average university student population and may have been due to selection biases.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;This study provides many avenues for future research. Further research is needed to understand both the directionality of the association between executive functioning and physical activity and potentially confounding variables (sleep, mood, etc.) in order to draw firmer conclusions of the potential benefits or clinical implications of this association.[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib31&quot; id=&quot;ref85&quot;&gt;31&lt;/reflink&gt;] Also, researchers should continue to investigate not only history of sports participation but also sport type to determine if there are unique differences in both subjective and objective EF dependent on the type of sport. Second, considering the potential significance of self-reported weekly physical activity on behavioral reports of EF, it will be necessary to follow up this finding with more objective measures of physical activity (e.g., wearable personal fitness tracker). Lastly, attempting to examine the unity and diversity of EF,[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib64&quot; id=&quot;ref86&quot;&gt;64&lt;/reflink&gt;] we were unsuccessful in extracting a Common EF factor using a nested, bifactor approach. It would be interesting to investigate if physical activity and history of sports participation are more associated with a Common EF (unity) factor than each EF factor (diversity).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-23&quot;&gt;Conclusions&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;This study examined the relationship between physical activity, history of sports participation, age, sex and both subjective and objective measures of EF through an online assessment of college students. While most of our hypotheses were not supported for objective measures of EF, we identified that history of sports participation is positively related to inhibition. This study also provides support for the positive effects of physical activity on subjective EF in university students, an area previously unstudied. Overall, these findings provide an interesting perspective on the relationship (or lack thereof) between physical activity and sport correlates of subjective and objective measures of EF. Self-report measures may allow for more nuance within the behavioral manifestations of EF, which have important implications considering that self-report measures relate to everyday life much more than objective computerized tasks. The benefits of physical activity on every day, subjective executive functioning in college students have yet to be reported and these findings can be utilized by universities, healthcare professionals, and students themselves to promote both physical activity and subjective cognitive functioning. Considering the diversity in EF measurement, these findings require follow-up studies to better understand the differences, similarities and mechanisms, especially in physical activity and sports research on executive functioning in university students.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-24&quot;&gt;Conflict of interest disclosure&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of Canada and received approval from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Victoria.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187189375-25&quot;&gt;Data availability statement&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XSERV.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;ref id=&quot;AN0187189375-26&quot;&gt; &lt;title&gt; References &lt;/title&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib1&quot; idref=&quot;ref1&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;1&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Duggan EC, Garcia-Barrera MA. Executive functioning and intelligence. In: Handbook of Intelligence: Evolutionary Theory, Historical Perspective, and Current Concepts. New York, NY: Springer; 2015 : 435 – 458. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-1562-0_27.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib2&quot; idref=&quot;ref2&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;2&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Miyake A, Friedman NP. The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: four general conclusions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012; 21 (1): 8 – 14. doi: 10.1177/0963721411429458.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib3&quot; idref=&quot;ref3&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;3&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Baars M, Nije Bijvank M, Tonnaer G, Jolles J. Self-report measures of executive functioning are a determinant of academic performance in first-year students at a university of applied sciences. Front Psychol. 2015; 6 : 1131. Accessed March 2, 2023. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01131.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib4&quot; idref=&quot;ref4&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;4&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex &quot;frontal lobe&quot; tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. 2000; 41 (1): 49 – 100. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib5&quot; idref=&quot;ref6&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;5&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Diamond A. The early development of executive functions. Published online 2006.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib6&quot; idref=&quot;ref10&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;6&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Gioia GA, Isquith PK, Guy SC, Kenworthy L. Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function: BRIEF. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 2000.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib7&quot; idref=&quot;ref11&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;7&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Garcia-Barrera MA, Duggan EC, Karr JE, Reynolds CR. Examining executive functioning using the behavior assessment system for children (BASC). In: Goldstein S, Naglieri JA, eds. Handbook of Executive Functioning. New York : Springer; 2014 : 283 – 299. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-8106-5_17.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib8&quot; idref=&quot;ref12&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;8&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Spinella M. Self-rated executive function: development of the executive function index. Int J Neurosci. 2005; 115 (5): 649 – 667. doi: 10.1080/00207450590524304.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib9&quot; idref=&quot;ref14&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;9&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Buchanan T. Self-report measures of executive function problems correlate with personality, not performance-based executive function measures, in nonclinical samples. Psychol Assess. 2016; 28 (4): 372 – 385. doi: 10.1037/pas0000192.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Snyder HR. Major depressive disorder is associated with broad impairments on neuropsychological measures of executive function: a meta-analysis and review. Psychol Bull. 2013; 139 (1): 81 – 132. doi: 10.1037/a0028727.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Toplak ME, West RF, Stanovich KE. Practitioner review: do performance-based measures and ratings of executive function assess the same construct?: Performance-based and rating measures of EF. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013; 54 (2): 131 – 143. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12001.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Warburton DER, Bredin SSD. Health benefits of physical activity: a systematic review of current systematic reviews. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2017; 32 (5): 541 – 556. doi: 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000437.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Rhodes RE, Janssen I, Bredin SSD, Warburton DER, Bauman A. Physical activity: health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychol Health. 2017; 32 (8): 942 – 975. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2017.1325486.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Barenberg J, Berse T, Dutke S. Executive functions in learning processes: do they benefit from physical activity? Educ Res Rev. 2011; 6 (3): 208 – 222. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2011.04.002.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hall CD, Smith AL, Keele SW. The impact of aerobic activity on cognitive function in older adults: a new synthesis based on the concept of executive control. Eur J Cogn Psychol. 2001; 13 (1-2): 279 – 300. doi: 10.1080/09541440042000313.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Best JR. Effects of physical activity on children&#39;s executive function: contributions of experimental research on aerobic exercise. Dev Rev. 2010; 30 (4): 331 – 551. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2010.08.001.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Padilla C, P&#233;rez L, Andr&#233;s P. Chronic exercise keeps working memory and inhibitory capacities fit. Front Behav Neurosci. 2014; 8 : 49. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00049.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Tsai CL, Wang CH, Pan CY, Chen FC, Huang TH, Chou FY. Executive function and endocrinological responses to acute resistance exercise. Front Behav Neurosci. 2014; 8 : 262. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00262.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Verburgh L, K&#246;nigs M, Scherder EJ, Oosterlaan J. Physical exercise and executive functions in preadolescent children, adolescents and young adults: a meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2014; 48 (12): 973 – 979. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091441.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Padilla C, Perez L, Andres P, Parmentier FBR. Exercise improves cognitive control: evidence from the stop signal task: exercise improves cognitive control. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2013; 27 (4): 505 – 511. doi: 10.1002/acp.2929.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Daly M, McMinn D, Allan JL. A bidirectional relationship between physical activity and executive function in older adults. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014; 8 : 1044. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01044.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Alves H, Voss MW, Boot WR, et al. Perceptual-cognitive expertise in elite volleyball players. Front Psychol. 2013; 4 : 36. Accessed March 2, 2023. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00036.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Jacobson J, Matthaeus L. Athletics and executive functioning: how athletic participation and sport type correlate with cognitive performance. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2014; 15 (5): 521 – 527. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.05.005.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Chueh TY, Huang CJ, Hsieh SS, Chen KF, Chang YK, Hung TM. Sports training enhances visuo-spatial cognition regardless of open-closed typology. PeerJ. 2017; 5 : e3336. doi: 10.7717/peerj.3336.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Vestberg T, Gustafson R, Maurex L, Ingvar M, Petrovic P. Executive functions predict the success of top-soccer players. Garc&#237;a AV, ed. PLoS One. 2012; 7 (4): e34731. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034731.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Ballester R, Huertas F, Pablos-Abella C, Llorens F, Pesce C. Chronic participation in externally paced, but not self-paced sports is associated with the modulation of domain-general cognition. Eur J Sport Sci. 2019; 19 (8): 1110 – 1119. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2019.1580318.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Yu M, Liu Y. Differences in executive function of the attention network between athletes from interceptive and strategic sports. J Mot Behav. 2021; 53 (4): 419 – 430. doi: 10.1080/00222895.2020.1790486.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Verburgh L, Scherder EJ, van Lange PA, Oosterlaan J. Executive functioning in highly talented soccer players. PLoS One. 2014; 9 (3): e91254. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091254.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Kida N, Oda S, Matsumura M. Intensive baseball practice improves the Go/Nogo reaction time, but not the simple reaction time. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005; 22 (2): 257 – 264. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.003.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Kal&#233;n A, Bisagno E, Musculus L, et al. The role of domain-specific and domain-general cognitive functions and skills in sports performance: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2022 0411; 147 (12): 1290 – 1308. doi: 10.1037/bul0000355.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Furley P, Sch&#252;tz LM, Wood G. A critical review of research on executive functions in sport and exercise. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2023; 0 (0): 1 – 29. doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2023.2217437.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Anwyl-Irvine AL, Massonni&#233; J, Flitton A, Kirkham N, Evershed JK. Gorilla in our midst: an online behavioral experiment builder. Behav Res Methods. 2020; 52 (1): 388 – 407. doi: 10.3758/s13428-019-01237-x.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Kirchner WK. Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. J Exp Psychol. 1958; 55 (4): 352 – 358. doi: 10.1037/h0043688.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Daneman M, Carpenter PA. Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav. 1980; 19 (4): 450 – 466. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Unsworth N, Heitz RP, Schrock JC, Engle RW. An automated version of the operation span task. Behav Res Methods. 2005; 37 (3): 498 – 505. doi: 10.3758/BF03192720.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Wechsler D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) [Database record]. APA PsycTests; 2008. doi: 10.1037/t15169-000.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Simon JR. Reactions toward the source of stimulation. J Exp Psychol. 1969; 81 (1): 174 – 176. doi: 10.1037/h0027448.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Logan GD. On the ability to inhibit thought and action: a users&#39; guide to the stop signal paradigm. Published online 1994.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percept Psychophys. 1974; 16 (1): 143 – 149. doi: 10.3758/BF03203267.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Kongs S, Thompson L, Iverson G, Heaton R. Wisconsin Card Sorting Test-, 64 Card Version: WCST-64: PAR Lutz. FL PAR. Published online 2000.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Rogers RD, Monsell S. Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1995; 124 (2): 207 – 231. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Allport DA, Styles EA, Hsieh S. Shifting intentional set: exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In: Umilt&#224; C, Moscovitch M, eds. Attention and performance 15: conscious and nonconscious information processing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1994 : 421 – 452.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Godin G, Shephard R. A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 1985; 10 (3): 141 – 146.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Jacobs DR, Ainsworth BE, Hartman TJ, Leon AS. A simultaneous evaluation of 10 commonly used physical activity questionnaires. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993; 25 (1): 81 – 91. doi: 10.1249/00005768-199301000-00012.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Amireault S, Godin G. The Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire: validity evidence supporting its use for classifying healthy adults into active and insufficiently active categories. Percept Mot Skills. 2015; 120 (2): 604 – 622. doi: 10.2466/03.27.PMS.120v19x7.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39 (2): 175 – 191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 1999; 6 (1): 1 – 55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Friedman NP, Miyake A, Young SE, DeFries JC, Corley RP, Hewitt JK. Individual differences in executive functions are almost entirely genetic in origin. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008; 137 (2): 201 – 225. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.201.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Casler K, Bickel L, Hackett E. Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon&#39;s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Comput Hum Behav. 2013; 29 (6): 2156 – 2160. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Cumming G. The new statistics: why and how. Psychol Sci. 2014; 25 (1): 7 – 29. doi: 10.1177/0956797613504966.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Isquith PK, Roth RM, Gioia G. Contribution of rating scales to the assessment of executive functions. Appl Neuropsychol Child. 2013; 2 (2): 125 – 132. doi: 10.1080/21622965.2013.748389.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Mcauley T, Chen S, Goos L, Schachar R, Crosbie J. Is the behavior rating inventory of executive function more strongly associated with measures of impairment or executive function? J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2010; 16 (3): 495 – 505. doi: 10.1017/S1355617710000093.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Evans KL, Hampson E. Sex-dependent effects on tasks assessing reinforcement learning and interference inhibition. Front Psychol. 2015; 6 : 1044. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01044.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Stoet G. Sex differences in the processing of flankers. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2010; 63 (4): 633 – 638. doi: 10.1080/17470210903464253.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Sjoberg EA, Cole GG. Sex differences on the Go/No-Go test of inhibition. Arch Sex Behav. 2018; 47 (2): 537 – 542. doi: 10.1007/s10508-017-1010-9.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Gaillard A, Fehring DJ, Rossell SL. A systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioural sex differences in executive control. Eur J Neurosci. 2021; 53 (2): 519 – 542. doi: 10.1111/ejn.14946.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Gaillard A, Fehring DJ, Rossell SL. Sex differences in executive control: a systematic review of functional neuroimaging studies. Eur J Neurosci. 2021; 53 (8): 2592 – 2611. doi: 10.1111/ejn.15107.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Koch P, Krenn B. Executive functions in elite athletes – comparing open-skill and closed-skill sports and considering the role of athletes&#39; past involvement in both sport categories. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2021; 55 : 101925. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.101925.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Diamond A. Want to optimize executive functions and academic outcomes? Simple, just nourish the human spirit. In: Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &amp;amp; Sons, Inc.; 2013 : 203 – 230. doi: 10.1002/9781118732373.ch7.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hansen TI, Lehn H, Evensmoen HR, H&#229;berg AK. Initial assessment of reliability of a self-administered web-based neuropsychological test battery. Comput Hum Behav. 2016; 63 : 91 – 97. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.025.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Backx R, Skirrow C, Dente P, Barnett JH, Cormack FK. Comparing web-based and lab-based cognitive assessment using the cambridge neuropsychological test automated battery: a within-subjects counterbalanced study. J Med Internet Res. 2020; 22 (8): e16792. doi: 10.2196/16792.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Kim PJ. Social determinants of health inequities in indigenous Canadians through a life course approach to colonialism and the residential school system. Health Equity. 2019; 3 (1): 378 – 381. doi: 10.1089/heq.2019.0041.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Willcutt EG, Doyle AE, Nigg JT, Faraone SV, Pennington BF. Validity of the executive function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analytic review. Biol Psychiatry. 2005; 57 (11): 1336 – 1346. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.02.006.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Garcia-Barrera MA. Unity and diversity of dysexecutive syndromes. In: Ardila A, Fatima S, Rosselli M, eds. Dysexecutive Syndromes. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG; 2019 : 3 – 27. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-25077-5_1.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;/ref&gt; &lt;aug&gt; &lt;p&gt;By Madeline M. Doucette; Juan Pablo S&#225;nchez Escudero; Ryan E. Rhodes and Mauricio A. Garcia-Barrera&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/aug&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl1&quot; bibid=&quot;bib10&quot; firstref=&quot;ref15&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl2&quot; bibid=&quot;bib11&quot; firstref=&quot;ref17&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl3&quot; bibid=&quot;bib12&quot; firstref=&quot;ref18&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl4&quot; bibid=&quot;bib13&quot; firstref=&quot;ref19&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl5&quot; bibid=&quot;bib14&quot; firstref=&quot;ref20&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl6&quot; bibid=&quot;bib15&quot; firstref=&quot;ref21&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl7&quot; bibid=&quot;bib16&quot; firstref=&quot;ref22&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl8&quot; bibid=&quot;bib17&quot; firstref=&quot;ref23&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl9&quot; bibid=&quot;bib19&quot; firstref=&quot;ref24&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl10&quot; bibid=&quot;bib21&quot; firstref=&quot;ref25&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl11&quot; bibid=&quot;bib22&quot; firstref=&quot;ref26&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl12&quot; bibid=&quot;bib24&quot; firstref=&quot;ref27&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl13&quot; bibid=&quot;bib26&quot; firstref=&quot;ref28&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl14&quot; bibid=&quot;bib25&quot; firstref=&quot;ref29&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl15&quot; bibid=&quot;bib28&quot; firstref=&quot;ref30&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl16&quot; bibid=&quot;bib29&quot; firstref=&quot;ref31&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl17&quot; bibid=&quot;bib30&quot; firstref=&quot;ref32&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl18&quot; bibid=&quot;bib32&quot; firstref=&quot;ref33&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl19&quot; bibid=&quot;bib33&quot; firstref=&quot;ref35&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl20&quot; bibid=&quot;bib34&quot; firstref=&quot;ref37&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl21&quot; bibid=&quot;bib35&quot; firstref=&quot;ref38&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl22&quot; bibid=&quot;bib36&quot; firstref=&quot;ref40&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl23&quot; bibid=&quot;bib37&quot; firstref=&quot;ref42&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl24&quot; bibid=&quot;bib38&quot; firstref=&quot;ref44&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl25&quot; bibid=&quot;bib39&quot; firstref=&quot;ref46&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl26&quot; bibid=&quot;bib40&quot; firstref=&quot;ref49&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl27&quot; bibid=&quot;bib41&quot; firstref=&quot;ref52&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl28&quot; bibid=&quot;bib42&quot; firstref=&quot;ref54&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl29&quot; bibid=&quot;bib43&quot; firstref=&quot;ref56&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl30&quot; bibid=&quot;bib44&quot; firstref=&quot;ref58&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl31&quot; bibid=&quot;bib45&quot; firstref=&quot;ref59&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl32&quot; bibid=&quot;bib46&quot; firstref=&quot;ref60&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl33&quot; bibid=&quot;bib47&quot; firstref=&quot;ref62&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl34&quot; bibid=&quot;bib48&quot; firstref=&quot;ref63&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl35&quot; bibid=&quot;bib49&quot; firstref=&quot;ref64&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl36&quot; bibid=&quot;bib50&quot; firstref=&quot;ref65&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl37&quot; bibid=&quot;bib51&quot; firstref=&quot;ref67&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl38&quot; bibid=&quot;bib52&quot; firstref=&quot;ref68&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl39&quot; bibid=&quot;bib53&quot; firstref=&quot;ref69&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl40&quot; bibid=&quot;bib54&quot; firstref=&quot;ref70&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl41&quot; bibid=&quot;bib55&quot; firstref=&quot;ref71&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl42&quot; bibid=&quot;bib56&quot; firstref=&quot;ref72&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl43&quot; bibid=&quot;bib57&quot; firstref=&quot;ref73&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl44&quot; bibid=&quot;bib27&quot; firstref=&quot;ref77&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl45&quot; bibid=&quot;bib31&quot; firstref=&quot;ref78&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl46&quot; bibid=&quot;bib58&quot; firstref=&quot;ref79&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl47&quot; bibid=&quot;bib59&quot; firstref=&quot;ref80&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl48&quot; bibid=&quot;bib60&quot; firstref=&quot;ref82&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl49&quot; bibid=&quot;bib62&quot; firstref=&quot;ref83&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl50&quot; bibid=&quot;bib63&quot; firstref=&quot;ref84&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl51&quot; bibid=&quot;bib64&quot; firstref=&quot;ref86&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt;
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1479609
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Associations of Physical Activity and History of Sports Participation with Subjective and Objective Measures of Executive Functioning in University Students
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Madeline+M%2E+Doucette%22&quot;&gt;Madeline M. Doucette&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Juan+Pablo+S&#225;nchez+Escudero%22&quot;&gt;Juan Pablo S&#225;nchez Escudero&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Ryan+E%2E+Rhodes%22&quot;&gt;Ryan E. Rhodes&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Mauricio+A%2E+Garcia-Barrera%22&quot;&gt;Mauricio A. Garcia-Barrera&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SO&quot; term=&quot;%22Journal+of+American+College+Health%22&quot;&gt;&lt;i&gt;Journal of American College Health&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/searchLink&gt;. 2025 73(6):2433-2442.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Taylor &amp; Francis. Available from: Taylor &amp; Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles&lt;br /&gt;Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;EL&quot; term=&quot;%22Higher+Education%22&quot;&gt;Higher Education&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;EL&quot; term=&quot;%22Postsecondary+Education%22&quot;&gt;Postsecondary Education&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Athletics%22&quot;&gt;Athletics&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22College+Students%22&quot;&gt;College Students&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Physical+Activity+Level%22&quot;&gt;Physical Activity Level&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Executive+Function%22&quot;&gt;Executive Function&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Student+Participation%22&quot;&gt;Student Participation&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Correlation%22&quot;&gt;Correlation&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Gender+Differences%22&quot;&gt;Gender Differences&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Physical+Activities%22&quot;&gt;Physical Activities&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Foreign+Countries%22&quot;&gt;Foreign Countries&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Cognitive+Processes%22&quot;&gt;Cognitive Processes&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Canada%22&quot;&gt;Canada&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SU&quot; term=&quot;%22Wisconsin+Card+Sorting+Test%22&quot;&gt;Wisconsin Card Sorting Test&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/07448481.2023.2299414
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0744-8481&lt;br /&gt;1940-3208
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examined how physical activity and history of sports participation affect subjective and objective executive functioning in university students. A total of 215 university students aged 18-25 (81% female) completed a virtual assessment of executive function. The correlates were age, sex, physical activity, and history of sports participation. Structural equation modeling was used to examine objective executive function using a three-factor model (shifting, updating, inhibition). The Executive Function Index (EFI) was used to measure subjective executive functioning, and linear regression was used to examine total EFI scores. Physical activity (b = 0.12, p &lt; 0.01) was a significant correlate of subjective but not objective executive functioning. Male sex and history of sports participation were significantly positively related to the objective measure of inhibition (b = 0.64, p &lt; 0.01; b = 0.18, p &lt; 0.05). These findings suggest that subjective and objective measures of executive functioning should be differentiated when investigating their relationship with physical activity and history of sports participation.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1479609
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1479609
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/07448481.2023.2299414
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 2433
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Athletics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Activity Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Executive Function
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Associations of Physical Activity and History of Sports Participation with Subjective and Objective Measures of Executive Functioning in University Students
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Madeline M. Doucette
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Juan Pablo Sánchez Escudero
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ryan E. Rhodes
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mauricio A. Garcia-Barrera
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0744-8481
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1940-3208
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 73
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of American College Health
              Type: main
ResultId 1