Validity and reliability study of the cold executive functions test developed for specially talented students

157 Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity 12(2), 157-175, December 2025 e-ISSN: 2149-1410 jgedc.org dergipark.org.tr/jgedc Genc Bilge Publishing Ltd. (Young Wise) © 2025 gencbilgeyayincilik.com Research Article Validity and reliability study of the cold executive functions test developed for specially talented students Ebru Öztaş1* and Marilena Leana Taşcılar2 ITO Bahçelievler Science and Art Center, Istanbul, Türkiye Article Info Abstract Received: 3 June 2025 Accepted: 14 August 2025 Online: 30 December 2025 Keywords Attention Cold executive functions Inhibition Set shifting Special talent Working memory and planning 2149-1410/ © 2025 the JGEDC. Published by Genc Bilge (Young Wise) Pub. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license The aim of this study is to examine the cold executive functions of gifted students; In this context, it is to test the validity and reliability of the performance test developed to measure set shifting-inhibition, attention, working memory and planning. The study was conducted according to the survey model, one of the quantitative research methods, and was carried out with a total of 184 students, 94 girls and 90 boys, attending the 7th grade, studying at a Science and Art Center (BİLSEM) in Istanbul. The data of the research was obtained with the 'Cold Executive Functions Tests (SYIT)'. Opinions were received from a total of 19 subject experts (2 of them Information Technologies Experts), 3 for each sub-function of the test and 7 for the entire test, and relevant arrangements were made. For the criterion validity of SYİT, whose pilot studies were completed with 40 students, the students were administered the 'Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST)', 'd2 Attention Test', 'n-Back Working Memory Test' and 'Istanbul 5 Cube Planning Tower Test (I5CPTT)'. Dec/Set Shifting-Inhibition Subtest and WCST scores, Dec/Attention Subtest and D2 Attentional Test scores, Dec/Working Memory Test 1 and nBack Visual Working Memory Test scores, Dec/Planning Subtest and I5CPTT Test scores were found to have significant correlations between the scores. As a result of factor analysis; It was observed that the matched tests made evaluations sensitive to the common cognitive component. No significant relationship was found only between the SYIT/Working Memory 2 Subtest and the n-Back Auditory Working Memory Test. According to the test-retest method; Significant reliability coefficients were calculated between set shifting-keting, working memory, planning subtests and SYIT total scores. In the light of this data, it can be said that SYIT is a reliable test in all subtests except the Working Memory Subtest and a valid test in all subtests except the Working Memory 2 Subtest. To cite this article: Öztaş, E., and Taşçılar, M.L. (2025). Validity and reliability study of the cold executive functions test developed for specially talented students. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 12(2), 157-175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18053856 Introduction Today, the development of executive functions used to define special talent gains importance especially in childhood and adolescence. Insufficient development of executive functions is seen as the reason why specially talented students cannot reach their potential. On the other hand, there are currently no measurement tools to evaluate the executive functions of gifted students, and the answer to the question of how the executive functions of gifted students can be supported is not clear. In order for an individual to be successful in his/her own life, working life and citizenship, he/she must develop 21st century skills. Soland et al. According to (2013); 21st century skills; It is defined as cognitive, interpersonal and internal skills. Cognitive skills; creativity, problem solving, critical thinking. Interpersonal skills; social skills, teamwork, 1 Corresponding Author: Teacher of Gifted Student, ITO Bahçelievler Science and Art Center, Istanbul, Türkiye. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Assoc.Prof.Dr., Special Education Department, Faculty of Education, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Türkiye. E-mail: [email protected] Öztaş & Taşçılar Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity 12(2) (2025) 157-175 158 communication skills, cultural sensitivity, coping with challenges. Internal skills; self-regulation, self-management, time management, personal skill development, lifelong learning, adaptation. Self-regulation skills, which are among the 21st century skills, are internal skills; It is the ability to change behavior according to the cognitive, emotional and social demands of a particular situation (Brownell & Kopp, 2007). Self-regulation; It is classified as behavioral, cognitive and emotional regulation (Bronson, 2000). According to Sezgin (2013); The mental dimension that enables people to regulate their behavior in order to get to know themselves, thus regulating their emotions and thoughts that form the basis of their attitudes; are executive functions. Executive functions; It includes verbal reasoning, problem solving, planning, sequencing, maintaining attention, resistance to disruptive influence, evaluating feedback, coping with multiple tasks at the same time, cognitive flexibility, and adapting to innovations. These skills are characterized as the cold components of executive functions. Set shifting from cold executive functions; It is the ability to switch between mental states, activities or certain tasks, and to replace the existing setup with a new one (Pennequin et al., 2010). inhibition; It is the ability to suppress a habitual behavioral pattern in the face of changing expectations and under the influence of a disruptive effect (Spreen & Strauss, 1998). Sustaining attention; It is the ability to maintain focus of attention on a particular material for a certain period of time (Baddeley, 1990). Working Memory; It is the retention, processing and use of information at a given moment (Miller, Galanter & Pribram, 1960). Planning is; It is the ability to choose a thousand and one ways to achieve the goal, to determine what to do in order of importance and to make decisions (Andres, 2003). On the other hand, one's own social behavior and decision-making processes, which include emotional beliefs or desires such as reward and punishment experience, are warm components of executive functions. (Grafman & Litvan, 1999). When executive functions become problematic during the development process, conditions such as weak impulse and emotional control, poor planning and goal setting, decreased monitoring and control of metacognitive skills, distraction, patience, time and task management deficiencies, and lack of intention in purposeful actions are observed (Dewitte & Lens, 2000). Raising individuals with executive function competencies is also important for students with special talents. Some researchers have revealed the importance of executive functions in explaining special talent; They tried to explain the psychological processes of development and learning and emphasized the role of executive functions in the diagnosis of talent (Arffa, 2007; Gotlieb et al., 2016; Foley et al., 2016)., 2011; Viana-Saenz et al., 2020). The development of executive function is critical and occurs throughout childhood and adolescence. In order to maintain healthy frontal lobe development, which begins to rise around the age of 11-12, American National Institute of Mental Health research suggests the "use it or lose it" principle. Considering that the used features are preserved and developed, and the unused ones are lost, a critical task falls on the teachers, parents and counselors/psychologists. As stated by Dawson and Guare (2010), in order for frontal lobe development to be at its best, the individual must evaluate these developmental periods well and keep executive functions active. It is suggested that the increase in the number and strength of synapses caused by the myelination process and the development of the frontal lobes and developmental differences in the central nervous system indirectly affect the development of executive functions (Anderson et al., 2001). Therefore, executive functions need to be supported especially in childhood and adolescence. According to research, poor executive functions are one of the reasons why specially gifted students cannot reach their potential. In a recent meta-analysis study on executive functions; It was concluded that gifted students performed better than their peers in verbal and visuospatial working memory, but not in other executive skills (Viana-Sáenz et al., 2020). Poor organizational skills, lack of planning skills, lack of management skills, inability to organize, distractibility and learning difficulties indicate poor executive functions. Therefore, high cognitive skills alone cannot ensure the success of students with special abilities (Mueller, 2007). In the resources of the Davidson Institute site, which carries out studies on the education of the gifted; Another possible explanation has been raised as to why executive function difficulties stand out in the gifted community. According to this explanation; In neurotypical children, the brain begins to "sort out" excess information around the age of 8, allowing further development of the prefrontal cortex, which is central to many executive function skills. In Öztaş & Taşçılar Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity 12(2) (2025) 157-175 159 children with special talents, this process of synaptic pruning may not begin until age 12 because they experience a long "sponge phase" as their brains continue to receive information. Therefore, there may be a threeor four-year delay in further development of the prefrontal cortex and improved executive functions. In this case, gifted students may have difficulty starting tasks, maintaining attention, completing assignments, and evaluating feedback about their own behavior. As a result, frustration levels can skyrocket (https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/executivefunctioning-and-gifted-children). Children with special abilities initially find learning and school very easy, sometimes even boring. When it comes to developing executive functions, the school being too easy can be a disadvantage. A number of study skills, such as easily understanding lessons, memorizing important details, and remembering them later, may be seen as unnecessary by students with special abilities. Thus, students may not have opportunities to master learning, practice, sharpening, and working skills. In this respect, it is important to support the executive functions of specially talented students during their school years. On the other hand, research shows that areas of the brain responsible for executive function can be improved with early interventions and strategies. Therefore, with interventions for specially talented students who have deficiencies in terms of executive functions, these improvements can be achieved. In order to evaluate the executive functions of students with special abilities and, if necessary, to improve executive functions with early interventions, first of all, measurement tools related to these functions are needed. There are currently no measurement tools for students with special abilities that evaluate executive functions together, these functions are generally measured individually and in the general population. However, today, the cognitive profiles of students with special abilities are used in both diagnostic and post-diagnostic educational processes; Evaluating executive functions with appropriate measurement tools will enable these students to be better understood. Similarly, executive functions need to be evaluated in terms of the reasons why students with special abilities cannot demonstrate their existing performance. Again, it is seen that students with special abilities are generally evaluated with attention, working memory and planning tests within the scope of executive functions, but they are not evaluated in terms of set shifting and inhibition executive functions. Therefore, the aim of this research is to evaluate the executive functions of gifted students together and in a way that covers different functions in order to better understand their executive functions. The moderating effect of intelligence on executive function performance in children remains unclear, and some studies emphasize that it may have a moderating effect after the age of 11. Therefore, it is thought that 12-year-old evaluations are important in terms of identifying and supporting deficiencies. For this reason, the research seeks to answer the question of whether a valid and reliable measurement tool can be created that can evaluate gifted 7th grade (12 years old) adolescent students in terms of executive functions. The main problem of the research; Cold Executive Functions Test, created to test the executive functions of students with special abilities; Ø Is it a valid test? Ø Is it a reliable test? Method Model/Pattern of the Research In the study; The scanning model, which is one of the quantitative research methods, was used. According to Metin (2014), in the scanning model, the characteristics of the participants such as opinions, interests, skills, abilities and attitudes about a certain subject that is the subject of the research are tried to be determined. Universe-Sample The population of the research is students studying at the 7th grade level in BİLSEMs in Istanbul. Sample of the research; They are students studying at the 7th grade level in a BİLSEM selected through easily accessible sampling in order to reach voluntary and willing students. According to Özen and Gül (2007); One of the easily accessible sampling methods is that the researcher can easily create a sample group in terms of time, effort or cost. The students participating in the research were identified as individuals with special talents because they were BİLSEM students. Öztaş & Taşçılar Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity 12(2) (2025) 157-175 160 BİLSEMs are institutions opened to provide support education to students who attend formal education institutions and are identified as having special talents in general mental, visual arts or music talent areas, in order to develop their talents and enable them to use their capacities at the highest level (Special Education Services Regulation, 2018). Other demographic characteristics of the students are as follows: Table 1. Frequency and percentage values regarding the demographic structure of students Gender f % Girl 94 51.1 Boy 90 48.9 District f % Bahçelievler 82 44.6 Bağcılar 32 17.4 Küçükçekmece 55 29.9 Bakırköy 5 2.7 Avcılar 6 3.3 Güngören 4 2.2 School Type f % Government 93 50.5 Private 91 49.5 Total 184 100.0 Collection of Data/Process Within the scope of the research, in order to apply personal information forms and tests to the students; Permissions were obtained from the XXX Board (Number and date XXX) at the provincial level, from the XXX Directorate (Number and date XXX) and from the XXX Directorate (Number and date XXX) at the district level. Meetings were held with parents before the applications and their approval was obtained for the study. In the applications, each student came to the guidance service on a voluntary basis. Tests were completed in a quiet and distraction-free environment. At the beginning of each test, instructions were given by the practitioner, and after the instructions were thoroughly understood by the student and the examples were completed, the tests began. By paying attention to the order of the applications and in order to minimize expert errors, the students completed the tests with the same expert in two separate days, each in one lesson hour. Data Collection Tools In the research, the 'Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (Karakaş et al., 2006) d2 Attention Test (Yaycı, 20213), n-Back Test (Altun and Çevik, 2012), Istanbul 5 Cube Planning Tower Test (Cinan, 2015) and Cold Executive Functions Test (Özbaş, 2024) were used. Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) is a test generally administered by neuropsychologists to individuals aged 589 to measure executive function (Baron, 2004). WCST was first developed by Berg (1948), and Grant & Berg (1948). It has been stated that the scale evaluates executive functions, also known as frontal lobe functions, such as the ability to create and cancel strategies, problem solving and concept formation, maintaining attention, and mental flexibility. The original form of the test was developed for adult samples, and in the following years, new norms specific to adults and children were developed (Chelune, Baer 1986, Heaton & others, 1993). Adaptation and standardization studies of the test to Turkish culture for the adult sample were carried out by Karakaş et al. (1996) and for the child sample by Şahin-Aközü et al. (2006). Each in the test; There are 4 types of stimulus cards with different colors, shapes and number of shapes. The participant is given 128 cards (two identical decks of 64 cards) and is asked to match each of these cards with a stimulus card. In evaluating the WCST, 13 separate scores are calculated, such as the total number of answers used to complete the test, the number of errors, the number of repetitive errors, concept formation, and maintaining the setup. In the test, Öztaş & Taşçılar Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity 12(2) (2025) 157-175 161 the total number of mistakes in which the correct matching was not made (WCST2), the total number of correct matches in which the correct matching was made (WCST3), the number of responses that are the sum of these two values (WCST1), giving the sum of the categories in which the correct response was given ten times in a row; number of completed categories (WCST4), the number of repeated responses in which the matching principle valid for the previous category is continued after ten consecutive responses; number of perseverative responses (WCST5), number of errors in perseverative responses; the number of perseverative errors (WCST6), the number of non-perseverative errors found by subtracting the number of perseverative errors from the total number of errors (WCST7), the percentage of perseverative errors found by dividing the number of perseverative errors by the total number of reactions and multiplying by one hundred (WCST8), the number of reactions used to complete the first category (WCST9), the sum of at least three consecutive correct responses; number of conceptual level responses (WCST10), conceptual level response percentage (WCST11), which is calculated by dividing the sum of correct responses by the number of responses and multiplying by one hundred, number of blocks in which 5-9 consecutive correct responses were given but the criterion of 10 correct repetitions was not reached; Failure to maintain the installation (WCST12) is calculated by taking the difference in error percentages of each category for those who complete at least three categories (Karakaş et al., 2006). The reliability of WCST cannot be determined due to the nature of the test. According to Dikmeer and Gençöz's (2009) WCST criterion validity study (conducted through the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Improved form, with a total of 122 children, 61 without intelligence or learning problems, 61 with learning problems without intelligence problems); all differences except the number of correct answers have a medium effect level (.06). According to this level of effect, it is said that WCST is a valid test. There are studies in which WCST is used to compare average and specially talented young people. In the study, this test was applied by the researcher after receiving test training from the relevant institution in Ankara and obtaining the 'Neuropsychological Test Training Certificate. Although the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test is an old test, it has been used in research because it is the only test that measures executive functions and has been adapted. d2 Attention Test It was developed by Brickenkamp in 1962. The aim of the test is to evaluate sustained attention and visual scanning ability. The test consists of a 14-row worksheet, each containing 47 marked letters.There are 16 different letters in each line, consisting of one, two, three and four lowercase letters “ p” and “ d”. During the test, the participant finds two marked letters “d” and draws on them. In the test, each line is given 20 seconds to scan and mark (Spreen, Strauss, 1998). In the test, TN: the order of the last letter marked in a line, E1: the number of correctly skipped letters, E2: the number of incorrectly marked letters, E-Error: the sum of skipped and incorrectly marked letters, TN-E and its percentage; test performance and percentage, CP; the total number of marked lines and the difference between the maximum and minimum points in the FR: TN score are calculated. In the secondary school standardization study of the d2 Test (Toker, 1988); the split half reliability method was used for reliability analysis. A reliability value of r = 0.94 was calculated for the number of last marked letters in the sample (114 private secondary school third grade students). After 3 months, the same sample test was applied again. Of the 114 students who participated in the first test, 60% (N = 69) were tested again. The results from the two test applications were subjected to Pearson correlation. Correlation value for the number of last marked letter in each row; 0.71, correlation value for letters that were not accidentally drawn; the correlation value for incorrectly drawn letters was calculated as 0.61 and 0.66, and the correlation value for the test result was calculated as 0.77. The test has high reliability for children aged 11-15 living in Istanbul. In the validity study conducted with the WISC-R Password subtest, a correlation of .44 was obtained between total scores (Yaycı, 2013). It is recommended to conduct additional studies on the validity of the test. In the research, the d2 Attention Test was administered by the researcher by receiving 'Attention Deficit Tests' training from the relevant institution in Istanbul, ıt was applied after obtaining the practitioner certificate. Öztaş & Taşçılar Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity 12(2) (2025) 157-175 162 In this research, Cronbach Alpha coefficient of d2 Test; it is .72. d2 Although the attention test is an old test, it was used in the research because it provides information about attention types. n-Back Test One of the most popular measures of working memory in the neuroimaging literature is the n-Back task (Conway, Kane, & Engle, 2003). The n-Back task was first defined by Kirchner (1958) with four load factors (from "0-back" to "3-back"). Later, this task was named visual-spatial task by Mackworth (1959). Gevins et al. (1990) stated the task as; They introduced this task as a load factor (3-back) visuomotor memory task. In the n-Back test, visual working memory as well as coordination , visuospatial attention and reaction time are evaluated. The task involves multiple processes such as encoding the incoming stimulus, tracking, maintaining, updating the material, as well as matching the current stimulus with the stimulus occurring at position n of the sequence. Although behavioral and imaging results in working memory studies appear largely consistent, the psychometric properties of the n-Back task remain largely unexplored. In studies that examine the psychometric properties of the nBack test; Reliability measurements were specified in the visual and verbal 0-3-back tasks of the backward task (Friedman et al., 2006). Reliability measurements for these studies are mixed, ranging from r = .02 to r = .91. Regarding construct validity, there are studies in which the n-Back task has been correlated with other working memory measures. Studies using a single measure of working memory capacity, such as a reading span task (RST) or a processing span task, have found rather weak intercorrelations ranging from r = .10 to r = .24 (Roberts, Gibson, 2002). However, there are two studies (Shelton, Metzger, & Elliott, 2007) that report correlations with processing time of r=.46 across three samples using a composite n-Back. In their research results, Gray, Chabris, and Braver (2003) obtained significant relationships between Raven's Matrices Test and n-Back tasks. These results provide external validity of the n-Back tasks. n-Back task software called "Brain Workshop 4.8.1", developed by Paul Hoskinson and adapted by Altun and Çevik (2012), was used in the research. Necessary permissions were obtained from the researchers to use the Turkish version of the software, and testing began after working on the software. In this research, Cronbach Alpha coefficient of n-Back Test; it is .70. Istanbul 5 Cube Planning Tower Test (I5CPTT) The test was developed by Cinan, (2015). The aim of the test is to evaluate planning ability. The test is sensitive to executive functions such as working memory, especially planning skills. In the I5CPTT, 2 practice tasks and 10 tasks are performed within the specified time. The task in the test is to rearrange the disrupted cubes according to the target sequence. In the test, the number of correct solutions, the number of extra movements and the solving time scores are calculated. Cronbach's Alpha coefficient, which shows the internal consistency reliability of I5CPTT; It is .61. Correlation coefficients calculated for test-retest reliability; for excess movement score, .59 for correct solving score; .42 for solving time; It was obtained as .47. According to Cinan (2015); Considering the previous findings regarding planning tasks and the opinions that test-retest results are not expected to be very high due to planning tasks being an innovative cognitive endeavor, the values obtained from the I5CPTT are at an acceptable medium level. Therefore, the psychometric properties of the test are sufficient, valid and reliable. Necessary permissions were obtained by the researcher for the use of the Istanbul 5 Cube Planning Tower Test and the book and application CD of the test were provided. After the information about the application of the test contained in the book and CD was assimilated, the test was started to be applied. In this research, the Cronbach Alpha coefficient of the Istanbul 5 Cube Planning Tower Test is .60. Cold Executive Functions Test (CEFT) Cold Executive Functions Test is a performance test consisting of 4 subtests that measures cold executive functions. In the test, participants are expected to give a reaction (word or behavior arising in response to any influence) to each question. The sub-dimensions of this test prepared for specially talented students are; set shifting-inhibition, attention (maintaining attention), working memory and planning. In preparing the test, the difficulty level of the questions was Öztaş & Taşçılar Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity 12(2) (2025) 157-175 163 adjusted according to students with special abilities. The Cold Executive Functions Test was not administered to students who were not gifted. Therefore, the results of validity and reliability studies belong only to the specially talented student group. Information about the subtests of the Cold Executive Functions Test is as follows: The first subtest ‘Set Shifting-İnhibition Test' is a subtest developed on the basis of the Dots Task (Hearstand Flowers Task), Amsterdam Neuropsychological Task-Shifting, NIH EXAMINER and Number Letter Task, Go-No Go Test, Compound Stimuli Task, Reverse Response Task /Reversal Type, Stop Task tests. In the subtest, set shifting (ability to switch between tasks) and inhibition (ability to suppress a habitual behavior pattern under a disruptive influence) functions are measured. There are 4 sections and 40 test cards in the subtest. In each section, students determine the baby that needs attention according to the changing rules and say the color of the valid attention button. The number of correct and incorrect answers in the test is calculated. The second subtest 'Hiragana Letters' SART is a test developed on the basis of the Combined Continuous Performance Test Visual (CCPT-V) to measure the ability to maintain attention (the ability to maintain focus of attention on a particular material for a certain period of time). In the sub-test, 25 letters are tried to be found from 125 hiragana letters. At the end of the test, the number of incorrectly printed and skipped letters is calculated. The third subtest consists of two parts. The first is the 'Hidden Dolls Test'; It is a test developed on the basis of Symmetry Span, n-Back Task, Chessboard Working Memory Task, Corsi Block Tapping Task tests, developed to measure visual-spatial working memory (retention, processing and use of information at a given moment). There are 4 questions in the sub-test, where 8 images are tried to be remembered. The second 'Numbers Test in My Memory' is a test developed to measure working memory based on the Woodcook Johnson III Memory Tests, Forward Digit Recall (FDR), Backward Digit Recall (BRD) tests. There are 4 questions in the sub-test, where 8 numbers or sounds are tried to be remembered. The amount of units remembered in two tests is calculated. The four subtests are the 'Order of Numbers' test, inspired by the Cambridge Socks Task and Hampshire Tree Test, and the test that measures planning skills (the ability to choose a thousand ways to achieve the goal, determine what to do in order of importance, and make decisions). In the sub-test, 10 numbers in 5 columns of different lengths are arranged in different orders in 3 questions. In the test, the number of moves, the time to solve and the number of correct questions without increasing the moves are calculated, and 1 point is added to the total score for each correct question without increasing the moves. The participant who completes 4 subtests can get a maximum of 100 points from the entire test. Analysis of Data For the data obtained from the study, normality analysis was performed using the Kolmogorov Smirnov Test and it was seen that all data were distributed outside the normal range (p<.05). In the research; Spearman Brown Correlation Coefficient Analysis Technique was used for criterion validity and Pearson Correlation Coefficient Technique was used for test-retest reliability. The level of statistical significance in the study was determined as .05. Findings Findings Regarding Validity In the validity analysis, the Cold Executive Functions Test was used for criterion validity; Ø Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) with Set Switching - Inhibition Subtest, Ø Attention Subtest and d2 Attention Test, Ø Working Memory Subtest and n-Back Test, Ø Istanbul 5 Cube Planning Test with Planning Subtest looked at the relationships between, for each subtest, it was tested whether the paired tests loaded on the same factor. Öztaş & Taşçılar Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity 12(2) (2025) 157-175 164 Table 2. Results of Principal Components Analysis performed on scores calculated from CEFT Set SwitchingInhibition Subtest, WCST, d2 Attention, n-Back Working Memory and I5CPTT Measurements Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 CEFT Set Change-Inhibition Incorrect Number CEFT Set Change-Inhibition Correct Number WCST Number of Incorrect WCST Number of Correct d2/TN d2/TN Percentage d2/E1 (Skipped) d2/E2 (Mistake) d2/EError d2/TN-E d2/TN-E Percentage d2/CP d2/FR n-Back Working Memory n-Back Visual n-Back Auditory I5CPTT Movement Excess I5CPTT Solving Time I5CPPT Number of Correct .94 .78 .88 .44 .90 .84 .65 .92 .54 .91 .63 .69 -.45 -.42 .89 -.89 .48 .43 -.43 Self worth Explained Variance .3.64 19.18 3.06 16.14 2.28 12.03 1.97 10.40 According to Table 2; d2/TN, TN Percentage, TN-E, TN-E Percentage and CP scores were loaded on the first factor with factor loadings of .94, .78, .88, .44, .90, respectively. d2/E1, E2, E-Error and CP scores were loaded on the second factor with factor loadings of .84, .65, .92, .54, respectively. n-Back Working Memory, Visual Memory, Auditory Memory, I5CPTT Movement Excess, Solving Time scores were loaded on the third factor with factor loadings of .91, .63, .69, -.45, -.42, respectively. As for the fourth factor, CEFT Set Shift-Inhibition Test Number of Errors, WCST Number of Correct, Incorrect scores, and I5CPTT Number of Correct were loaded with factor loadings of .89, -.89, .48, .43, .-43, respectively. According to the results, it is seen that CEFT Set Changing-Inhibition Incorrect and Correct Numbers and WCST Incorrect and Correct Numbers are loaded on the same factor. Öztaş & Taşçılar Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity 12(2) (2025) 157-175 165 Table 3. Results of Principal Components Analysis Performed on Scores Calculated from CEFT Attention Subtest, d2 Attention, n-Back Working Memory, I5CPTT Measurements Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 CEFT/ Attention Subtest-Number of Mistakes CEFT/ Attention Subtest-Number of Skipped CEFT/ Attention SubtestNumber of Error d2/TN d2/TN Percentage d2/E1 (Skipped) d2/E2 (Mistake) d2/E-Error d2/TN-E d2/TN-E Percentage d2/CP d2/FR WKET Incorrect Number WKET Correct Number n-Back Working Memory n-Back Visual n-Back Auditory I5CPTT Movement Excess I5CPTT Solving Time I5CPPT Number of Correct .94 .75 .87 .41 .89 .44 .59 .66 .79 .54 .85 .54 -.43 -.40 -.73 -.49 .68 .90 .66 .68 Self worth Explained Variance 3.88 19.42 3.15 15.75 2.59 12.97 1.73 8.68 According to Table 3; d2/TN, TN Percentage, TN-E, TN-E Percentage, CP scores were loaded on the first factor with factor loadings of .94, .75, .87, .41, .89, respectively. CEFT Attention Subtest Incorrect, Missed, Error Numbers, d2/E1, E2, E-Error Numbers and FR scores were loaded on the second factor with factor loadings of .44, .59, .66, .79, .54, .85 and .54, respectively. WCST Incorrect and Correct Numbers, I5CPTT Excess Movements, Solving Time, Correct Number scores were loaded on the third factor with factor loadings of -.43, -.40, -.73, -.49, .68, respectively. On the fourth factor, n-Back Working Memory, Visual Memory, Auditory Memory scores were loaded with factor loadings of .90, .66, .68, respectively. According to the results; It is seen that the number of CEFT Attention Test-Number of Mistakes, Skipped and Errors and the d2 Attention Test Mistakes, Skipped and Errors numbers are loaded on the same factor. Öztaş & Taşçılar Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity 12(2) (2025) 157-175 172 affected the reliability. As a result, it can be said that the developed Cold Executive Functions Test is a reliable test in all subtests except the Working Memory Subtest and a valid test in all subtests except the Working Memory 2 Subtest. Recommendations As a result of the validity and reliability study of the cold executive functions test of specially talented students; In order to obtain valid and reliable results in terms of working memory function, the sub-test can be developed. Different tests measuring working memory can be used to ensure the criterion validity of working memory function. In the research, although it was seen that each of the students with special abilities was strong in different functions or functions, it was seen that there were generally two groups: students who were strong in set-switching and attention areas and students who were strong in working memory and planning functions. It is important to conduct further research in this area, as the executive functions of students with special abilities must be understood correctly in order to provide a supportive environment for their cognitive and emotional development. Experts who can conduct research in the field of executive functions can develop measurement tools related to cold executive functions with working memory or hot executive functions (such as emotional regulation, emotional decision making, social skills and empathy). Experts who will use measurement tools can prepare training programs regarding the functions that need to be developed in students with special abilities, in the light of the results they obtain. Program content can be enriched with executive functions-enhancing cognitive games. Computer games can be designed for students with special abilities by experts working in this field, where they can improve their executive functions. It is thought that it would be beneficial for students to be aware of their strong executive functions in their career journey. Because; It will be difficult for them to choose professions based on executive functions in which they are weak. Therefore, there is a need for more appropriate and effective guidance and support on executive functions. The issue of executive functions can be discussed, especially in the fields of educational and vocational guidance. Similarly, educators, psychologists, psychological counselors and parents can act more knowledgeable, more sensitive and cooperatively regarding executive functions. Teachers can use strategies to develop executive functions in their classrooms. Again, teachers can provide positive encouragement to their students who have executive function deficiencies. Parents can provide their children with enrichment opportunities (executive function exercises) related to executive functions. They can try to develop executive functions together and appreciate their children's efforts in this regard. They can support their children to recognize their strengths and weaknesses in terms of managerial functions in their career journeys and adjust their expectations as parents accordingly. References Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2005). Working memory and intelligence: The same or different constructs? Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 30–60. Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106(1), 20–29. Alloway, T. P., & Elsworth, M. (2012). An investigation of cognitive skills and behavior in high ability students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 891–895. Altun, A., & Çevik, V. (2012). Measuring working memory by using a multimedia based task. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, Special Issue, 1, 32–40. Anderson, V. A., Anderson, P., Northam, E., Jacobs, R., & Catroppa, C. (2001). Development of executive functions through late childhood and adolescence in an Australian sample. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20(1), 385–406. Arffa, S. (2007). The relationship of intelligence to executive function and non-executive function measures in a sample of average, above average, and gifted youth. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22(8), 969–978. Aubry, A., Gonthier, C., & Bourdin, B. (2021). Explaining the high working memory capacity of gifted children: Contributions of processing skills and executive control. Acta Psychologica, 218, 103358. Baron, I. S. (2004). Neuropsychological evaluation of the child. Oxford University Press. Berg, E. A. (1948). A simple objective technique for measuring flexibility in thinking. Journal of General Psychology, 39(1), 15–22. Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. Child Development, 81(6), 1641–1660. Brickenkamp, R., & Zillmer, E. (1998). d2 Attention Test. Hogrefe & Huber. Öztaş & Taşçılar Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity 12(2) (2025) 157-175 173 Brody, L. E., & Mills, C. J. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(3), 282–296. Bronson, M. B. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: Nature and nurture. Guilford Press. Brownell, C. A., & Kopp, C. B. (2007). Transitions in toddler socioemotional development. In C. A. Brownell & C. B. Kopp (Eds.), Socioemotional development in the toddler years: Transitions and transformations (pp. 1–40). Guilford Press. Chelune, G. J., & Baer, R. A. (1986). Developmental norms for the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 8(3), 219–228. Cinan, S. (2015). Cognitive planning and Istanbul 5 cube planning tower. Pia Publications. Ciesielski, K. T., Lesnik, P. G., Savoy, R. L., Grant, E. P., & Ahlfors, S. P. (2006). Developmental neural networks in children performing a categorical n-back task. NeuroImage, 33(3), 980–990. Conway, A. R., Cowan, N., Bunting, M. F., Therriault, D. J., & Minkoff, S. R. (2002). A latent variable analysis of working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, processing speed, and general fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 30(2), 163–183. Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(12), 547–552. Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2010). Executive skills in children and adolescents. Guilford Press. De Jong, P. F., & Das-Smaal, E. A. (1995). Attention and intelligence: The validity of the Star Counting Test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 80–92. Desco, M., Navas-Sanchez, F. J., Sanchez-González, J., Reig, S., Robles, O., Franco, C., & Arango, C. (2011). Mathematically gifted adolescents use more extensive and more bilateral areas of the fronto-parietal network than controls during executive functioning and fluid reasoning tasks. NeuroImage, 57(1), 281–292. Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. (2000). Procrastinators lack a broad action perspective. European Journal of Personality, 14(2), 121–140. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. Dibbets, P., Bakker, K., & Jolles, J. (2006). Functional MRI of task switching in children with specific language impairment (SLI). Neurocase, 12(1), 71–79. Dikmeer, İ. A., & Gençöz, T. (2006). Examination of Wisconsin Card Sorting Test and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children scores of children with specific learning disability symptoms. Journal of Child and Youth Mental Health, 16(1). Duan, X., Wei, S., Wang, G., & Shi, J. (2010). The relationship between executive functions and intelligence on 11to 12-year-old children. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52(4), 419–431. Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 19–23. Eppinger, B., Kray, J., Mecklinger, A., & John, O. (2007). Age differences in task switching and response monitoring: Evidence from ERPs. Biological Psychology, 75(1), 52–67. Eslinger, P. J. (1996). Conceptualizing, describing, and measuring components of executive function: A summary. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 367–395). Paul H. Brookes. Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Corley, R. P., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., & Hewitt, J. K. (2006). Not all executive functions are related to intelligence. Psychological Science, 17(2), 172–179. Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2017). Unity and diversity of executive functions: Individual differences as a window on cognitive structure. Cortex, 86, 186–204. Foley Nicpon, M., Allmon, A., Sieck, B., & Stinson, R. D. (2011). Empirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 3–17. Gevins, A. S., Bressler, S. L., Cutillo, B. A., Illes, J., Miller, J. C., Stern, J., & Jex, H. R. (1990). Effects of prolonged mental work on functional brain topography. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 76(4), 339–350. Goodman, R., Simonoff, E., & Stevenson, J. (1995). The impact of child IQ, parent IQ and sibling IQ on child behavioural deviance scores. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36(3), 409–425. Gotlieb, R., Hyde, E., Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Kaufman, S. B. (2016). Cultivating the social–emotional imagination in gifted education: Insights from educational neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377(1), 22–31. Grafman, J., & Litvan, I. (1999). Importance of deficits in executive functions. The Lancet, 354(9194), 1921–1923. Grant, D. A., & Berg, E. A. (1948). A behavioral analysis of degree of reinforcement and ease of switching to new responses in a Weigl-type card sorting problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(4), 404–411. Gray, J. R., Chabris, C. F., & Braver, T. S. (2003). Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence. Nature Neuroscience, 6(3), 316– 322. Heaton, R. K., Chelune, G. J., Talley, J. L., Kay, G. G., & Curtiss, G. (1993). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test manual: Revised and expanded. Psychological Assessment Resources. Hillman, C. H., Kramer, A. F., Belopolsky, A. V., & Smith, D. P. (2006). A cross-sectional examination of age and physical activity on performance and event-related brain potentials in a task switching paradigm. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 59(1), 30–39. Hofmann, W., & Van Dillen, L. (2012). Desire: The new hot spot in self-control research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 317–322. Öztaş & Taşçılar Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity 12(2) (2025) 157-175 174 Huizinga, M., Dolan, C. V., & Van der Molen, M. W. (2006). Age-related change in executive function: Developmental trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44(11), 2017–2036. Jurado, M. B., & Roselli, M. (2007). The elusive nature of executive functions: A review of our current understanding. Neuropsychological Review, 17(3), 213–233. Karakaş, S., Irak, M., Kurt, M., & Erzengin, Ö. U. (1999). Wisconsin card sorting test and Stroop test Tbag form: Comparative analysis in terms of measured features. 3P Journal, 7(3), 179–192. Karakaş, S. (2006). Bilnot Battery Handbook: Research and development studies for neuropsychological tests. Eryılmaz Ofset. Kirchner, W. K. (1958). Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(4), 352–358. Kornmann, J., Zettler, I., Kammerer, Y., Gerjets, P., & Trautwein, U. (2015). What characterizes children nominated as gifted by teachers? A closer consideration of working memory and intelligence. High Ability Studies, 26(1), 75–92. Leana-Taşcılar, M. Z., & Cinan, S. (2014). Evaluation of executive functions and working memory of gifted and normal students and implementation of a training program tailored to their needs. Journal of Gifted Education and Research, 2(1), 1–15. Mackworth, J. F. (1959). Paced memorizing in a continuous task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(3), 206–211. Montoya-Arenas, D. A., Aguirre-Acevedo, D. C., Díaz Soto, C. M., & Pineda Salazar, D. A. (2018). Executive functions and high intellectual capacity in school-age: Completely overlap? International Journal of Psychological Research, 11(1), 19–32. Mueller, A. (2007). Executive functioning as a cognitive characteristic of giftedness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. John’s University. Navarro, J. I., Ramiro, P., Lopez, J. M., Aguilar, M., Acosta, M., & Montero, J. (2006). Mental attention in gifted and nongifted children. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(4), 401–411. Nelwan, M., Vissers, C., & Kroesbergen, E. H. (2018). Coaching positively influences the effects of working memory training on visual working memory as well as mathematical ability. Neuropsychologia, 113, 140–149. Özen, Y., & Gül, A. (2007). Population-sampling issue on social and educational research studies. Journal of Kazım Karabekir Education Faculty, 15, 394–422. Pascual-Leone, J. (1987). Organismic processes for neo-Piagetian theories: A dialectical causal account of cognitive development. International Journal of Psychology, 22(5–6), 531–570. Pascual-Leone, J., & Baillargeon, R. (1994). Developmental measurement of mental attention. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17(1), 161–200. Passler, M. A., Isaac, W., & Hynd, G. W. (1985). Neuropsychological development of behavior attributed to frontal lobe functioning in children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 1(4), 349–370. Rey-Mermet, A., Gade, M., Souza, A. S., Von Bastian, C. C., & Oberauer, K. (2019). Is executive control related to working memory capacity and fluid intelligence? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(8), 1335–1354. Roberts, R., & Gibson, E. (2002). Individual differences in sentence memory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(6), 573–598. Rodríguez Naveiras, E., Verche Borges, E., Hernández Lastiri, P., Montero López, R., & Borges del Rosal, M. Á. (2019). Differences in working memory between gifted or talented students and community samples: A meta-analysis. Psicothema, 31(3), 255–262. Scherf, K. S., Sweeney, J. A., & Luna, B. (2006). Brain basis of developmental change in visuospatial working memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1045–1058. Swanson, H. L. (2011). Working memory, attention, and mathematical problem solving: A longitudinal study of elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 821–834. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. Schofield, N. J., & Ashman, A. F. (1987). The cognitive processing of gifted, high average, and low average ability students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(1), 9–20. Sezgin, A. S. (2013). Comparison of 6–8 year old gifted and normal children in the context of age, intelligence and emotional controlwill training (Master’s thesis). Istanbul Science University, Institute of Social Sciences. Shelton, J. T., Metzger, R. L., & Elliott, E. M. (2007). A group-administered lag task as a measure of working memory. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 482–493. Shelton, J. T., Elliott, E. M., Hill, B. D., Calamia, M. R., & Gouvier, W. D. (2009). A comparison of laboratory and clinical working memory tests and their prediction of fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 37(3), 283–293. Silverman, L. K. (1997). Family counseling with the gifted. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 382–397). Allyn & Bacon. Soland, J., Hamilton, L. S., & Stecher, B. M. (2013). Measuring 21st century competencies: Guidance for educators. Asia Society. Schmidt-Atzert, L., & Bühner, M. (2000). Attention and intelligence. In K. Schweizer (Ed.), Intelligence and cognition (pp. 125– 151). Verlag Empirische Pädagogik. Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1998). A compendium of neuropsychological tests. Oxford University Press. Şahin-Aközel, A., Irak, M., & Altınoğlu-Dikmeer, D. İ. (2006). Examination of executive functions in primary school children using the Wisconsin card matching test. Poster presented at the 14th National Psychology Congress, Ankara, Turkey. Öztaş & Taşçılar Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity 12(2) (2025) 157-175 175 Toker, M. (1988). d2 Standardization of attention test for secondary school students in Turkey. Psychology Studies, 18(1), 39–50. Vaivre-Douret, L. (2011). Developmental and cognitive characteristics of “high-level potentialities” (highly gifted) children. International Journal of Pediatrics, 2011, 1–14. Verhaeghen, P., & Basak, C. (2005). Ageing and switching of the focus of attention in working memory: Results from a modified n-back task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58(1), 134–154. Viana-Sáenz, L., Sastre-Riba, S., Urraca-Martínez, M. L., & Botella, J. (2020). Measurement of executive functioning and high intellectual ability in childhood: A comparative meta-analysis. Sustainability, 12(11), 4796. Yaycı, L. (2013). Validity and reliability study of the d2 attention test. Kalem International Journal of Education and Human Sciences, 3(1), 43–80. URL Executive functioning and gifted children. (2022, May 6). Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Retrieved March 18, 2025, from https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/executive-functioning-and-gifted-children 176