Skip to main content
Log in

Executive Functions in Children and Adolescents with Turner Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Neuropsychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Turner syndrome (TS) is a genetic disorder, affecting 1/2500 to 1/3000 live female births, induced by partial or total deletion of one X chromosome. The neurocognitive profile of girls with TS is characterized by a normal Verbal IQ and weaknesses in visual-spatial, mathematics, and social cognitive domains. Executive functions (EFs) impairments have also been reported in these young patients. However, methodological differences across studies do not allow determination of which EFs are impaired and what is the magnitude of these impairments. The aim of this review was to clarify the EF profile of children and adolescents with TS. Sixteen samples, from thirteen studies, were included in the current meta-analysis. EFs measures used in these studies were classified into working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, or higher-order EFs tasks in accordance with Diamond’s model, Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168 (2013). Results confirmed that girls with TS had significant executive impairments with effect sizes varying from small (inhibitory control) to medium (cognitive flexibility) and large (working memory, higher-order EFs). Analyses by task revealed that cognitive inhibition may be more impaired than the other inhibitory control abilities. Heterogeneity across cognitive flexibility measures was also highlighted. Between-sample heterogeneity was observed for three tasks and the impact of participants’ characteristics on EFs was discussed. This meta-analysis confirms the necessity to assess, in patients living with TS, each EF by combining both visual and verbal tasks. Results also underline that, when studying girls with TS’ executive profile, it is important to explore the impact of moderator variables, such as IQ, parental socio-economic status, TS karyotype, psychiatric comorbidities, and hormonal treatment status.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from the research program EnJeu[x] Enfance & Jeunesse financed by the region Pays de la Loire, France. Authors would like to thank Alexandre Laurent for his assistance in statistical analyses.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Mauger.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

Working Memory Task

Digit Span Subtest

Funnel Plot of the Digit Span Subtest

figure a

Leave-one-out method’s results:

 

Estimate

95% [C.I.]

Z

p-value

Q

p-value

Tau2

I2

Romans et al. 1997 (7 to 9.9)

−0.92

[−1.10; −0.75]

−10.38

0.000

2.01

0.85

0.00

0.00

Romans et al. 1997 (10 to 12.5)

−0.94

[−1.11; −0.76]

−10.51

0.000

1.41

0.92

0.00

0.00

Romans et al. 1997 (12.5 to 16.9)

−0.90

[−1.08; −0.73]

−10.09

0.000

2.04

0.84

0.00

0.00

Romans et al. 1998

−0.91

[−1.09; −0.73]

−9.81

0.000

2.15

0.83

0.00

0.00

Ross et al. 1995 (younger)

−0.87

[−1.05; −0.70]

−9.86

0.000

0.76

0.98

0.00

0.00

Ross et al. 1995 (older)

−0.92

[−1.09; −0.75]

−10.52

0.000

2.06

0.84

0.00

0.00

Rovet et al. 1994

−0.91

[−1.09; −0.73]

−9.84

0.000

2.15

0.83

0.00

0.00

Inhibitory Control Tasks

Matching Familiar Figures Test

Funnel Plot of the Matching Familiar Figures Test (Correct Answers)

figure b

Leave-One-Out Method’s Results

 

Estimate

95% [C.I.]

Z

p-value

Q

p-value

Tau2

I2

Romans et al. 1997 (7 to 9.9)

−0.39

[−0.67; −0.11]

−2.74

0.006

7.96

0.093

0.05

49.76

Romans et al. 1997 (10 to 12.5)

−0.43

[−0.66; −0.20]

−3.62

0.000

5.32

0.255

0.02

24.87

Romans et al. 1997 (12.5 to 16.9)

−0.33

[−0.64; −0.01]

−2.05

0.040

9.86

0.043

0.08

59.43

Romans et al. 1998

−0.25

[−0.48; −0.01]

−2.03

0.042

5.45

0.244

0.02

26.62

Ross et al. 1995 (younger)

−0.29

[−0.58; −0.01]

−1.92

0.055

8.70

0.069

0.06

54.03

Ross et al. 1995(older)

−0.33

[−0.63; −0.02]

−2.11

0.035

9.85

0.043

0.07

59.41

Funnel Plot of the Matching Familiar Figures Test (Response Time Variable)

figure c

Leave-One-Out Method’s Results

 

Estimate

95% [C.I.]

Z

p-value

Q

p-value

Tau2

I2

Romans et al. 1997 (7 to 9.9)

0.15

[−0.05; 0.34]

1.44

0.150

5.85

0.321

0.01

14.58

Romans et al. 1997 (10 to 12.5)

0.20

[0.01; 0.38]

2.08

0.038

3.29

0.656

0.00

0.00

Romans et al. 1997 (12.5 to 16.9)

0.12

[−0.08; 0.32]

1.16

0.246

5.92

0.314

0.01

15.47

Romans et al. 1998

0.07

[−0.12; 0.26]

0.72

0.469

3.47

0.627

0.00

0.00

Ross et al. 1995 (younger)

0.10

[−0.09; 0.29]

1.04

0.298

5.15

0.398

0.00

2.91

Ross et al. 1995 (older)

0.14

[−0.06; 0.34]

1.37

0.169

5.97

0.309

0.01

16.27

Ross et al. 1998

0.16

[−0.03; 0.35]

1.67

0.095

5.35

0.375

0.00

6.51

Test of Variables of Attention

Funnel Plot of the Test of Variables of Attention (Commission Errors)

figure d

Leave-one-out method’s results:

 

Estimate

95% [C.I.]

Z

p-value

Q

p-value

Tau2

I2

Romans et al. 1997 (7 to 9.9)

−0.49

[−0.69; −0.29]

−4.85

0.000

3.94

0.414

0.00

0.00

Romans et al. 1997 (10 to 12.5)

−0.42

[−0.63; −0.22]

−4.15

0.000

3.87

0.424

0.00

0.00

Romans et al. 1997 (12.5 to 16.9)

−0.49

[−0.70; −0.29]

−4.76

0.000

4.01

0.405

0.00

0.28

Romans et al. 1998

−0.44

[−0.66; −0.23]

−4.01

0.000

4.41

0.354

0.01

9.24

Ross et al. 1995 (younger)

−0.50

[−0.71; −0.30]

−4.90

0.000

3.48

0.480

0.00

0.00

Ross et al. 1995 (older)

−0.41

[−0.60; −0.21]

−4.09

0.000

2.28

0.684

0.00

0.00

Funnel Plot of the Test of Variables of Attention (Response Time Variable)

figure e

Leave-One-Out Method’s Results

 

Estimate

95% [C.I.]

Z

p-value

Q

p-value

Tau2

I2

Romans et al. 1997 (7 to 9.9)

0.31

[0.02; 0.06]

2.38

0.017

6.74

0.151

0.03

40.63

Romans et al. 1997 (10 to 12.5)

0.32

[0.06; 0.59]

2.39

0.017

6.87

0.143

0.04

41.79

Romans et al. 1997 (12.5 to 16.9)

0.31

[0.05; 0.57]

2.30

0.021

6.60

0.158

0.03

39.42

Romans et al. 1998

0.33

[0.06; 0.60]

2.41

0.016

6.89

0.142

0.04

41.97

Ross et al. 1995 (younger)

0.42

[0.22; 0.62]

4.08

0.000

1.53

0.821

0.00

0.00

Ross et al. 1995 (older)

0.27

[0.06; 0.47]

2.52

0.011

4.53

0.340

0.01

11.62

Cognitive Flexibility Tasks

Wisconsin Card Sorting Test

Funnel Plot of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test

figure f

Leave-One-Out Method’s Results

 

Estimate

95% [C.I.]

Z

p-value

Q

p-value

Tau2

I2

Romans et al. 1997 (7 to 9.9)

−0.21

[−0.62; 0.20]

−1.00

0.314

7.94

0.047

0.11

62.22

Romans et al. 1997 (10 to 12.5)

−0.06

[−0.37; 0.26]

−0.35

0.725

4.37

0.225

0.03

31.29

Romans et al. 1997 (12.5 to 16.9)

−0.30

[−0.63; 0.03]

−1.76

0.079

4.48

0.214

0.04

33.00

Romans et al. 1998

−0.09

[−0.53; 0.34]

−0.43

0.670

6.88

0.076

0.11

56.38

Temple et al. 1996

−0.22

[−0.62; 0.18]

−1.07

0.283

7.69

0.053

0.10

60.98

Phonemic Verbal Fluency Task

Funnel Plot of the Phonemic Verbal Fluency Task

figure g

Leave-One-Out Method’s Results

 

Estimate

95% [C.I.]

Z

p-value

Q

p-value

Tau2

I2

Rae et al. 2004

−0.81

[−1.19; −0.42]

−4.10

0.000

14.4

0.025

0.15

58.49

Romans et al. 1997 (7 to 9.9)

−0.79

[−1.19; −0.39]

−3.85

0.000

15.7

0.016

0.17

61.68

Romans et al. 1997 (10 to 12.5)

−0.78

[−1.19; −0.37]

−3.73

0.000

16.3

0.012

0.18

63.10

Romans et al. 1997 (12.5 to 16.9)

−0.61

[−1.06; −0.16]

−2.65

0.010

18.9

0.004

0.24

68.26

Romans et al. 1998

−0.60

[−1.08; −0.11]

−2.41

0.016

17.0

0.009

0.27

64.72

Ross et al. 2000

−0.67

[−1.16; −0.18]

−2.67

0.008

19.8

0.003

0.29

69.69

Temple et al. 1996

−0.67

[−1.14; −0.20]

−2.79

0.005

20.0

0.002

0.26

70.00

Temple 2002

−0.58

[−0.99; −0.16]

−2.70

0.007

15.8

0.015

0.18

61.99

Semantic Verbal Fluency Task

Funnel Plot of the Semantic Verbal Fluency Task

figure h

Leave-One-Out Method’s Results

 

Estimate

95% [C.I.]

Z

p-value

Q

p-value

Tau2

I2

Rae et al. 2004

−0.91

[−1.27; −0.55]

−5.00

0.000

1.11

0.291

0.01

10.16

Romans et al. 1998

−0.70

[−1.26; −0.14]

−2.45

0.014

0.28

0.598

0.00

0.00

Temple et al. 1996

−1.00

[−1.35; −0.66]

−5.71

0.000

0.04

0.850

0.00

0.00

Higher-Order Executive Function Tasks

Tower of Hanoi

Funnel Plot of the Tower of Hanoi (Score Variable)

figure i

Leave-One-Out Method’s Results

 

Estimate

95% [C.I.]

Z

p-value

Q

p-value

Tau2

I2

Romans et al. 1997 (7 to 9.9)

−0.69

[−0.97; −0.42]

−4.93

0.000

1.77

0.413

0.00

0.00

Romans et al. 1997 (10 to 12.5)

−0.72

[−1.02; −0.43]

−4.88

0.000

1.32

0.517

0.00

0.00

Romans et al. 1997 (12.5 to 16.9)

−0.56

[−0.87; −0.25]

−3.59

0.000

0.58

0.747

0.00

0.00

Romans et al. 1998

−0.66

[−1.02; −0.30]

−3.60

0.000

2.15

0.341

0.01

7.05

Funnel Plot of the Tower of Hanoi (Average Time Variable)

Leave-One-Out Method’s Results

figure j
 

Estimate

95% [C.I.]

Z

p-value

Q

p-value

Tau2

I2

Romans et al. 1997 (7 to 9.9)

−1.00

[−1.29; −0.72]

−6.94

0.000

1.46

0.482

0.00

0.00

Romans et al. 1997 (10 to 12.5)

−0.99

[−1.32; −0.65]

−5.80

0.000

2.36

0.307

0.01

15.29

Romans et al. 1997 (12.5 to 16.9)

−0.84

[−1.16; −0.53]

−5.25

0.000

1.23

0.542

0.00

0.00

Romans et al. 1998

−0.90

[−1.33; −0.47]

−4.10

0.000

2.84

0.242

0.04

29.47

Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure

Funnel Plot of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure

figure k

Leave-One-Out Method’s Results

 

Estimate

95% [C.I.]

Z

p-value

Q

p-value

Tau2

I2

Reiss et al. 1995

−0.98

[−1.13; −0.83]

−12.57

0.000

4.56

0.601

0.00

0.00

Romans et al. 1997 (7 to 9.9)

−0.99

[−1.14; −0.83]

−12.51

0.000

4.37

0.627

0.00

0.00

Romans et al. 1997 (10 to 12.5)

−0.99

[−1.14; −0.83]

−12.46

0.000

4.41

0.621

0.00

0.00

Romans et al. 1997 (12.5 to 16.9)

−0.96

[−1.12; −0.81]

−12.16

0.000

4.33

0.632

0.00

0.00

Romans et al. 1998

−0.97

[−1.13; −0.81]

−11.89

0.000

4.57

0.601

0.00

0.00

Ross et al. 1995 (younger)

−0.98

[−1.14; −0.83]

−12.43

0.000

4.48

0.612

0.00

0.00

Ross et al. 1995 (older)

−0.94

[−1.09; −0.78]

−12.08

0.000

0.74

0.993

0.00

0.00

Ross et al. 1997a

−1.01

[−1.18; −0.83]

−11.36

0.000

4.17

0.653

0.00

0.00

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mauger, C., Lancelot, C., Roy, A. et al. Executive Functions in Children and Adolescents with Turner Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neuropsychol Rev 28, 188–215 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-018-9372-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-018-9372-x

Keywords

Navigation