literature review on psychology

• Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
• Contact & Directions
• Climate Statement
• Cognitive Behavioral Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Adjunct Faculty
• Non-Senate Instructors
• Researchers
• Psychology Grads
• Affiliated Grads
• New and Prospective Students
• Honors Program
• Experiential Learning
• Programs & Events
• Psi Chi / Psychology Club
• Prospective PhD Students
• Current PhD Students
• Area Brown Bags
• Colloquium Series
• Anderson Distinguished Lecture Series
• Speaker Videos
• Undergraduate Program
• Academic and Writing Resources

Writing Research Papers

• Writing a Literature Review

When writing a research paper on a specific topic, you will often need to include an overview of any prior research that has been conducted on that topic.  For example, if your research paper is describing an experiment on fear conditioning, then you will probably need to provide an overview of prior research on fear conditioning.  That overview is typically known as a literature review.  

Please note that a full-length literature review article may be suitable for fulfilling the requirements for the Psychology B.S. Degree Research Paper .  For further details, please check with your faculty advisor.

Different Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews come in many forms.  They can be part of a research paper, for example as part of the Introduction section.  They can be one chapter of a doctoral dissertation.  Literature reviews can also “stand alone” as separate articles by themselves.  For instance, some journals such as Annual Review of Psychology , Psychological Bulletin , and others typically publish full-length review articles.  Similarly, in courses at UCSD, you may be asked to write a research paper that is itself a literature review (such as, with an instructor’s permission, in fulfillment of the B.S. Degree Research Paper requirement). Alternatively, you may be expected to include a literature review as part of a larger research paper (such as part of an Honors Thesis). 

Literature reviews can be written using a variety of different styles.  These may differ in the way prior research is reviewed as well as the way in which the literature review is organized.  Examples of stylistic variations in literature reviews include: 

• Summarization of prior work vs. critical evaluation. In some cases, prior research is simply described and summarized; in other cases, the writer compares, contrasts, and may even critique prior research (for example, discusses their strengths and weaknesses).
• Chronological vs. categorical and other types of organization. In some cases, the literature review begins with the oldest research and advances until it concludes with the latest research.  In other cases, research is discussed by category (such as in groupings of closely related studies) without regard for chronological order.  In yet other cases, research is discussed in terms of opposing views (such as when different research studies or researchers disagree with one another).

Overall, all literature reviews, whether they are written as a part of a larger work or as separate articles unto themselves, have a common feature: they do not present new research; rather, they provide an overview of prior research on a specific topic . 

How to Write a Literature Review

When writing a literature review, it can be helpful to rely on the following steps.  Please note that these procedures are not necessarily only for writing a literature review that becomes part of a larger article; they can also be used for writing a full-length article that is itself a literature review (although such reviews are typically more detailed and exhaustive; for more information please refer to the Further Resources section of this page).

Steps for Writing a Literature Review

1. Identify and define the topic that you will be reviewing.

The topic, which is commonly a research question (or problem) of some kind, needs to be identified and defined as clearly as possible.  You need to have an idea of what you will be reviewing in order to effectively search for references and to write a coherent summary of the research on it.  At this stage it can be helpful to write down a description of the research question, area, or topic that you will be reviewing, as well as to identify any keywords that you will be using to search for relevant research.

2. Conduct a literature search.

Use a range of keywords to search databases such as PsycINFO and any others that may contain relevant articles.  You should focus on peer-reviewed, scholarly articles.  Published books may also be helpful, but keep in mind that peer-reviewed articles are widely considered to be the “gold standard” of scientific research.  Read through titles and abstracts, select and obtain articles (that is, download, copy, or print them out), and save your searches as needed.  For more information about this step, please see the Using Databases and Finding Scholarly References section of this website.

3. Read through the research that you have found and take notes.

Absorb as much information as you can.  Read through the articles and books that you have found, and as you do, take notes.  The notes should include anything that will be helpful in advancing your own thinking about the topic and in helping you write the literature review (such as key points, ideas, or even page numbers that index key information).  Some references may turn out to be more helpful than others; you may notice patterns or striking contrasts between different sources ; and some sources may refer to yet other sources of potential interest.  This is often the most time-consuming part of the review process.  However, it is also where you get to learn about the topic in great detail.  For more details about taking notes, please see the “Reading Sources and Taking Notes” section of the Finding Scholarly References page of this website.

4. Organize your notes and thoughts; create an outline.

At this stage, you are close to writing the review itself.  However, it is often helpful to first reflect on all the reading that you have done.  What patterns stand out?  Do the different sources converge on a consensus?  Or not?  What unresolved questions still remain?  You should look over your notes (it may also be helpful to reorganize them), and as you do, to think about how you will present this research in your literature review.  Are you going to summarize or critically evaluate?  Are you going to use a chronological or other type of organizational structure?  It can also be helpful to create an outline of how your literature review will be structured.

5. Write the literature review itself and edit and revise as needed.

The final stage involves writing.  When writing, keep in mind that literature reviews are generally characterized by a summary style in which prior research is described sufficiently to explain critical findings but does not include a high level of detail (if readers want to learn about all the specific details of a study, then they can look up the references that you cite and read the original articles themselves).  However, the degree of emphasis that is given to individual studies may vary (more or less detail may be warranted depending on how critical or unique a given study was).   After you have written a first draft, you should read it carefully and then edit and revise as needed.  You may need to repeat this process more than once.  It may be helpful to have another person read through your draft(s) and provide feedback.

6. Incorporate the literature review into your research paper draft.

After the literature review is complete, you should incorporate it into your research paper (if you are writing the review as one component of a larger paper).  Depending on the stage at which your paper is at, this may involve merging your literature review into a partially complete Introduction section, writing the rest of the paper around the literature review, or other processes.

Further Tips for Writing a Literature Review

Full-length literature reviews

• Many full-length literature review articles use a three-part structure: Introduction (where the topic is identified and any trends or major problems in the literature are introduced), Body (where the studies that comprise the literature on that topic are discussed), and Discussion or Conclusion (where major patterns and points are discussed and the general state of what is known about the topic is summarized)

Literature reviews as part of a larger paper

• An “express method” of writing a literature review for a research paper is as follows: first, write a one paragraph description of each article that you read. Second, choose how you will order all the paragraphs and combine them in one document.  Third, add transitions between the paragraphs, as well as an introductory and concluding paragraph. 1
• A literature review that is part of a larger research paper typically does not have to be exhaustive. Rather, it should contain most or all of the significant studies about a research topic but not tangential or loosely related ones. 2   Generally, literature reviews should be sufficient for the reader to understand the major issues and key findings about a research topic.  You may however need to confer with your instructor or editor to determine how comprehensive you need to be.

Benefits of Literature Reviews

By summarizing prior research on a topic, literature reviews have multiple benefits.  These include:

• Literature reviews help readers understand what is known about a topic without having to find and read through multiple sources.
• Literature reviews help “set the stage” for later reading about new research on a given topic (such as if they are placed in the Introduction of a larger research paper). In other words, they provide helpful background and context.
• Literature reviews can also help the writer learn about a given topic while in the process of preparing the review itself. In the act of research and writing the literature review, the writer gains expertise on the topic .

Downloadable Resources

• How to Write APA Style Research Papers (a comprehensive guide) [ PDF ]
• Tips for Writing APA Style Research Papers (a brief summary) [ PDF ]
• Example APA Style Research Paper (for B.S. Degree – literature review) [ PDF ]

Further Resources

How-To Videos     

• Writing Research Paper Videos
• UCSD Library Psychology Research Guide: Literature Reviews

External Resources

• Developing and Writing a Literature Review from N Carolina A&T State University
• Example of a Short Literature Review from York College CUNY
• How to Write a Review of Literature from UW-Madison
• Writing a Literature Review from UC Santa Cruz  
• Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149. doi : 1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

1 Ashton, W. Writing a short literature review . [PDF]     

2 carver, l. (2014).  writing the research paper [workshop]. , prepared by s. c. pan for ucsd psychology.

Back to top

• Research Paper Structure
• Formatting Research Papers
• Using Databases and Finding References
• What Types of References Are Appropriate?
• Evaluating References and Taking Notes
• Citing References
• Writing Process and Revising
• Improving Scientific Writing
• Academic Integrity and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Writing Research Papers Videos

PSYC 210: Foundations of Psychology

• Tips for Searching for Articles

What is a literature review?

Conducting a literature review, organizing a literature review, writing a literature review, helpful book.

• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Google Scholar

A  literature review  is a compilation of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches

Source: "What is a Literature Review?", Old Dominion University,  https://guides.lib.odu.edu/c.php?g=966167&p=6980532

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question. 

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question. It represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted, and analyzed by you in a synthesized way. 

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.
• Write down terms that are related to your question for they will be useful for searches later. 

2. Decide on the scope of your review. 

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.
• Consider these things when planning your time for research. 

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches. 

• By Research Guide 

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature. 

• Review the abstracts carefully - this will save you time!
• Many databases will have a search history tab for you to return to for later.
• Use bibliographies and references of research studies to locate others.
• Use citation management software such as Zotero to keep track of your research citations. 

5. Review the literature. 

Some questions to help you analyze the research: 

• What was the research question you are reviewing? What are the authors trying to discover? 
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings? 
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze the literature review, samples and variables used, results, and conclusions. Does the research seem complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise? 
• If there are conflicted studies, why do you think that is? 
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Are they experts or novices? Has the study been cited? 

Source: "Literature Review", University of West Florida,  https://libguides.uwf.edu/c.php?g=215113&p=5139469

A literature review is not a summary of the sources but a synthesis of the sources. It is made up of the topics the sources are discussing. Each section of the review is focused on a topic, and the relevant sources are discussed within the context of that topic. 

1. Select the most relevant material from the sources

• Could be material that answers the question directly
• Extract as a direct quote or paraphrase 

2. Arrange that material so you can focus on it apart from the source text itself

• You are now working with fewer words/passages
• Material is all in one place

3. Group similar points, themes, or topics together and label them 

• The labels describe the points, themes, or topics that are the backbone of your paper’s structure

4. Order those points, themes, or topics as you will discuss them in the paper, and turn the labels into actual assertions

• A sentence that makes a point that is directly related to your research question or thesis 

This is now the outline for your literature review. 

Source: "Organizing a Review of the Literature – The Basics", George Mason University Writing Center,  https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/writing-resources/research-based-writing/organizing-literature-reviews-the-basics

• Literature Review Matrix Here is a template on how people tend to organize their thoughts. The matrix template is a good way to write out the key parts of each article and take notes. Downloads as an XLSX file.

The most common way that literature reviews are organized is by theme or author. Find a general pattern of structure for the review. When organizing the review, consider the following: 

• the methodology 
• the quality of the findings or conclusions
• major strengths and weaknesses
• any other important information

Writing Tips: 

• Be selective - Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. It should directly relate to the review's focus.
• Use quotes sparingly.
• Keep your own voice - Your voice (the writer's) should remain front and center. .   
• Aim for one key figure/table per section to illustrate complex content, summarize a large body of relevant data, or describe the order of a process
• Legend below image/figure and above table and always refer to them in text 

Source: "Composing your Literature Review", Florida A&M University,  https://library.famu.edu/c.php?g=577356&p=3982811

• << Previous: Tips for Searching for Articles
• Next: Citing Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 3:43 PM
• URL: https://infoguides.pepperdine.edu/PSYC210

Explore. Discover. Create.

Copyright ©  2022  Pepperdine University

Writing a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

• Research Topic | Research Questions
• Outline (Example)
• What Types of Literature Should I Use in My Review?
• Project Planner: Literature Review
• Writing a Literature Review in Psychology
• Literature Review tips (video)

Table of Contents

• What is a literature review?
• How is a literature review different from a research article?
• The two purposes: describe/compare and evaluate
• Getting started Select a topic and gather articles
• Choose a current, well-studied, specific topic
• Search the research literature
• Read the articles
• Write the literature review
• Structure How to proceed: describe, compare, evaluate

Literature reviews survey research on a particular area or topic in psychology. Their main purpose is to knit together theories and results from multiple studies to give an overview of a field of research.

How is a Literature Review Different from a Research Article?

Research articles:

• are empirical articles that describe one or several related studies on a specific, quantitative, testable research question
• are typically organized into four text sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion

The Introduction of a research article includes a condensed literature review. Its purpose is to describe what is known about the area of study, with the goal of giving the context and rationale for the study itself. Published literature reviews are called review articles. Review articles emphasize interpretation. By surveying the key studies done in a certain research area, a review article interprets how each line of research supports or fails to support a theory. Unlike a research article, which is quite specific, a review article tells a more general story of an area of research by describing, comparing, and evaluating the key theories and main evidence in that area.

The Two Purposes of a Literature Review

Your review has two purposes:

(1) to describe and compare studies in a specific area of research and

(2) to evaluate those studies. Both purposes are vital: a thorough summary and comparison of the current research is necessary before you can build a strong evaluative argument about the theories tested.

Getting Started

(1) Select a research topic and identify relevant articles.

(2) Read the articles until you understand what about them is relevant to your review.

(3) Digest the articles: Understand the main points well enough to talk about them.

(4) Write the review, keeping in mind your two purposes: to describe and compare, and to evaluate.

SELECT A TOPIC AND COLLECT ARTICLES

Choose a current, well-studied, specific topic.

Pick a topic that interests you. If you're interested in a subject, you're likely to already know something about it. Your interest will help you to choose meaningful articles, making your paper more fun both to write and to read. The topic should be both current and well studied. Your goal is to describe and evaluate recent findings in a specific area of research, so pick a topic that you find in current research journals. Find an area that is well defined and well studied, meaning that several research groups are studying the topic and have approached it from different perspectives. If all the articles you find are from the same research group (i.e., the same authors), broaden your topic or use more general search terms.

You may need to narrow your topic. The subject of a short literature review must be specific enough, yet have sufficient literature on the subject, for you to cover it in depth. A broad topic will yield thousands of articles, which is impossible to survey meaningfully. If you are drowning in articles, or each article you find seems to be about a completely different aspect of the subject, narrow your topic. Choose one article that interests to you and focus on the specific question investigated. For example, a search for ‘teenage alcohol use’ will flood you with articles, but searching for ‘teenage alcohol use and criminal behavior’ will yield both fewer and more focused articles.

You may need to broaden your topic. You need enough articles on your topic for a thorough review of the research. If you’re unable to find much literature on your topic, or if you find articles you want that are not easy to find online, broaden your topic. What’s a more general way to ask your question of interest? For example, if you’re having a hard time finding articles on ‘discrimination against Asian-American women in STEM fields,’ broaden your topic (e.g., ‘academic discrimination against Asian-American women’ or ‘discrimination against women in STEM.’)

Consider several topics, and keep an open mind. Don't fall in love with a topic before you find how much research has been done in that area. By exploring different topics, you may discover something that is newly exciting to you!

Search the Research Literature

Do a preliminary search. Use online databases to search the research literature. If you don’t know how to search online databases, ask your instructor or reference librarian. Reference librarians are invaluable!

Search for helpful articles. Find one or more pivotal articles that can be a foundation for your paper. A pivotal article may be exceptionally well written, contain particularly valuable citations, or clarify relationships between different but related lines of research. Two sources of such articles in psychology are:

• Psychological Bulletin •
• Current Directions in Psychological Science (published by the American Psychological Society) has general, short articles written by scientists who have published a lot in their research area

How many articles? Although published review articles may cite more than 100 articles, literature reviews for courses are often shorter because they present only highlights of a research area and are not exhaustive. A short literature review may survey 7-12 research articles and be about 10-15 pages long. For course paper guidelines, ask your instructor.

Choose representative articles, not just the first ones you find. This consideration is more important than the length of your review.

Choose readable articles. Some research areas are harder to understand than others. Scan articles in the topic areas you are considering to decide on the readability of the research in those areas.

READ THE ARTICLES

To write an effective review, you’ll need a solid grasp of the relevant research. Begin by reading the article you find easiest. Read, re-read, and mentally digest it until you have a conversational understanding of the paper. You don’t know what you know until you can talk about it. And if you can’t talk about it, you won’t be able to write about it.

Read selectively. Don't start by reading the articles from beginning to end. First, read just the Abstract to get an overview of the study.

Scan the article to identify the answers to these “Why-What-What-What” questions:

• Why did they do the study? Why does it matter?
• What did they do?
• What did they find?
• What does it mean?

The previous four questions correspond to these parts of a research article:

• Introduction: the research question and hypotheses

Create a summary sheet of each article’s key points. This will help you to integrate each article into your paper.

TIP: Give Scholarcy a try.

Read for depth. After you understand an article’s main points, read each section in detail for to gain the necessary indepth understanding to compare the work of different researchers.

WRITE THE LITERATURE REVIEW

Your goal is to evaluate a body of literature; i.e., to “identify relations, contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies” and “suggest next steps to solve the research problem” (APA Publication Manual 2010, p. 10). Begin writing when you have decided on your story and how to organize your research to support that story.

Organization

Organize the literature review to highlight the theme that you want to emphasize – the story that you want to tell. Literature reviews tend to be organized something like this:

Introduction:

• Introduce the research topic (what it is, why does it matter)
• Frame the story: narrow the research topic to the studies you will discuss
• Briefly outline how you have organized the review
• Headings. Use theme headings to organize your argument (see below)
• Describe the relevant parts of each study and explain why it is relevant to the subtopic at hand.
• Compare the studies if need be, to discuss their implications (i.e., your interpretation of what the studies show and whether there are important differences or similarities)
• Evaluate the importance of each study or group of studies, as well as the implications for the subtopic, and where research should go from here (on the level of the subtopic)

Conclusion: Final evaluation, summation and conclusion

Headings. Use headings to identify major sections that show the organization of the paper. (Headings also help you to identify organizational problems while you’re writing.) Avoid the standard headings of research articles (Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion). Use specific, conceptual headings. If you are reviewing whether facial expressions are universally understood, headings might include Studies in Western Cultures and Studies in Non-Western Cultures. Organize your argument into topics that fit under each heading (one or more per heading).

Describe. For each section or subtopic, briefly describe each article or line of research. Avoid sudden jumps betewen broader and narrower ideas. Keep your story in mind to help keep your thoughts connected.

Compare. For each section or topic, compare related studies, if this is relevant to your story. Comparisons may involve the research question, hypotheses, methods, data analysis, results, or conclusions. However, you don’t want to compare everything. That wouldn’t be a story! Which parts are relevant? What evidence supports your arguments? Identifying strengths and weaknesses of each study will help you make meaningful comparisons.

If you're having trouble synthesizing information, you probably don't understand the articles well. Reread sections you don’t understand. Discuss the studies with someone: you don’t know what you know until you can talk about it.

Evaluate. Descriptions/comparisons alone are not illuminating. For each section or topic, evaluate the studies you have reviewed based on your comparisons. Tell your reader what you conclude, and why. Evaluating research is the most subjective part of your paper. Even so, always support your claims with evidence. Evaluation requires much thought and takes on some risk, but without it, your paper is just a book report.

Final evaluation and summation. On a broader scale, relating to your main theme, tell your reader what you conclude and why. Reiterate your main claims and outline the evidence that supports them.

Conclusion. How does your evaluatio change or add to current knowledge in the field field? What future studies are implied by your analysis? How would such studies add to current knowledge of the topic?

The purpose of a literature review is to survey, describe, compare, and evaluate research articles on a particular topic. Choose a current topic that is neither too broad nor too narrow. Find the story that you want to tell. Spend a lot of time reading and thinking before you write. Think critically about the main hypotheses, findings, and arguments in a line of research. Identify areas of agreement among different articles as well as their differences and areas for future study. Expect to revise your review many times to refine your story. A well-written literature review gives the reader a comprehensive understanding of the main findings and remaining questions brought about by research on that topic.

• << Previous: Project Planner: Literature Review
• Next: Literature Review tips (video) >>
• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 1:35 PM
• URL: https://gbc.libguides.com/literature_review

Psychology Research Guide

• Literature Review
• Web Resources
• Library Services

Literature Review Overview

A literature review involves both the literature searching and the writing. The purpose of the literature search is to:

• reveal existing knowledge
• identify areas of consensus and debate
• identify gaps in knowledge
• identify approaches to research design and methodology
• identify other researchers with similar interests
• clarify your future directions for research

List above from Conducting A Literature Search , Information Research Methods and Systems, Penn State University Libraries

A literature review provides an evaluative review and documentation of what has been published by scholars and researchers on a given topic. In reviewing the published literature, the aim is to explain what ideas and knowledge have been gained and shared to date (i.e., hypotheses tested, scientific methods used, results and conclusions), the weakness and strengths of these previous works, and to identify remaining research questions: A literature review provides the context for your research, making clear why your topic deserves further investigation.

Before You Search

• Select and understand your research topic and question.
• Identify the major concepts in your topic and question.
• Brainstorm potential keywords/terms that correspond to those concepts.
• Identify alternative keywords/terms (narrower, broader, or related) to use if your first set of keywords do not work.
• Determine (Boolean*) relationships between terms.
• Begin your search.
• Review your search results.
• Revise & refine your search based on the initial findings.

*Boolean logic provides three ways search terms/phrases can be combined, using the following three operators: AND, OR, and NOT.

Search Process

The type of information you want to find and the practices of your discipline(s) drive the types of sources you seek and where you search.

For most research you will use multiple source types such as: annotated bibliographies; articles from journals, magazines, and newspapers; books; blogs; conference papers; data sets; dissertations; organization, company, or government reports; reference materials; systematic reviews; archival materials; curriculum materials; and more. It can be helpful to develop a comprehensive approach to review different sources and where you will search for each. Below is an example approach.

Utilize Current Awareness Services  Identify and browse current issues of the most relevant journals for your topic; Setup email or RSS Alerts, e.g., Journal Table of Contents, Saved Searches

Consult Experts   Identify and search for the publications of or contact educators, scholars, librarians, employees etc. at schools, organizations, and agencies

• Annual Reviews and Bibliographies   e.g., Annual Review of Psychology
• Internet   e.g., Discussion Groups, Listservs, Blogs, social networking sites
• Grant Databases   e.g., Foundation Directory Online, Grants.gov
• Conference Proceedings   e.g., International Psychological Applications Conference and Trends (InPACT), The European Conference on Psychology & the Behavioral Sciences via IAFOR Research Archive
• Newspaper Indexes   e.g., Access World News, Ethnic NewsWatch, New York Times Historical
• Journal Indexes/Databases and EJournal Packages   e.g., PsycArticles, ScienceDirect
• Citation Indexes   e.g., PsycINFO, Psychiatry Online
• Specialized Data   e.g., American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment survey data, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive
• Book Catalogs – e.g., local library catalog or discovery search, WorldCat
• Library Web Scale Discovery Service  e.g., OneSearch
• Web Search Engines   e.g., Google, Yahoo
• Digital Collections   e.g., Archives & Special Collections Digital Collections, Archives of the History of American Psychology
• Associations/Community groups/Institutions/Organizations   e.g., American Psychological Association

Remember there is no one portal for all information!

Database Searching Videos, Guides, and Examples

• Comprehensive guide to the database
• Sample Searches
• Searchable Fields
• Education topic guide
• Child Development topic guide

ProQuest (platform for ERIC, PsycINFO, and Dissertations & Theses Global databases, among other databases) search videos:

• Basic Search
• Advanced Search
• Search Results
• Performing Basic Searches
• Performing Advanced Searches
• Search Tips

If you are new to research , check out the Searching for Information tutorials and videos for foundational information.

Finding Empirical Studies

In ERIC : Check the box next to “143: Reports - Research” under "Document type" from the Advanced Search page

In PsycINFO : Check the box next to “Empirical Study” under "Methodology" from the Advanced Search page

In OneSearch : There is not a specific way to limit to empirical studies in OneSearch, you can limit your search results to peer-reviewed journals and or dissertations, and then identify studies by reading the source abstract to determine if you’ve found an empirical study or not.

Summarize Studies in a Meaningful Way

The Writing and Public Speaking Center at UM provides not only tutoring but many other resources for writers and presenters. Three with key tips for writing a literature review are:

• Literature Reviews Defined
• Tracking, Organizing, and Using Sources
• Organizing and Integrating Sources

If you are new to research , check out the Presenting Research and Data tutorials and videos for foundational information. You may also want to consult the Purdue OWL Academic Writing resources or APA Style Workshop content.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Web Resources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 29, 2024 11:26 AM
• URL: https://libguides.lib.umt.edu/psychology

University of Houston Libraries

Psychology resources.

• Background Information
• Literature Review
• Tests and Measurements
• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• Need More Help?

What is a Literature Review?

If this is your first time having to do a literature review, you might be wondering what a "literature review" actually is. Typically, this entails searching through various databases to find peer-reviewed research within a particular topic of interest and then analyzing what you find in order to situate your own research within the existing works.

Watch the following video to learn more:

Video Transcript

What is Peer Review?

Most of your literature review will involve searching for sources that have gone through the peer-reviewed process. These are typically academic articles that have been published in scholarly journals and have been vetted by other experts with knowledge of the topic at hand.

How Do I Find Psychology Literature?

The following database are a great place to start to find relevant, peer-reviewed literature within the broad research area of psychology:

• APA PsycInfo This link opens in a new window From the American Psychological Association (APA), PsycINFO contains nearly 2.3 million citations and abstracts of scholarly journal articles, book chapters, books, and dissertations in psychology and related disciplines. It is the largest resource devoted to peer-reviewed literature in behavioral science and mental health.
• DynaMed This link opens in a new window A clinical reference tool of more than 3000 topics designed for physicians and health care professionals for use primarily at the point-of-care. DynaMed is updated daily and monitors the content of over 500 medical journal and systemic evidence review databases.
• EMBASE This link opens in a new window EMBASE is a major biomedical and pharmaceutical database indexing over 3,500 international journals in the following fields of health sciences and biomedical research. It is considered as the European version of Medline.
• MEDLINE with Full Text This link opens in a new window A bibliographic database that contains more than 26 million references to journal articles in life sciences with a concentration on biomedicine. A distinctive feature of MEDLINE is that the records are indexed with NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH®).

• PubMed This link opens in a new window PubMed® comprises more than 30 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books.
• Web of Science This link opens in a new window Web of Science is a comprehensive research database. It contains records of journal articles, patents, and conference proceedings, It also provides a variety of search and analysis tools. Web of Science Core Collection is a painstakingly selected, actively curated database of the journals that researchers themselves have judged to be the most important and useful in their fields
• << Previous: Background Information
• Next: Tests and Measurements >>
• Last Updated: Aug 12, 2023 11:20 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uh.edu/psychology

University Library

• Research Guides
• Literature Reviews
• Finding Articles
• Finding Books and Media
• Research Methods, Tests, and Statistics
• Citations and APA Style
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Other Resources
• According to Science
• The Scientific Process
• Activity: Scholarly Party

What is a Literature Review?

The scholarly conversation.

A literature review provides an overview of previous research on a topic that critically evaluates, classifies, and compares what has already been published on a particular topic. It allows the author to synthesize and place into context the research and scholarly literature relevant to the topic. It helps map the different approaches to a given question and reveals patterns. It forms the foundation for the author’s subsequent research and justifies the significance of the new investigation.

A literature review can be a short introductory section of a research article or a report or policy paper that focuses on recent research. Or, in the case of dissertations, theses, and review articles, it can be an extensive review of all relevant research.

• The format is usually a bibliographic essay; sources are briefly cited within the body of the essay, with full bibliographic citations at the end.
• The introduction should define the topic and set the context for the literature review. It will include the author's perspective or point of view on the topic, how they have defined the scope of the topic (including what's not included), and how the review will be organized. It can point out overall trends, conflicts in methodology or conclusions, and gaps in the research.
• In the body of the review, the author should organize the research into major topics and subtopics. These groupings may be by subject, (e.g., globalization of clothing manufacturing), type of research (e.g., case studies), methodology (e.g., qualitative), genre, chronology, or other common characteristics. Within these groups, the author can then discuss the merits of each article and analyze and compare the importance of each article to similar ones.
• The conclusion will summarize the main findings, make clear how this review of the literature supports (or not) the research to follow, and may point the direction for further research.
• The list of references will include full citations for all of the items mentioned in the literature review.

Key Questions for a Literature Review

A literature review should try to answer questions such as

• Who are the key researchers on this topic?
• What has been the focus of the research efforts so far and what is the current status?
• How have certain studies built on prior studies? Where are the connections? Are there new interpretations of the research?
• Have there been any controversies or debate about the research? Is there consensus? Are there any contradictions?
• Which areas have been identified as needing further research? Have any pathways been suggested?
• How will your topic uniquely contribute to this body of knowledge?
• Which methodologies have researchers used and which appear to be the most productive?
• What sources of information or data were identified that might be useful to you?
• How does your particular topic fit into the larger context of what has already been done?
• How has the research that has already been done help frame your current investigation ?

Examples of Literature Reviews

Example of a literature review at the beginning of an article: Forbes, C. C., Blanchard, C. M., Mummery, W. K., & Courneya, K. S. (2015, March). Prevalence and correlates of strength exercise among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors . Oncology Nursing Forum, 42(2), 118+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.sonoma.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=HRCA&sw=w&u=sonomacsu&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA422059606&asid=27e45873fddc413ac1bebbc129f7649c Example of a comprehensive review of the literature: Wilson, J. L. (2016). An exploration of bullying behaviours in nursing: a review of the literature.   British Journal Of Nursing ,  25 (6), 303-306. For additional examples, see:

Galvan, J., Galvan, M., & ProQuest. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (Seventh ed.). [Electronic book]

Pan, M., & Lopez, M. (2008). Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Pub. [ Q180.55.E9 P36 2008]

Useful Links

• Write a Literature Review (UCSC)
• Literature Reviews (Purdue)
• Literature Reviews: overview (UNC)
• Review of Literature (UW-Madison)

Evidence Matrix for Literature Reviews

The  Evidence Matrix  can help you  organize your research  before writing your lit review.  Use it to  identify patterns  and commonalities in the articles you have found--similar methodologies ?  common  theoretical frameworks ? It helps you make sure that all your major concepts covered. It also helps you see how your research fits into the context  of the overall topic.

• Evidence Matrix Special thanks to Dr. Cindy Stearns, SSU Sociology Dept, for permission to use this Matrix as an example.
• << Previous: Citations and APA Style
• Next: Annotated Bibliographies >>
• Last Updated: Jan 8, 2024 2:58 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sonoma.edu/psychology

Psychology - How to Write a Literature Review

Subject guide.

What is a literature review? 

A literature review discusses published research studies on a specific topic or subject area.  

What is the purpose of writing it?

The goal of the lit review is to describe, summarize, and evaluate previous research in a given area.  It should explain important conclusions about your topic as well as identify any gaps in the research or areas for future study.

Choose a Topic and Find Articles

Choose a topic that interests you and remember to keep an open mind.  Depending on how much research there is, you may need to narrow or broaden your topic.  

• PsycArticles This link opens in a new window Scholarly journal articles on psychology topics.
• ProQuest Central This link opens in a new window The largest single periodical resource available, bringing together complete databases across all major subject areas, including Business, Health and Medical, Social Sciences, Education, Science and Technology, and Humanities.
• Google Scholar Search for scholarly articles and books. Be aware that the full text may not always be available.

Read the Articles

You want to read and understand each of your articles.  A good starting point is to answer these 3 questions about each article:

1. What was the study's research question?  In other words, what were they trying to find out?

2. What was the study's method?  Briefly describe HOW they collected data and WHO their participant group was.

3. What do the results mean?  Or what conclusions can we draw from the results?

Write the Lit Review

Connect:   Think about what YOUR research question is for your lit review.  Each article you found should connect to your topic/theme in some way and you should be able to describe your topic as a research question and your articles as answers to that question.  Your summary for each article should show how they further our knowledge in relation to your topic.

Organize:   Can you organize your articles into a few distinct groups?  It could be by treatment method or age/ethnic group or other factor.  The way you organize will depend on your topic and the research, but it will help you if you can group articles in some way.  

Analyze:  Think beyond just summary and about what we still don't know about this topic.  Are there gaps in the research?  Do too many studies use just one method of gathering data?  What else is important to know?  The "Discussion" section of your articles may help guide you in your analysis.

Additional Sources

• College Drinking Games Literature Review Lit Review published in a scholarly journal. Good example of how lit reviews work in the field.
• How to Write a Literature Review from Psychology in Action Good advice on choosing a topic and searching for articles.
• Writing a Literature Review in Psychology from University of Washington Helpful info on all aspects of writing a lit review. Great resource.
• Literature Reviews from UNC Chapel Hill Writing Center This is not specific to Psychology, but has good tips on organizing your paper.
• Next: APA >>
• Last Updated: Oct 18, 2023 11:21 AM
• URL: https://bergen.libguides.com/litreview

Service update: Some parts of the Library’s website will be down for maintenance on August 11.

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Psychology 140: developmental psychology: the literature review.

• The Literature Review
• Off-Campus Access
• Finding Articles
• Citations & Bibliographic Software (Zotero)

http://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/psyc140

Quick links.

• Google Scholar This link opens in a new window Search across many disciplines and sources including articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other web sites. more... less... Lists journal articles, books, preprints, and technical reports in many subject areas (though more specialized article databases may cover any given field more completely). Can be used with "Get it at UC" to access the full text of many articles.

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a survey of research on a given topic. It allows you see what has already been written on a topic so that you can draw on that research in your own study. By seeing what has already been written on a topic you will also know how to distinguish your research and engage in an original area of inquiry.

Why do a Literature Review?

A literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You will identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

Elements of a Successful Literature Review

According to Byrne's  What makes a successful literature review? you should follow these steps:

• Identify appropriate search terms.
• Search appropriate databases to identify articles on your topic.
• Identify key publications in your area.
• Search the web to identify relevant grey literature. (Grey literature is often found in the public sector and is not traditionally published like academic literature. It is often produced by research organizations.)
• Scan article abstracts and summaries before reading the piece in full.
• Read the relevant articles and take notes.
• Organize by theme.
• Write your review .

from Byrne, D. (2017). What makes a successful literature review?. Project Planner . 10.4135/9781526408518. (via SAGE Research Methods )

Research help

Email : Email your research questions to the Library.

Appointments : Schedule a 30-minute research meeting with a librarian. 

Find a subject librarian : Find a library expert in your specific field of study.

Research guides on your topic : Learn more about resources for your topic or subject.

• Next: Off-Campus Access >>
• Last Updated: Aug 14, 2024 10:46 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/psyc140

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• University of La Verne
• Subject Guides

PSY 306: Cognitive Psychology

• Literature Reviews
• Find Articles
• What is a Literature Review?
• Literature Review Resources
• Literature Review Books
• The 5 Steps to Writing a Literature Review
• APA Citations
• Organize Citations
• A literature review is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. As a researcher, you collect the available literature on a topic, and then select the literature that is most relevant for your purpose. Your written literature review summarizes and analyses the themes, topics, methods, and results of that literature in order to inform the reader about the history and current status of research on that topic.

What purpose does a literature review serve?

• The literature review informs the reader of the researcher's knowledge of the relevant research already conducted on the topic under discussion, and places the author's current study in context of previous studies.
• As part of a senior project, the literature review points out the current issues and questions concerning a topic. By relating the your research to a knowledge gap in the existing literature, you should demonstrate how his or her proposed research will contribute to expanding knowledge in that field.
• Short Literature Review Sample This literature review sample guides students from the thought process to a finished review.
• Literature Review Matrix (Excel Doc) Excel file that can be edited to suit your needs.
• Literature Review Matrix (PDF) Source: McLean, Lindsey. "Literature Review." CORA (Community of Online Research Assignments), 2015. https://www.projectcora.org/assignment/literature-review.
• Academic Writer (formerly APA Style Central) This link opens in a new window Academic Writer (formerly APA Style Central) features three independent but integrated centers that provide expert resources necessary for teaching, learning, and applying the rules of APA Style.
• Sample Literature Reviews: Univ. of West Florida Literature review guide from the University of West Florida library guides.
• Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL) Sample literature review in APA from Purdue University's Online Writing Lab (OWL)

• << Previous: Find Articles
• Next: APA Citations >>
• Last Updated: Aug 16, 2024 3:09 PM
• URL: https://laverne.libguides.com/psy306

This page has been archived and is no longer being updated regularly.

Degree In Sight

Literature reviews made easy

Turn that jumble of notes and ideas into a well-organized draft with these five strategies.

By Cassandra Willyard

Print version: page 28

Alarm, terror, worry, despair, panic. Do those words describe how you feel about writing your dissertation? If so, you're not alone. The dreaded doctoral dissertation can inspire fear in even the most courageous students.

After you've selected a topic, one of the first major tasks is writing the literature review — the section some experts say is the most difficult and time-consuming. Unlike the methods and results sections, which follow a highly regimented format, the literature review gives students more latitude to develop their own ideas, says Sharon Foster, PhD, a psychologist at Alliant International University and co-author of "Dissertations And Theses from Start to Finish: Psychology and Related Fields" (1993). "You're not just summarizing what's known," Foster says. "You're also trying to figure out what needs to be known to advance the science."

That means critically evaluating the literature and looking for holes, unanswered questions and methodological weaknesses.

Here are five strategies to keep you focused and productive as you tackle the first section of your dissertation:

Get Organized

To conduct a thorough review of the literature, you'll need to read dozens of papers. Unless you possess supernatural powers of memorization, you'll want to create a system for keeping track of the important information. What kind of system is up to you. "There is no template," says Joan Bolker, EdD, author of "Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day: A Guide to Starting, Revising, and Finishing Your Doctoral Thesis" (1998). "You have to look at who you are. You have to figure out what's going to fit for you."

For example, if you're the type of student who makes detailed outlines, keeps immaculate files and thinks organizational software is fun, approach your dissertation with the same organizational gusto that you approach the rest of your life. If you're technologically savvy, use the latest smartphone app to keep track of your notes. But if organization doesn't come naturally, keep your system simple. A complex method of index cards and color-coded tabs may make you feel overwhelmed. Even keeping separate, albeit messy, piles can help tame the chaos. You don't have to be an organizational guru to write a dissertation, Bolker says. "I've had several [students who were] slobs who wrote fantastic dissertations."

Whatever system you choose, keep track of your citations. You don't want to be one of the students "scurrying around the library to look up the references" right before the deadline, Bolker notes.

Stay Focused

Students often cast too wide a net when they start their literature reviews, Foster says. "They think they have to write about everything they've read." The result is a huge literature review with too much background and not enough information about your specific research topic. If your dissertation is on relational aggression among elementary school kids, focus in quickly on the type of aggression you're interested in and the age group rather than writing 20 pages of background on aggression, Foster says.

To help narrow your focus, Foster recommends writing the end of the literature review — the part directly relevant to your research question — first. "Then go back and write your introductory materials," she says.

Set a Schedule

Writing is a creative process, but that doesn't mean you should only work when inspiration strikes, says Kjell Rudestam, PhD, associate dean at Fielding Graduate University and author of "Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process, 3rd edition" (2007). Instead, set aside time to work on your literature review. How much time? That depends on the requirements of your department and how quickly you work. "Some [departments] prefer a very broad and comprehensive review, whereas others prefer a review that is more publication-ready," Rudestam says. The average review may take six months to write and require multiple revisions. "If you don't schedule some time for the dissertation," he says, "it will slip into the background."

Seek Feedback Early and Often

Don't avoid your dissertation committee. Many students do, Rudestam says, because they're afraid that the committee members will raise questions and create more work for them. But you need that kind of feedback. "Typically, it's the committee members, especially the chair of the committee, who have the most awareness and knowledge about the available literature," he says. So your committee can be a valuable resource if you need help figuring out which topics to cover in your literature review or identifying key studies. A student who gets lots of critical feedback early on is more likely to end up with "a dissertation that's bulletproof," Rudestam says.

Seek advice, but don't be afraid to take only what you need. "Three [committee] members are likely to give three different sorts of advice and drive the writer nuts," Bolker says.

Find Your Voice

One of the biggest challenges students face is "making the work their own," Rudestam says. When students write a first draft of the literature review, they often rely too heavily on the opinions of others. "Smith said this. Jones did this. Schwartz thinks this," he says. "You wonder where the author is." Instead of citing an exhaustive list of articles, identify the argument you want to make and then select only the papers that are relevant — those that either support your argument or dispute your hypothesis.

The process of writing a dissertation's literature review is undoubtedly labor-intensive, but it can also be immensely rewarding. "I've had a lot of students who have started out dreading doing a dissertation," Rudestam says. By the end, however, they regard their dissertation as "the most meaningful thing that they did with their graduate studies."

Cassandra Willyard is a writer in New York.

Further reading.

Miller, A.B. (2009). Finish your dissertation once and for all! How to overcome psychological barriers, get results, and move on with your life . Washington, DC: APA.

Letters to the Editor

• SUNY Oswego, Penfield Library
• Resource Guides

Psychology Research Guide

• Literature Reviews
• Research Starters
• Find Tests and Measures

Conducting Literature Reviews

Finding literature reviews in psycinfo, more help on conducting literature reviews.

• How to Read a Scientific Article
• Citing Sources
• Peer Review

Quick Links

• Penfield Library
• Research Guides
• A-Z List of Databases & Indexes

The APA definition of a literature review (from http://www.apa.org/databases/training/method-values.html ):

 Survey of previously published literature on a particular topic to define and clarify a particular problem; summarize previous investigations; and to identify relations, contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the literature, and suggest the next step in solving the problem.

 Literature Reviews should:

• Key concepts that are being researched
• The areas that are ripe for more research—where the gaps and inconsistencies in the literature are
• A critical analysis of research that has been previously conducted
• Will include primary and secondary research
• Be selective—you’ll review many sources, so pick the most important parts of the articles/books.
• Introduction: Provides an overview of your topic, including the major problems and issues that have been studied.
• Discussion of Methodologies:   If there are different types of studies conducted, identifying what types of studies have been conducted is often provided.
• Identification and Discussion of Studies: Provide overview of major studies conducted, and if there have been follow-up studies, identify whether this has supported or disproved results from prior studies.
• Identification of Themes in Literature: If there has been different themes in the literature, these are also discussed in literature reviews.   For example, if you were writing a review of treatment of OCD, cognitive-behavioral therapy and drug therapy would be themes to discuss.
• Conclusion/Discussion—Summarize what you’ve found in your review of literature, and identify areas in need of further research or gaps in the literature.

Because literature reviews are a major part of research in psychology, Psycinfo allows you to easily limit to literature reviews.  In the advanced search screen, you can select "literature review" as the methodology.

Now all you'll need to do is enter your search terms, and your results should show you many literature reviews conducted by professionals on your topic.

When you find an literature review article that is relevant to your topic, you should look at who the authors cite and who is citing the author, so that you can begin to use their research to help you locate sources and conduct your own literature review.  The best way to do that is to use the "Cited References" and "Times Cited" links in Psycinfo, which is pictured below.

This article on procrastination has 423 references, and 48 other articles in psycinfo are citing this literature review.  And, the citations are either available in full text or to request through ILL.  Check out  the article "The Nature of Procrastination" to see how these features work.

By searching for existing literature reviews, and then using the references of those literature reviews to begin your own literature search, you can efficiently gather the best research on a topic.  You'll want to keep in mind that you'll need to summarize and analyze the articles you read, and won't be able to use every single article you choose.

You can use the search box below to get started.

Adelphi Library's tutorial, Conducting a Literature Review in Education and the Behavioral Sciences covers how to gather sources from library databases for your literature review.

The University of Toronto also provides "A Few Tips on Conducting a Literature Review" that offers some good advice and questions to ask when conducting a literature review.

Purdue University's Online Writing Lab (OWL) has several resources that discuss literature reviews: 

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/666/01/

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/994/04/   (for grad students, but is still offers some good tips and advice for anyone writing a literature review)

Journal articles (covers more than 1,700 periodicals), chapters, books, dissertations and reports on psychology and related fields.

• PsycINFO This link opens in a new window
• << Previous: Handbooks
• Next: How to Read a Scientific Article >>

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

Longitudinal studies of leadership development: a scoping review

• Open access
• Published: 30 August 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Felipe Senna Cotrim   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0008-9820-3434 1 &
• Jorge Filipe Da Silva Gomes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0694-2229 1 , 2  

Although various reviews about leadership development (LD) have been published in recent years, no one has attempted to systematically review longitudinal LD studies, which is arguably the most appropriate way to study LD (Day,  Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 561–571, 2011). In this way, the focus of the present scoping review is to understand how true longitudinal LD studies have been investigated and what inconsistencies exist, primarily from a methodological perspective. Only business contexts and leadership-associated outcomes are considered. To achieve this, ample searches were performed in five online databases from 1900 to 2021 that returned 1023 articles after the removal of duplicates. Additionally, subject experts were consulted, reference lists of key studies were cross-checked, and handsearch of leading leadership journals was performed. A subsequent and rigorous inclusion process narrowed the sample down to 19 articles. The combined sample contains 2,776 participants (67% male) and 88 waves of data (average of 4.2). Evidence is mapped according to participants, setting, procedures, outcomes, analytical approach, and key findings. Despite many strengths, a lack of context diversity and qualitative designs are noticed. A thematic analysis indicates that LD authors are focused on measuring status, behavioral, and cognitive aspects. Implications for knowledge and future research paths are discussed.

Similar content being viewed by others

Responsible leadership: a mapping of extant research and future directions.

Leadership in Organizations: State of the Art with Emphasis on Measurement Instruments

An Organization’s Success and a Three-Factor Model of Leadership: Evidence from Harvard University

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Even though many literature reviews about leadership development (LD) have been published in recent years (e.g., Vogel, Reichard, Batistic, & Cerne, 2020; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Day et al., 2014 ), no one has attempted to systematically review longitudinal LD studies, let alone true longitudinal studies, which is arguably the most appropriate way to study LD (Day, 2011 ). True longitudinal is operationalized in the present study as research involving three or more phases of data collection (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010 ), since pretest-posttest designs can be limited when it comes to measuring change (Rogosa et al., 1982 ). In addition to the focus on studies using multiple waves of data, the particular interest here is in the underlying methodological choices of those studies. The goal is not only to map elements such as concepts, strategy, participants, settings, analytical approaches and tools, but also to make gaps and inconsistencies more evident in the hope of advancing the science of LD.

The current study relies on the assumption that longitudinal methods are the most appropriate way to study LD as the field was categorized as “inherently longitudinal” (Day, 2011 ). These arguments are partly motivated by the idea that the leader development process is an ongoing and lifelong journey (Day et al., 2009 ), which, in turn, indicates why cross-sectional methods would be less suited. By inspecting the term “leadership development”, it is noted that it refers not only to the science of leadership, but also the science of development, which is concerned with measuring change over time. The development side is underexplored, but the focus should be on both parts of the equation (Day et al., 2014 ). As Day ( 2024 ) recently puts it: “We need a separate field of leader and leadership development apart from the voluminous leadership literature because of the development component” (p. 213). Despite referring to leadership and development as a science above, it seems worth acknowledging that they can be seen as an art too (Ladkin & Taylor, 2010 ). The art of leadership is described by Springborg ( 2010 ) as staying present with one’s senses instead of quickly jumping to conclusions. This line of thinking suggests that practicing the art of leadership means relying on intuition, awareness, and feeling. This is potentially relevant as the complexity of the world cannot be completely understood from scientific operationalizations alone, arts-based practices relate differently with complexity, allowing novel ways of responding to it (Ladkin & Taylor, 2010 ).

Considering the preceding paragraphs, the present research question can be expressed as: how are true longitudinal studies of LD being investigated and what inconsistencies exist, primarily from a methodological perspective? To help answer this question, a scoping review was chosen, a type of systematic review that is most suitable when the goal is to map evidence and identify gaps in knowledge (Tricco et al., 2018 ), and not to understand the effectiveness of specific interventions, which is the job of a traditional systematic review (Munn et al., 2018 ). Researchers suggest that scoping reviews should be as comprehensive as possible (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ), thus the process of including articles involved searching multiple online databases, identifying gray literature, cross-checking reference lists of key studies, and handsearching leading leadership journals. Only articles written in English language were admitted. Significant time was spent building a subsequent search strategy and a pre-determined inclusion criteria was followed to arrive at the final sample. The search and inclusion process follows the procedures of the PRISMA statement, the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (Moher et al., 2009 ), and particularly the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Tricco et al., 2018 ).

Nineteen studies were further analyzed out of 1,236 identified. A large table (Table 1 ) is presented in the results section mapping the most important methodological information. As recommended (Tricco et al., 2018 ), a thematic analysis is conducted too, followed by a discussion about the emergent themes in longitudinal LD.

Literature review

Leader and leadership development.

Using 2,390 primary works and 78,178 secondary ones, a recent bibliometric review (Vogel et al., 2020 ) maps the LD field in two interesting ways: through a historiography and a co-citation analysis. Historiography indicates that LD originated in actual organizational challenges and needs around 1989 and then transitioned to theory building around 2004 pulled by authentic leadership development scholars. The co-citation analysis indicates that seminal theories in leadership, motivation and learning highly influenced the field, which, in turn, shifted its focus to developmental interventions and processes as well as theoretical frameworks and intra-person developmental efforts such as identity construction (Vogel et al., 2020 ). Still on a broader level, by reviewing 25 years of LD contributions, Day et al. ( 2014 ) explains why LD is young compared to the centenary field of leadership. The former is, by definition, interested in change (development), and the latter, for a significant time of history, has focused on traits, which are harder to change, though not impossible (Bleidorn et al., 2019 ).

Individuals have predisposed levels of leadership ability (Arvey et al., 2007 ) and researchers have been especially interested in intelligence (Judge et al., 2004 ) and personality (Judge et al., 2002 ). Even though genetics will always play a part, leadership training works even more than previously thought regarding reactions, learning, transfer, and actual results, as shown by a meta-analysis (Lacerenza et al., 2017 ).

Instead of training, McCall ( 2004 ) argues that experiences are at the heart of LD. The challenges associated with experiences is that it is not simple to offer the right experiences to the right executives and that they vary in developmental potential due to contextual circumstances and individual differences. Six years later, McCall ( 2010 ) reinforces his argument, suggesting that companies should bet on what is potentially the most powerful developer of leaders: experience. Within the scope of experiences, some scholars are making the case for “consciousness-raising experiences” in leadership development (Mirvis, 2008 ). They are designed for the mind and heart and characterized by the focus on self, others, and society. Another relevant and more common type of experience in life is education. Evidence from almost half a million students from 600 institutions highlights that leadership knowledge as well as opportunities for application of learned principles are related with an increase in leadership capacity upon conclusion of higher education (Johnson & Routon, 2024 ).

Experiences and trainings are naturally more focused on developing skills and competencies, but some authors understand that these sometimes loosely connected leadership skills should be integrated to a leader identity (Lord & Hall, 2005 ). Indeed, identity has become a more popular aspect of LD (Epitropaki et al., 2017 ) and empirical investigations claim that leader identity is associated with leader effectiveness (Day & Sin, 2011 ).

Day ( 2000 ) makes the important distinction between leader development (developing individuals) and leadership development (developing the collective). In the present work, the use of “LD” incorporates both leader and leadership development. Drawing on this idea, The Center for Creative Leadership defines leader development as “the expansion of a person’s capacity to be effective in leadership roles and processes (Van Velsor et al., 2010 , p. 2)” and leadership development as “the expansion of a collective’s capacity to produce direction, alignment, and commitment (Van Velsor et al., 2010 , p. 20)”. Respecting these distinctions and contributions, Day and Dragoni ( 2015 ) review theoretical and practical arguments and suggest proximal and distal outcomes to indicate whether leadership is developing from an individual level and a team level. For instance, on the individual level, leadership self-efficacy and leader identity are proximal indicators while dynamic skills and meaning-making structures are distal. Regarding the team level, psychological safety and team learning are proximal indicators while collective leadership capacity are distal ones.

LD is also greatly associated with mentoring across publications, for instance, it increases leadership self-efficacy, which, in turn, predicts leader performance (Lester et al., 2011 ), and it also promotes the development of a leader identity (Muir, 2014 ). Interestingly, the effect of mentoring is not only beneficial to mentees in terms of developing (transformational) leadership, but also to mentors (Chun et al., 2012 ). Similarly, a recent study shows that mentors can develop their leader identity and self-efficacy as a result of a mentoring process (Ayoobzadeh & Boies, 2020 ). In the same vein, coaching has been established as an important LD topic (Day, 2000 ). A systematic review shows several methodological challenges associated with executive coaching, but list many evidence-based benefits of the practice in relation to the coachee (e.g. better leadership skills), the organization, and the coach (Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018 ).

Feedback seems to be another popular theme within the LD literature, especially 360-degree feedback (Atwater & Waldman, 1998 ), a practice associated with enhanced management competence in corporate environments (Bailey & Fletcher, 2002 ). Within an MBA context, peer feedback decreased self-ratings of leadership competence three and six months later, an effect that was stronger for women than men, suggesting that women align their self-ratings with peer ratings while men have a tendency to inflate their self-images (Mayo et al., 2012 ). Seifert and Yukl ( 2010 ) contribute to the literature by demonstrating that two feedback interventions enhance leader effectiveness compared to only one intervention. Even though a recent meta-analysis related the use of 360-degree feedback during leadership training to higher results compared to single-source feedback, it is also linked to lower levels of learning and transfer (Lacerenza et al., 2017 ). For example, receiving negative feedback from multiple sources could obstruct improvement because it may threaten one’s self-view. These results can be considered thought provoking given how 360 feedback is popular and sometimes taken for granted by organizations.

Longitudinal research

Despite some very early records of longitudinal research overviewing the history and the fundamentals of this methodology, Rajulton ( 2001 ) says that it was not until the 1920s that more significant longitudinal studies started to be found, allowing the science of development and growth to be advanced.

An early definition of longitudinal research is given by Baltes ( 1968 ), he contrasts longitudinal and cross-sectional research and defines the former as observing one sample at different measurement points (pp. 146–147). Ployhart and Vandenberg ( 2010 ) take a step back, they discern between the terms static and dynamic before attempting to define longitudinal research, they relate the former with cross-sectional methods and the latter with longitudinal ones. Similarly, Rajulton ( 2001 ) states that cross-sectional information is concerned with status, and longitudinal information deals with progress and change in status.

However, one interesting definition offered by Taris ( 2000 ) is that longitudinal research happens when “data are collected for the same set of research units for (but not necessarily at) two or more occasions, in principle allowing for intra-individual comparison across time” (pp. 1–2). Additionally, Ployhart and Vandenberg ( 2010 ) focus on the quantity of observations when they say that longitudinal research is “research emphasizing the study of change and containing at minimum three repeated observations (although more than three is better) on at least one of the substantive constructs of interest” (p. 97). Acknowledging the two previous definitions and its weaknesses, Wang et al. ( 2017 ) argue that longitudinal research is not necessarily focused on intra-individual analysis and cite examples where two waves of data collection is an appropriate procedure (e.g., prospective design), thus claiming an alternative definition: “longitudinal research is simply research where data are collected over a meaningful span of time” (p. 3).

Although definitions and tools seem to be improving in the past years, it was not always like this. Reflecting on the challenging past decades for the reliability of longitudinal research, particularly the 1960s and 1970s, Singer and Willett ( 2003 ) said that although scientists had always been fascinated with the study of change, it was only after the 1980s that the subject could be studied well due to new methodological tools and models developed.

Given the analytical problems at the time, Rogosa et al. ( 1982 ) clarifies misconceptions about measuring change, especially in terms of the pretest-posttest design, and encourage researchers to use multiple waves of data. They claim that “two waves of data are better than one, but not much better” (p. 744). Contrary to the thinking expressed in previous decades, Rogosa and Willett ( 1983 ) demonstrate the reliability of difference scores, which are typically used in two-wave designs, in the measurement of change for some cases (e.g., individual growth), though they do not claim the score to have high reliability in general.

Coming from an education and psychological perspective, Willett ( 1989 ) demonstrates that significant increases in the reliability of individual growth measures can be harnessed by incrementing data collection with a few additional waves of information beyond two. Aware of the methodological problems and the current conversation, Chan ( 1998 ) proposed an integrative approach to analyze change focused on the organizational context embodying longitudinal mean and covariance structures analysis (LMACS) and multiple indicator latent growth modeling (MLGM). He expressed his ideas in a less technical way, which facilitated the progress of the field.

Ployhart and Vandenberg ( 2010 ) raise key theoretical, methodological, and analytical questions when it comes to developing and evaluating longitudinal research in management. And using a panel discussion format, Wang et al. ( 2017 ) build on the same structure with the purpose of helping researchers make informed decisions in a non-technical way.

Longitudinal leadership development research

A pioneer initiative of longitudinal LD studies is the Management Progress Study (MPS) initiated by the Bell System (AT&T) in 1956 with the purpose of analyzing the growth, mostly in terms of status, of 422 men (Bray, 1964 ). Interesting follow ups were conducted after 8 and 20 years making this project one of the most popular field researches in management development (Day, 2011 ).

Attempting to longitudinally analyze a new generation of executives in 1977, A. Howard and D. Bray launched the Management Continuity Study (MCS). This ambitious project replicates many aspects of the MPS, but it also addresses weaknesses such as the lack of representation of women and different ethnicities (Howard & Bray, 1988 ). The MCS sample was used by many other longitudinal scholars to obtain stimulating insights, for instance, how successful male and female executives deal with power (Jacobs & McClelland, 1994 ), and the influence of college experiences on progress and performance (Howard, 1986 ).

In parallel with these two major longitudinal efforts, an Eastern perspective contributes significantly to the field of longitudinal LD. The Japanese Career Progress Study originated in 1972 is a sample of 85 male college graduates starting their careers at a leading Japanese department store chain who were followed up after 7 years (Wakabayashi & Graen, 1984 ) and 13 years (Wakabayashi et al., 1988 ) mostly in terms of promotion, salary, and performance. The multilevel and mixed-method approach with multiple waves of data revealed, in aggregation, that the organizational assessment of management potential of newcomers, the quality of exchange with superiors, and their early job performance predicted speed of promotion, total annual salary, and annual bonus on the seventh and thirteenth year of tenure. Wakabayashi et al. ( 1988 ), in a summarizing tone, state that the first three years of employment are critical when it comes to later career progress and leadership status up to 13 years.

After these pioneers, more LD longitudinal works started to emerge. Perhaps the biggest contribution to the area is the publication of a special issue in 2011 by the Leadership Quarterly . Authors of the referred issue promote important discussions and advance thought-provoking insights. In particular, the importance of true longitudinal studies, the ones involving three of more waves of data collection (Day, 2011 ), as well as the benefits of analyzing leadership through a long-lens approach (Murphy & Johnson, 2011 ). Specifically, the special issue explored childhood and adolescence factors. For instance, Gottfried et al. ( 2011 ) studied the motivational roots of leadership and found that children and teenagers with higher academic intrinsic motivation are more likely to want to lead as adults. Similarly, Guerin et al. ( 2011 ) found that adolescent extraversion predicts leadership potential over a decade later in adulthood with the relationship being fully mediated by adult social skills. Furthermore, the special issue explored family aspects in relation to LD. Oliver et al. ( 2011 ) are the first to connect family environment in childhood to adulthood leadership. Specifically, they found that a supportive and stimulating family atmosphere led to transformational leadership qualities in adulthood through positive self-concept. Li et al. ( 2011 ) detected that higher family socioeconomic status negatively influences leader advancement for females. The opposite was observed for males.

Apart from the larger longitudinal efforts mentioned above, many independent LD studies that rely on their own longitudinal samples contributed significantly to the field too. They vary greatly in settings and concepts, but some early important contributions seem to be Atwater et al.‘s ( 1999 ) demonstration that military leader emergence and leader effectiveness can be predicted by individual differences such as cognitive ability, physical fitness, and prior influence experience. Focused on the followers instead of the leaders, Dvir et al. ( 2002 ) suggest that transformational leadership training leads to followers’ development and performance. Also, executives’ competence, judged by self and others, significantly improves after multi-rater multi-source feedback (Bailey & Fletcher, 2002 ).

Other notable contributions involve the influence of self-regulation training on LD (Yeow & Martin, 2013 ), mentoring as a tool to develop not only the mentee (Lester et al., 2011 ), but also the mentor (Chun et al., 2012 ), and more unorthodox views such as dark personality traits and performance (Harms et al., 2011 ). However, some authors seem to be not only focused on behavioral, but also cognitive change (e.g., leader identity). Day and Sin ( 2011 ) claim that individuals with a strong leader identity are more effective across time. By using a university sample, Miscenko et al. ( 2017 ) propose that leader identity develops in a J-shaped pattern and that leader identity development is associated with leadership skills development. On the other hand, high-potential executives seem to develop leader identity in a linear and progressive way (Kragt & Day, 2020 ).

Methodology

Type of review and sources of evidence.

Despite being more widely seen, systematic reviews are best suited to approach specific questions addressing effectiveness, appropriateness, meaningfulness, and feasibility of particular interventions (Munn et al., 2018 ), and given this study’s broader research question, a scoping review was chosen. This method is usually defined as a mapping process (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ) or a system for synthesizing evidence (Levac et al., 2010 ). More recently, it was described as a “systematic way to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps” (Tricco et al., 2018 , p. 467). Despite the differences, both types of reviews are quite related, Moher et al. ( 2015 ) even see them as part of the same “family”.

The execution of each step of the current review was guided by the methodology initially laid out by Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ) and by the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and its corresponding checklist (Tricco et al., 2018 ). Following recommendations that a scoping review should be as comprehensive as possible (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ), different sources were used: (1) Online databases were searched (e.g., Web of Science, Scopus); (2) gray literature was identified (e.g., subject experts were consulted); (3) reference lists of key studies were cross-checked; and (4) handsearch of leading leadership journals was performed.

Search strategy for online databases: building search strings and identifying databases

Significant time was spent building the search strings for the present work as this is seen as a wise choice to improve search efficiency (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009 ). According to Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ) the process starts by having the research question in mind and identifying the key concepts that are present, in this case, longitudinal , leadership , and development . Based on this initial process, synonyms for each concept were identified. For instance, since the term “leadership” can be often substituted in the literature by management, executive, supervisory, and potentially others, these variations were added to the search string. Similarly, the term “development” can be substituted by training, program, intervention, and potentially others, thus these variations were incorporated as well.

In addition to identifying synonyms, this search strategy took into consideration some other concepts that seem to be highly associated with LD such as coaching, mentoring, and 360-feedback (Day, 2000 ). Hence, these terms plus their variations were incorporated. Finally, the search strategies and the specific keywords of past LD systematic reviews were screened (e.g. Collins & Holton, 2004 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ; Vogel et al., 2020 ) to verify any potential blind spots concerning the terms to be used here. In practical terms, seven different search strings were necessary to capture the process described. The first search string is completely detailed as follows and the remaining search strings are available in Appendix A .

Search 1: longitudinal AND (“leader* development” OR “manage* development” OR “executive development” OR “supervisory development” OR “team development” OR “human resource$ development”) .

The search strategy and the definition of keywords were verified by a professional librarian at ISEG – University of Lisbon. Feedback and other suggestions were given over a one-hour videocall in March of 2021.

One additional decision when it comes to the search strategy is identifying the databases to be used. Systematic review guidelines seem confident that authors must search more than one database (Liberati et al., 2009 ), others generally suggest that two or more are enough (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008 ), but little guidance is available for precisely deciding when to stop the searches, especially in the context of scoping reviews in social sciences instead of systematic reviews in medical sciences (e.g., Chilcott et al., 2003 ).

Considering this situation, searches started in a highly ambitious way in terms of quantity of databases and search restrictions (e.g., filters), and were iteratively pondered according to the reality of executing the work given the colossal volume of data for two authors with limited resources to go through. The described strategy seems aligned with both earlier (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ) and more recent recommendations (Peters et al., 2020 ) for authors writing scoping reviews as it is thought that comprehensiveness should be framed within the constraints of time and resources available to the authors. In this way, five databases were used: Web of Science, PsycARTICLES, Ebsco’s Business Source Complete, JSTOR, and Elsevier’s Scopus. The databases were mostly hand curated based on relevancy for LD. In other words, WoS has been extensively used by authors published in high-caliber leadership journals such as the Leadership Quarterly , and on some cases it is the only source of information (Vogel et al., 2020 ). PsycARTICLES seems unavoidable in psychological research, and it is found in most reviews at top-ranked journals interested in LD such as the Journal of Applied Psychology , for instance. Business Source Complete, Scopus, and JSTOR went through a similar curation process in addition to being well-known and comprehensive sources of information across social sciences disciplines.

Inclusion criteria

Three essential criteria served as pre-requisites for document inclusion in light of the research question.

Method: Is it a true longitudinal study (three or more waves of data) as opposed to a cross-sectional or a pretest-posttest one?

Context: Is the work approaching a business context? This study is interested in understanding longitudinal contributions to LD within a “business context”, which is an umbrella term created to incorporate for-profit and nonprofit companies, public organizations, and graduate students associated with management (e.g., MBA, executive education) or closely related areas (e.g., economics, organizational psychology). In this way, numerous LD studies involving sports, healthcare, and military contexts were naturally excluded from the final sample.

Concepts and measures: Is the study actually measuring change in terms of LD? Only results incorporating LD as a primary variable were considered. In this way, the authors were interested in analyzing leadership-related outcomes (e.g., leadership efficacy, leader identity), and not more distant concepts (e.g., job performance).

Only documents from 1900 until 2021 in English language were considered. Even though LD was not a formal research area in the early or mid-1900s, when the field “all years” is selected before a search in most databases, the range set by default starts in 1900. For clarification purposes, the earliest study analyzed in the present work dates to 1986.

On a more technical note, different filters according to the database at hand were used to refine the results (e.g., subject area, document type). As an example, the present research is not interested in LD in the sports space or document types such as editorials or reviews, thus filters were used to aid this refinement process. This whole procedure is consistent with the idea proposed by Levac et al. ( 2010 ) that the inclusion and exclusion criteria should be iterative and adapted based on the challenges identified.

Additional sources of information

Almost all the way through the screening execution, the authors of this study learned that scoping review researchers are encouraged to explore other sources of information apart from databases (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ; Peters et al., 2020 ). As a result, three à posteriori procedures were used to add evidence: (1) identifying gray literature through contacting subject experts, (2) cross-checking reference lists of important studies, and (3) handsearching key bibliographies and journals. Although the standard procedure for systematic reviews is to include articles from additional sources before the start of the screening process (Liberati et al., 2009 ), it is believed that the inverted execution does not threat the soundness of this work since adding and subtracting results before or after cannot affect the final sum and considering the iterative nature of scoping reviews (Levac et al., 2010 ). The only unfortunate implication observed was an extra load of work given the necessity to do an additional round of screening instead of screening all in once.

When it comes to consulting subject-matter experts, a list of a dozen high-level names was put together (e.g., D. Day, J. Antonakis, C. Lacerenza, L. Dragoni, R. Reichard) and the individual email outreach was executed in June of 2022. The email text to the list of authors included a brief personal introduction, the reason for contact and descriptions of the request, and a gratitude note for the impact of their work on this author’s academic journey.

Despite some prompt and friendly replies from high-caliber authors, including D. Day, who is considered a seminal scholar in LD, and also J. Antonakis, who was the chief editor of the Leadership Quarterly journal at the time of contact, no gray documents could have been added for multiple reasons varying from email bounces, no replies, replies from authors with no suggestions in mind, or irrelevant suggestions for this particular research question.

In addition to the step above, reference lists of key studies were cross-checked. First, pivotal review studies in LD (e.g., Day et al., 2014 ; Lacerenza et al., 2017 ) had their reference lists analyzed. Then, selected articles were further evaluated and selected based on screening of title, keywords, abstracts, and, ultimately, full-text analysis.

Finally, handsearching, a legitimate process in systematic literature reviews (Liberati et al., 2009 ), including scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018 ), was performed. Eight journals labeled “dominant” based on a co-citation analysis of LD (Vogel et al., 2020 ) were handsearched as an additional attempt to locate relevant evidence. The Academy of Management Review was part of this list, but naturally excluded from this process as no empirical works would have been found there, so the seven journals analyzed were Leadership Quarterly , Journal of Applied Psychology , Academy of Management Learning & Education , Personnel Psychology , Leadership , Journal of Organizational Behavior , and Journal of Management.

In terms of execution, central terms for the present research question (e.g., leadership development, longitudinal) were typed into the general search boxes of these journals and the list of results were scanned. Documents indicating good fit were further analyzed via screening of abstract and keywords, and full text. When searching the Leadership Quarterly journal, particular attention was devoted to a special issue published in 2011 centered on longitudinal leadership development studies (volume 22, issue 3). The handsearch process generated results as two articles that would not have been found otherwise were included in the sample for respecting the determined criteria (Cherniss et al., 2010 ; Dragoni et al., 2014 ).

Data charting process

Referred to as “data extraction” in systematic reviews, data charting (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ) is the process of extracting information from the sample in a scoping review. Even though any information can be charted in practice, researchers ideally should obtain pieces of information that help answer the research question (Levac et al., 2010 ). Given this ponderation and the research question at hand, a data charting framework was created to keep a consistent extraction standard across studies.

Nature of variables (e.g., quantitative, qualitative).

Research strategy (e.g., experiment, survey).

Participants (e.g., sample size, gender distribution).

Setting (e.g., industry, company information).

Intervention (e.g., program characteristics).

Research procedures (e.g., comparator, waves of data).

Outcome measures (e.g., variables, instruments).

Analytical approach (e.g., strategy, techniques).

Despite the primary focus on methodological choices of longitudinal LD studies, it was judged important to also chart the key findings of each study given the underlying motivation of the present research to contribute to the longitudinal LD field. A separate table (Table 2 ) was created to map this information. The data charting process took place with the assistance of Microsoft Excel.

Search results

Taking into consideration the search strategy and the inclusion criteria described previously, the WoS database returned 673 results. PsycARTICLES, in turn, retrieved 84 results. Next, Ebsco’s Business Source Complete returned 332 documents. JSTOR found 49 articles. Lastly, Elsevier’s Scopus retrieved 98 results. In total, 1236 documents were found. After removal of duplicates, a total of 1023 articles were screened given the determined criteria. The screening of titles, abstracts, and keywords removed 810 works, and screening the full text removed another 196 works, resulting in 17 included studies. À posteriori inclusion based on conversations with LD experts and handsearch of bibliographies and journals added another two documents, confirming a final sample of 19 articles. This whole process is illustrated by the flow chart below (Fig. 1 ).

PRISMA flowchart: Search and inclusion process

General characteristics

The table listing the 19 documents and some of their basic characteristics can be found in Appendix B . The works comprise different years, journals, countries, and authors. The first true longitudinal study of LD in a business context was published in 1986 by the Journal of Applied Psychology . One noticeable feature of the table found in Appendix B is the substantial 22-year gap in publications from 1988 to 2010. After 2010, on the other hand, researchers seem to have found more efficient ways to collect longitudinal data, and until 2021, on average 1.42 studies were published every year. Despite the progress, compared to past decades, the number is still quite modest given the importance of true longitudinal studies to the science of LD (Day, 2011 ).

In terms of outlets, eleven different journals represent the sample. The pioneer on the subject and methodology is clearly the Journal of Applied Psychology . The most dominant journal is the Leadership Quarterly with five publications. In terms of countries, the United States lead the list with twelve publications. The United Kingdom has five, Germany and Switzerland have one publication each. Professor D. Day contributes to four articles (2020, 2018, 2017, 2011), which is a considerable achievement given this highly selective sample. Moreover, G. Larson, C. Sandahl, and T. Soderhjelm contributed twice (2017, 2019). All other authors contributed once.

How true longitudinal LD studies have been conducted methodologically and what inconsistencies exist?

The research question is addressed following two recommended stages, a description of the characteristics and a thematic analysis (Levac et al., 2010 ). These two steps are assessed below.

Characteristics

Table 1 helps to address the research question of this study which is to evaluate how true longitudinal studies of LD are being investigated and what inconsistencies exist, primarily from a methodological perspective.

First, in terms of the nature of variables and strategy, the vast majority were quantitative (16), two studies utilized mixed methods, and only one used qualitative data (Andersson, 2010 ). This study’s criteria yielded a majority of experimental and survey strategies. However, archival data, narrative inquiry, observation, and action learning are represented as well.

Collectively, the studies form a sample of 2,776 participants. This number represents respondents that answered all longitudinal measures, thus drop-out participants, who have perhaps answered only the first measure and not the following ones, were not counted. In terms of sex, this combined sample is composed by 67% of males. The more recent studies seem to be more balanced in terms of gender though. In total, 88 waves of data were collected across all studies, resulting in an average of 4.2 waves per study. The maximum value observed is 13 waves of data (Middleton et al., 2019 ). The longest study lasted 20 years between first and last data collection (Howard, 1986 ) and the shortest study lasted 4 weeks (Quigley, 2013 ).

When it comes to the contextual settings, 6 publications researched one single company, 7 authors gathered participants from two or more companies, and 6 studies analyzed business students, mostly MBA students with work experience. The targeted companies, to cite only a few examples, were quite diverse, ranging from a large Australian corporation with more than 200,000 employees (Kragt & Day, 2020 ); to a museum leader development program with global participants (Middleton et al., 2019 ); to a multinational Indian-based IT company (Steele & Day, 2018 ); to middle managers of the headquarters of a regional grocery store chain in the United States. As for business students, the sample includes, among others, a top-ranked MBA program at a Spanish business school (Mayo et al., 2012 ); full-time MBA students at a large American university; and a graduate degree at a Dutch business school (Miscenko et al., 2017 ).

No form of intervention was found in 6 studies. The remaining 13 studies applied different LD trainings that varied in (1) length, ranging from 90 minutes to 145 hours; (2) content focus such as self-regulation, influence, feedback, team effectiveness; and (3) methods like lecture, role-play, discussion, readings, coaching.

By taking a look at the LD outcome measures, it is noticed that the two early studies of the sample, the ones that belong to the 1980s, were preoccupied with measuring some form of status, for instance career progress in terms of speed of promotion, and level of management achieved. After 2010, the focus of analysis changes from status to either cognitive outcomes (leader identity, self-perceived role knowledge) or behavioral outcomes (skills, competencies, efficacy). Established instruments and developed measures are both present.

Changing the conversation to the analytical approach of these works, it seems that it was not until 2011 that more appropriate procedures for longitudinal modelers started to emerge. This raises the question if more true longitudinal studies emerged because of more suitable tools available, or if these new tools were created given the importance to research human development in a longitudinal way.

Before 2011, the sample indicates the use of multiple regression equations, correlation analyses, ANOVAs, and ANCOVAs. After that year, an emergence and consolidation of more sophisticated methods is observed, like random coefficient modeling (RCM), latent growth model (LGM), multilevel modeling (MLM), hierarchical multivariate linear modeling (HMLM). In terms of the software tools used to execute these analyses, SPSS, R, HLM, NLME are highlighted.

Despite the present focus on methodologies, it was judged relevant to additionally chart the key findings of the studies included in this review. Table 2 maps this information chronologically by author.

Themes were driven by the concepts, or the objects of analysis being used by scholars and derived by examining the “LD outcome measure” column of Table 1 as well as the full study. Specifically, a summarized thematic analysis was performed (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ). Variables were grouped together based on similarity. For instance, self-confidence and leadership efficacy are measuring behavioral change, hence a category called “behavioral” was created. Following this line of thinking, variables such as leader identity and self-perceived role knowledge are measuring cognitive change, thus the category “cognitive”. The same process was applied for the status category. After this procedure, the quantity of studies in each category was simply counted. Some studies are measuring more than one dimension, as shown below in Fig. 2 .

Venn diagram of main themes identified by quantity of studies

As observed, most scholars are, not surprisingly, interested in researching behaviors, maybe because it is an inherent aspect of the organizational behavior field. The behavioral dimension is also the only one to intersect with the other two that emerged. Status outcomes were the primary variable for only two studies. And although no studies analyzed cognitive outcomes alone, researchers seem interested in understanding these factors as it greatly intersects with the behavior sphere. Lastly, only one true longitudinal study of LD measured all three categories (Kragt & Day, 2020 ). Table 3 provides more information based on these themes.

The themes reveal some interesting aspects. First, measuring status as a primary outcome is linked to older publications while the cognitive and behavioral dimensions are more recent concepts of interest. The status dimension is also associated with less waves of data but longer length of study in general. The opposite happens for studies focused on behavioral and cognitive aspects, they are characterized by collecting more waves of data in less time.

Even though the goal of this research is to analyze only business contexts, some diversity is observed in terms of specific setting (e.g., business schools, large companies, partnerships with consultancy firms), and location (e.g., USA, Europe, Australia, Japan, India). Except for India, no developing countries are observed, suggesting a potential research need.

In terms of strategies and interventions, conducting experiments is associated with the more recent studies. A lack is qualitative methods is also noticed. Additionally, the survey strategy is always present across the three themes. No standard regarding the type of intervention is detected, they are mostly trainings with slightly different areas of concentration.

The two studies focusing on status used more general analytic tools such as multiple regression and ANOVA analysis. More sophisticated tools are observed across the other two spheres and their intersections (e.g., LGM, RCM, HLM).

The evidence indicates that the longitudinal LD area is young with the vast majority of studies being published after 2010. The combined sample sums 2,776 participants (67% male) and 88 waves of data. Most of these studies are quantitative, and mostly surveys or experiments. The context, as expected, is very much managerial and composed mostly by large companies and business schools in developed countries. Regarding LD outcomes, three major themes were found, status (e.g., level of leadership attained), behavioral (e.g., leadership effectiveness), and cognitive (e.g., leader identity).

Scoping reviews have the power to map a field of knowledge making gaps more evident (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ). In this way, it is not difficult to notice that no developing countries are represented except from India, smaller companies are also not represented, and women are underrepresented as they compose one third of this review’s combined sample. Considering that leadership is highly contextual (Johns, 2006 ), it is understood that, if supported by insights originated from diverse contexts, the field could make significant progress in terms of bridging LD science and practice (Day et al., 2018 ).

Moreover, it is concerning to see almost no qualitative studies in this review. Despite the challenges associated with conducting longitudinal qualitative research in the social sciences (Thomson & Holland, 2003 ), this methodology has the potential to enrich the LD field with deeper insights. One promising path seems to be multiple perspective qualitative longitudinal interviews (MPQLI) (Vogl et al., 2018 ), a framework created to analyze related individuals (e.g., one’s peers, superiors, subordinates) and to deal with complex and voluminous data. Another hopeful avenue of research for LD is through the underdeveloped area of mixed methods longitudinal research (MMLR) (Vogl, 2023 ). The current study has been relying on the assumption that longitudinal designs are the most appropriate way to study LD (Day, 2011 ). Building on this and being more specific, MMLR may be even more appropriate to understand and explain LD given the complementary insights generated (Vogl, 2023 ). However, applying this type of methodology comes with a series of issues as well as high execution effort that need to be taken into consideration by future scholars (Plano Clark et al., 2015 ).

One additional issue associated with longitudinal research is deciding how many waves of data to collect and what is the ideal length of interval between measurement points (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010 ). In the present study, it is difficult to recognize any corresponding standard among the experimental studies. Some authors seem to be following the intervention’s length, for instance, Miscenko et al.‘s ( 2017 ) 7-week leadership program collected data at seven weekly time points, but the vast majority of studies do not offer explanations for the choices made. Even though most of these decisions are atheoretical and the ideal time interval is rarely known because it greatly depends on the phenomenon of interest, Wang et al. ( 2017 ) say this is a critical matter because it directly affects the change trajectory. Therefore, the science of longitudinal leadership research could benefit from more information about the decision rationale given the variables at hand. For example, for which kinds of leadership phenomena longer lengths are more valuable and vice versa? How many waves of data would be more suitable according to concept, levels of analysis, or research goals?

Regarding concepts, data shows that scholars are less interested in measuring status-related concepts (e.g., hierarchical level achieved), while behavioral variables are the most popular ones and cognitive variables can be considered emerging. Although each study naturally uses variables that are coherent with their research questions, the three dimensions presented earlier (Fig. 2 ) offer different and valuable perspectives to the development of leaders and leadership, so it is judged beneficial to cross dimensions whenever possible. For example, Kragt and Day ( 2020 ) is the only study that sheds light on status (e.g., promotion), behavior (e.g., managing stress), and cognitive aspects (e.g., leader identity).

As a summary, this paper contributes to theory in several ways. First, through mapping the methods being used to date; second, by identifying inconsistencies and gaps; third, by elaborating on ways in which the leadership field can advance; fourth, by understanding themes in terms of outcome variables; and lastly, through insights for management scholars and practitioners given the exclusive focus on business contexts.

Limitations

The present work is not immune to limitations, as no scientific work is. This study includes documents up to the year 2021, resulting in a three-year gap considering the submission date to this journal. Significant personal circumstances prevented the authors from pursuing publication earlier, so to mitigate this potential limitation, a modest cursory review is presented as described. Searching the Web of Science database from 2022 to 2024 using the seven search strings outlined in Appendix A , a list of 116 documents were gathered. Following the PRISMA-ScR framework (Tricco et al., 2018 ), records were screened (abstract and/or full text) based on the same pre-determined criteria described in the methodology section. Even though 12 records were closely assessed, only 2 peer-reviewed articles respected the parameters. They are identified below followed by a summarized discussion.

“How coaching interactions transform leader identity of young professionals over time” published in the International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring by Hughes and Vaccaro ( 2024 ) was the first record identified. This qualitative exploration utilizing semi-structured interviews before, during and after the coaching experience highlights through narrative inquiry analysis how coaching that is grounded in identity transformation practices are an important mechanism for emerging leaders as they navigate high degrees of professional and personal change in their lives. Despite the small sample size (six coaches), the three-phase data collection can be considered rare in qualitative studies of leadership development, representing a strength.

“Perceived changes in leadership behavior during formal leadership education” published in Public Personnel Management by Sørensen et al. ( 2023 ) was the second record identified. This multilevel three-year study with 62 leaders and 860 respondents found that leadership education has a considerable effect on leadership behaviors when it comes to tasks, relations, and change. Among the highlighted insights is the interesting fact that subordinates rated change in leadership behavior significantly lower compared to superiors and peers.

In addition to the limitations presented so far, scoping reviewers are encouraged to initially conduct the data charting process with at least two scholars working independently (Levac et al., 2010 ) and this was not possible to accomplish in the present study. Although agreeing with the above-mentioned recommendation, it is believed that the findings are not threatened by not executing this step, as the main motivation for it seems to be saving time when it comes to including studies. Thus, the only drawback for the current research was making the data charting process longer than it could have been.

The attempts to include gray literature were restricted to contacting LD subject-experts, which is a valid and effective strategy (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008 ), but there are additional tactics that could potentially lead to a larger sample. One example would be searching online databases for theses and dissertations around the theme. Future studies are encouraged to address that.

The experience of conducting a scoping review was perceived as “too manual”. Despite the confidence in the present results, it is difficult to ensure the inexistence of minor oversights as the process involved multiple Excel documents with dozens of tabs and thousands of lines each. Using a software was unfortunately not an option for the present study, but researchers interested in scoping reviews should consider using one.

The focus of the current review was purposefully restricted to business contexts. Although this is beneficial to the present goal and to obtain more specific insights, it leads to low generalizability power. Including studies from other LD contexts such as healthcare, military, and sports, can offer a good opportunity to learn across disciplines and potentially identify synergies for the benefit of leadership research as a whole.

Future research

Regarding the limitations highlighted above, it is encouraged that LD scholars conducting scoping reviews to focus on working within larger teams of colleagues as some scoping review procedures can be quite lengthy depending on the protocol chosen (e.g., a truly extensive search, data charting). Most of the limitations identified above could have been solved by that. And referring again to how data could not be obtained past 2021 for this study, it is encouraged that researchers engaged with scoping reviews include the most up to date records whenever possible.

Despite the search comprehensiveness demonstrated here, the present sample is relatively small. So, even though it is unknown if a larger sample is possible to achieve given this study’s scope, scholars are still encouraged to try to include more articles. Specifically, through searching more than five online databases, trying to expand the search for gray literature, and, if possible, performing searches in languages in addition to English.

Changing the conversation from the methodology of scoping reviews to the actual methodological contents of the sample, one gap that is easily noticed is the lack of qualitative or mixed-method studies, therefore these designs are encouraged for an enhanced perspective of LD in business contexts. Qualitative research has been growing strong in management science due to the value of their rich insights (Bluhm et al., 2011 ) and it seems that the LD field has plenty of space to leverage this opportunity. This is not to say that more quantitative designs are not needed, but right now it seems that the field can significantly grow from qualitative and mixed-methods contributions.

For sponsored authors or authors with a higher budget and a more numerous team, it would be interesting to conduct a scoping review similar to this one but not restricted to the business context as insights from other fields like health sciences, sports, education, military can help advance the science of LD. It would finally be interesting for a future scoping review of LD to organize the research through levels of analysis, namely intraindividual change, group change, and organizational change.

Even though the most recent studies analyzed by this scoping review worked with more gender balanced samples, male participants are predominant overall, hence future research is encouraged to continue working with a balanced proportion of males and females. Alternatively, all-female samples could leverage new insights as no studies under the current criteria have explored this angle yet. Relatedly, the LD field could unlock novel contributions by going beyond sex in terms of demographic characteristics. For example, age, race, social class, and gender identity are potentially good opportunities to extend knowledge.

The present scoping review intended to understand how true longitudinal studies of LD are being researched and what inconsistencies exist, primarily from a methodological perspective. After a rigorous search process ranging from 1900 to 2021, evidence was extracted from 19 peer-reviewed articles set in business contexts and measuring LD change with at least three waves of data. The current study elucidates gaps, patterns, and inconsistencies in terms of many aspects including nature of data, research strategy, participants, waves of data, concepts, analytical techniques, and key findings. Some observed highlights include the pattern to measure behavioral concepts and the emergent interest in measuring cognitive concepts. The procedures of the most recent works are shorter in length and more numerous in waves of data, the opposite was true a few decades ago. More sophisticated analytical techniques have been used in recent years as the field understands LD as a developmental science and art. However, there is an overreliance on quantitative methods leading to a bright future for qualitative and mixed-methods longitudinal researchers. Given the historical gender imbalance in participants studied (combined sample is 67% male), balanced or all-female samples can lead to original insights.

Search strings used in the five online databases .

List of selected studies and basic details .

Data availability

The authors declare that the data is available upon request.

Andersson, T. (2010). Struggles of managerial being and becoming: Experiences from managers’ personal development training. Journal of Management Development, 29 (2), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711011019305

Article   Google Scholar  

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8 (1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Krueger, R. F. (2007). Developmental and genetic determinants of leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (3), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.693

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Athanasopoulou, A., & Dopson, S. (2018). A systematic review of executive coaching outcomes: Is it the journey or the destination that matters the most? Leadership Quarterly, 29 (1), 70–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.11.004

Atwater, L. E., & Waldman, D. (1998). 360 degree feedback and leadership development. Leadership Quarterly, 9 (4), 423–426.

Atwater, L. E., Dionne, S. D., Avolio, B. J., Camobreco, J. F., & Lau, A. W. (1999). A longitudinal study of the leadership development process: Individual differences predicting leader effectiveness. Human Relations, 52 (12), 1543–1562.

Ayoobzadeh, M., & Boies, K. (2020). From mentors to leaders: Leader development outcomes for mentors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35 (6), 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-10-2019-0591

Bailey, C., & Fletcher, C. (2002). The impact of multiple source feedback on management development: Findings from a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 (7), 853–867. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.167

Baltes, P. B. (1968). Longitudinal and cross-sectional sequences in the study of age and generation effects. Human Development, 11 , 145–171.

Bleidorn, W., Hill, P. L., Back, M. D., Denissen, J. J. A., Hennecke, M., Hopwood, C. J., Jokela, M., Kandler, C., Lucas, R. E., Luhmann, M., Orth, U., Wagner, J., Wrzus, C., Zimmermann, J., & Roberts, B. (2019). The policy relevance of personality traits. American Psychologist, 74 (9), 1056–1067. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000503

Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Qualitative research in management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48 (8), 1866–1891. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00972.x

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bray, D. W. (1964). The management progress study. American Psychologist, 19 (6), 419–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0038616

Chan, D. (1998). The conceptualization and analysis of change over time: An integrative approach incorporating longitudinal mean and covariance structures analysis (LMACS) and multiple indicator latent growth modeling (MLGM). Organizational Research Methods, 1 (4), 421–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819814004

Cherniss, C., Grimm, L. G., & Liautaud, J. P. (2010). Process-designed training: A new approach for helping leaders develop emotional and social competence. Journal of Management Development, 29 (5), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711011039196

Chilcott, J., Brennan, A., Booth, A., Karnon, J., & Tappenden, P. (2003). The role of modelling in prioritising and planning clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment, 7 (23). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta7230

Chun, J. U., Sosik, J. J., & Yun, N. Y. (2012). A longitudinal study of mentor and protégé outcomes in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33 , 1071–1094. https://doi.org/10.1002/job

Collins, D. B., & Holton, E. F. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: A meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15 (2), 217–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1099

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (4), 581–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1981.10483720

Day, D. V. (2011). Integrative perspectives on longitudinal investigations of leader development: From childhood through adulthood. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.012

Day, D. V. (2024). Developing leaders and leadership: Principles, practices, and processes. Palgrave MacMillan . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59068-9

Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership development: An outcome-oriented review based on time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2 , 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111328

Day, D. V., & Sin, H. P. (2011). Longitudinal tests of an integrative model of leader development: Charting and understanding developmental trajectories. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.011

Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809525

Book   Google Scholar  

Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. Leadership Quarterly, 25 (1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004

Day, D., Riggio, R., Conger, J., & Tan, S. (2018). Call for papers - special issue on 21st century leadership development: Bridging science and practice. Leadership Quarterly, 29 (6), I. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(18)30810-5

Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689).

Dragoni, L., Park, H., Soltis, J., & Forte-Trammell, S. (2014). Show and tell: How supervisors facilitate leader development among transitioning leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99 (1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034452

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (4), 735–744. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069307

Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C., & Lord, R. G. (2017). Leadership and followership identity processes: A multilevel review. Leadership Quarterly, 28 (1), 104–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.003

Gottfried, A. E., Gottfried, A. W., Reichard, R. J., Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H., & Riggio, R. E. (2011). Motivational roots of leadership: A longitudinal study from childhood through adulthood. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.008

Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Reichard, R. J., & Riggio, R. E. (2011). Childhood and adolescent antecedents of social skills and leadership potential in adulthood: Temperamental approach/withdrawal and extraversion. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.006

Harms, P. D., Spain, S. M., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leader development and the dark side of personality. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.007

Howard, A. (1986). College experiences and managerial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3), 530–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.530

Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and changing times . Guilford Press.

Google Scholar  

Hughes, A., & Vaccaro, C. (2024). How coaching interactions transform leader identity of young professionals over time. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 22 (1), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.24384/3tw6-r891

Jacobs, R. L., & McClelland, D. C. (1994). Moving up the corporate ladder: A longitudinal study of the leadership motive pattern and managerial success in women and men. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 46 (1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.46.1.32

Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31 (2), 386–408. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.20208687

Johnson, C. D., & Routon, P. W. (2024). Who feels taught to lead? Assessing collegiate leadership skill development. Journal of Leadership Education, 23 (1), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/jole-01-2024-0013

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765

Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (3), 542–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.542

Kragt, D., & Day, D. V. (2020). Predicting leadership competency development and promotion among high-potential executives: The role of leader identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 (August), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01816

Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L., & Salas, E. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102 (12), 1686–1718. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000241.supp

Ladkin, D., & Taylor, S. S. (2010). Leadership as art: Variations on a theme. Leadership, 6 (3), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715010368765

Lester, P. B., Hannah, S. T., Harms, P. D., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2011). Mentoring impact on leader efficacy development: A field experiment. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10 (3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0047

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5 (69), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511814563.003

Li, W. D., Arvey, R. D., & Song, Z. (2011). The influence of general mental ability, self-esteem and family socioeconomic status on leadership role occupancy and leader advancement: The moderating role of gender. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.009

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62 (10), e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. Leadership Quarterly, 16 (4), 591–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.003

Mayo, M., Kakarika, M., Pastor, J. C., & Brutus, S. (2012). Aligning or inflating your leadership self-image? A longitudinal study of responses to peer feedback in MBA teams. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11 (4), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0069

McCall, M. W. (2004). Leadership development through experience. Academy of Management Executive, 18 (3), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.2004.14776183

McCall, M. W. (2010). Recasting leadership development. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3 (1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01189.x

Middleton, E. D., Walker, D. O., & Reichard, R. J. (2019). Developmental trajectories of leader identity: Role of learning goal orientation. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 26 (4), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818781818

Mirvis, P. (2008). Executive development through consciousness-raising experiences. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7 (2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2008.32712616

Miscenko, D., Guenter, H., & Day, D. V. (2017). Am I a leader? Examining leader identity development over time. Leadership Quarterly, 28 (5), 605–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.004

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Alttman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151 (4), 264–269.

Moher, D., Stewart, L., & Shekelle, P. (2015). All in the family: Systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Systematic Reviews, 4 (1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Muir, D. (2014). Mentoring and leader identity development: A case study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25 (3), 349–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18 (143), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315159416

Murphy, S. E., & Johnson, S. K. (2011). The benefits of a long-lens approach to leader development: Understanding the seeds of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.004

Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. E., Reichard, R. J., & Riggio, R. E. (2011). Adolescent family environmental antecedents to transformational leadership potential: A longitudinal mediational analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (3), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.010

Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18 (10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide . https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887

Plano Clark, V. L., Anderson, N., Wertz, J. A., Zhou, Y., Schumacher, K., & Miaskowski, C. (2015). Conceptualizing longitudinal mixed methods designs: A methodological review of health sciences research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9 (4), 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689814543563

Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36 (1), 94–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352110

Quigley, N. R. (2013). A longitudinal, multilevel study of leadership efficacy development in MBA teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12 (4), 579–602. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0524

Rajulton, F. (2001). The fundamentals of longitudinal research: An overview. Canadian Studies in Population, 28 (2), 169. https://doi.org/10.25336/p6w897

Rogosa, D. R., & Willett, J. B. (1983). Demonstrating the reliability of the difference score in the measurement of change. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20 (4), 335–343.

Rogosa, D., Brandt, D., & Zimowski, M. (1982). A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. Psychological Bulletin, 92 (3), 726–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.3.726

Seifert, C. F., & Yukl, G. (2010). Effects of repeated multi-source feedback on the influence behavior and effectiveness of managers: A field experiment. Leadership Quarterly, 21 (5), 856–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.012

Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. In  Etica e Politica . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof

Sørensen, P., Hansen, M. B., & Villadsen, A. R. (2023). Perceived changes in leadership behavior during formal leadership education. Public Personnel Management, 52 (2), 170–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260221136085

Springborg, C. (2010). Leadership as art - leaders coming to their senses. Leadership, 6 (3), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715010368766

Steele, A. R., & Day, D. V. (2018). The role of self-attention in leader development. Journal of Leadership Studies, 12 (2), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21570

Taris, T. W. (2000). A primer in longitudinal data analysis . SAGE Publications Ltd.

Thomson, R., & Holland, J. (2003). Hindsight, foresight and insight: The challenges of longitudinal qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 6 (3), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000091833

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169 (7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

Van Velsor, E., McCauley, C. D., & Ruderman, M. N. (2010). The center for creative leadership handbook of leadership development (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass Inc.

Vogel, B., Reichard, R. J., Batistič, S., & Černe, M. (2020). A bibliometric review of the leadership development field: How we got here, where we are, and where we are headed. The Leadership Quarterly , 101381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101381

Vogl, S. (2023). Mixed methods longitudinal research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 24 (1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-24.1.4012

Vogl, S., Zartler, U., Schmidt, E. M., & Rieder, I. (2018). Developing an analytical framework for multiple perspective, qualitative longitudinal interviews (MPQLI). International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21 (2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1345149

Wakabayashi, M., & Graen, G. B. (1984). The Japanese career progress study: A 7-year follow-up. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (4), 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.4.603

Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G., Graen, M., & Graen, M. (1988). Japanese management progress: Mobility into middle management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (2), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.217

Wang, M., Beal, D. J., Chan, D., Newman, D. A., Vancouver, J. B., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2017). Longitudinal research: A panel discussion on conceptual issues, research design, and statistical techniques. Work Aging and Retirement, 3 (1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw033

Willett, J. B. (1989). Some results on reliability for the longitudinal measurement of change: Implications for the design of studies of individual growth. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49 , 587–602.

Yeow, J. B., & Martin, R. (2013). The role of self-regulation in developing leaders: A longitudinal field experiment. Leadership Quarterly, 24 (5), 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.04.004

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on). The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from FCT - Fundaçao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (Portugal), national funding through research grant UIDB/04521/2020.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Lisbon School of Economics and Management (ISEG), University of Lisbon, Rua do Quelhas, 6, Lisboa, 1200-781, Portugal

Felipe Senna Cotrim & Jorge Filipe Da Silva Gomes

Advance/CSG, ISEG, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

Jorge Filipe Da Silva Gomes

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felipe Senna Cotrim .

Ethics declarations

Informed consent, conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cotrim, F.S., Da Silva Gomes, J.F. Longitudinal studies of leadership development: a scoping review. Curr Psychol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06567-4

Download citation

Accepted : 12 August 2024

Published : 30 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06567-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Leadership development
• Scoping review
• Longitudinal studies
• Business context
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Published: 29 August 2024

Executive function deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder

• Michael J. Kofler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8604-3647 1 ,
• Elia F. Soto   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6672-287X 2 ,
• Leah J. Singh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0242-2859 1 ,
• Sherelle L. Harmon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7727-6908 1 ,
• Emma M. Jaisle   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4882-7501 3 ,
• Jessica N. Smith   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3559-4895 3 ,
• Kathleen E. Feeney   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8442-7866 3 &
• Erica D. Musser 4  

Nature Reviews Psychology ( 2024 ) Cite this article

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Autism spectrum disorders
• Signs and symptoms

Executive function deficits have been reported in both autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, little is known regarding which, if any, of these impairments are shared in children with ADHD and those with ASD. In this Review, we provide an overview of the current literature with a critical eye toward diagnostic, measurement and third-variable considerations that should be leveraged to provide more definitive answers. We conclude that the field’s understanding of executive function profiles in ASD and ADHD is highly limited because most research on each of these disorders has failed to account for the possible co-occurrence and the presence of symptoms of the other disorder. A vast majority of studies have relied on traditional neuropsychological tests and informant-rated executive function scales that have poor specificity and construct validity, and most studies have been unable to account for the well-documented between-person heterogeneity within and across disorders. At present, the most parsimonious conclusion is that children with ADHD and/or ASD tend to perform moderately worse than neurotypical children on a broad range of neuropsychological tests. However, the extent to which these difficulties are unique to one of these disorders or shared, or are attributable to impairments in specific executive functions, remains largely unknown. We end with focused recommendations for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

55,14 € per year

only 4,60 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Symptoms of autism in Williams syndrome: a transdiagnostic approach

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder traits are a more important predictor of internalising problems than autistic traits

American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edn (American Psychiatric Association, 2022).

Polanczyk, G., de Lima, M. S., Horta, B. L., Biederman, J. & Rohde, L. A. The worldwide prevalence of ADHD: a systematic review and metaregression analysis. Am. J. Psychiat. 164 , 942–948 (2007).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Polanczyk, G. V., Willcutt, E. G., Salum, G. A., Kieling, C. & Rohde, L. A. ADHD prevalence estimates across three decades: an updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Int. J. Epidemiol. 43 , 434–442 (2014).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Boyle, C. A. et al. Trends in the prevalence of developmental disabilities in US children, 1997–2008. Pediatrics 127 , 1034–1042 (2011).

Kogan, M. D. et al. Prevalence of parent-reported diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder among children in the US, 2007. Pediatrics 124 , 1395–1403 (2009).

Federico, A. et al. Predictors of autism spectrum disorder and ADHD: results from the national survey of children’s health. Disabil. Health J. 17 , 101512 (2023).

Aduen, P. A. et al. Social problems in ADHD: is it a skills acquisition or performance problem? J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 40 , 440–451 (2018).

Kofler, M. J. et al. Neurocognitive and behavioral predictors of social problems in ADHD: a Bayesian framework. Neuropsychology 32 , 344–355 (2018).

Ros, R. & Graziano, P. A. Social functioning in children with or at risk for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analytic review. J. Clin. Child. Adolesc. Psychol. 47 , 213–235 (2018).

Pedreño, C., Pousa, E., Navarro, J., Pàmias, M. & Obiols, J. Exploring the components of advanced theory of mind in autism spectrum disorder. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 47 , 2401–2409 (2017).

Grzadzinski, R., Dick, C., Lord, C. & Bishop, S. Parent-reported and clinician-observed autism spectrum disorder (ASD) symptoms in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): implications for practice under DSM-5. Molec. Autism 7 , 7 (2016).

Article   Google Scholar  

Locke, J., Shih, W., Kretzmann, M. & Kasari, C. Examining playground engagement between elementary school children with and without autism spectrum disorder. Autism 20 , 653–662 (2016).

Gates, J. A., McNair, M. L., Richards, J. K. & Lerner, M. D. Social knowledge & performance in autism: a critical review & recommendations. Clin. Child. Fam. Psychol. Rev. 26 , 665–689 (2023).

Demetriou, E. A., DeMayo, M. M. & Guastella, A. J. Executive function in autism spectrum disorder: history, theoretical models, empirical findings, and potential as an endophenotype. Front. Psychiat. 10 , 753 (2019).

Kofler, M. J. et al. Reaction time variability in ADHD: a meta-analytic review of 319 studies. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 33 , 795–811 (2013).

Nigg, J. T. Annual research review: on the relations among self-regulation, self-control, executive functioning, effortful control, cognitive control, impulsivity, risk-taking, and inhibition for developmental psychopathology. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiat. 58 , 361–383 (2017).

Barrasso-Catanzaro, C. & Eslinger, P. J. Neurobiological bases of executive function and social-emotional development: typical and atypical brain changes. Fam. Relat. 65 , 108–119 (2016).

Diamond, A. Activities and programs that improve children’s executive functions. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21 , 335–341 (2012).

Miyake, A. et al. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn. Psychol. 41 , 49–100 (2000).

Diamond, A. Executive functions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64 , 135–168 (2013).

Baddeley, A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63 , 1–29 (2012).

Wiemers, E. A. & Redick, T. S. Working memory capacity and intra-individual variability of proactive control. Acta Psychol. 182 , 21–31 (2018).

Raiker, J. S., Rapport, M. D., Kofler, M. J. & Sarver, D. E. Objectively-measured impulsivity and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): testing competing predictions from the working memory and behavioral inhibition models of ADHD. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 40 , 699–713 (2012).

Patros, C. H. et al. Visuospatial working memory underlies choice-impulsivity in boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Res. Dev. Disabil. 38 , 134–144 (2015).

Singh, L. J., Gaye, F., Cole, A. M., Chan, E. S. & Kofler, M. J. Central executive training for ADHD: effects on academic achievement, productivity, and success in the classroom. Neuropsychology 36 , 330–345 (2022).

Demaray, M. K. & Jenkins, L. N. Relations among academic enablers and academic achievement in children with and without high levels of parent-rated symptoms of inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. Psychol. Sch. 48 , 573–586 (2011).

Barkley, R. A. Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychol. Bull. 121 , 65–94 (1997).

Pennington, B. F. & Ozonoff, S. Executive functions and developmental psychopathology. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiat. 37 , 51–87 (1996).

Rapport, M. D., Chung, K.-M., Shore, G. & Isaacs, P. A conceptual model of child psychopathology: implications for understanding attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and treatment efficacy. J. Clin. Child. Adolesc. Psychol. 30 , 48–58 (2001).

Kofler, M. J., Raiker, J. S., Sarver, D. E., Wells, E. L. & Soto, E. F. Is hyperactivity ubiquitous in ADHD or dependent on environmental demands? Evidence from meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 46 , 12–24 (2016).

Kofler, M. J. et al. Working memory deficits and social problems in children with ADHD. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 39 , 805–817 (2011).

Groves, N. B. et al. Executive functioning and emotion regulation in children with and without ADHD. Res. Child. Adolesc. Psychopathol. 50 , 721–735 (2021).

Kofler, M. J., Rapport, M. D., Bolden, J., Sarver, D. E. & Raiker, J. S. ADHD and working memory: the impact of central executive deficits and exceeding storage/rehearsal capacity on observed inattentive behavior. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 38 , 149–161 (2010).

Hill, E. L. Evaluating the theory of executive dysfunction in autism. Dev. Rev. 24 , 189–233 (2004).

Leung, R. C., Vogan, V. M., Powell, T. L., Anagnostou, E. & Taylor, M. J. The role of executive functions in social impairment in autism spectrum disorder. Child. Neuropsychol. 22 , 336–344 (2016).

Mostert-Kerckhoffs, M. A., Staal, W. G., Houben, R. H. & de Jonge, M. V. Stop and change: inhibition and flexibility skills are related to repetitive behavior in children and young adults with autism spectrum disorders. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 45 , 3148–3158 (2015).

Ozonoff, S. in Learning and Cognition in Autism: Current Issues in Autism (eds Schopler, E. & Mesibov, G. B.) 199–219 (Springer, 1995).

Karr, J. E. et al. The unity and diversity of executive functions: a systematic review and re-analysis of latent variable studies. Psychol. Bull. 144 , 1147–1185 (2018).

Miyake, A. & Friedman, N. P. The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: four general conclusions. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21 , 8–14 (2012).

Wiebe, S. A. et al. The structure of executive function in 3-year-olds. J. Exp. Child. Psychol. 108 , 436–452 (2011).

Zelazo, P. D., Craik, F. I. & Booth, L. Executive function across the life span. Acta Psychol. 115 , 167–183 (2004).

Lerner, M. D. & Lonigan, C. J. Executive function among preschool children: unitary versus distinct abilities. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 36 , 626–639 (2014).

St Clair-Thompson, H. L. & Gathercole, S. E. Executive functions and achievements in school: shifting, updating, inhibition, and working memory. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 59 , 745–759 (2006).

Kofler, M. J. et al. Working memory and organizational skills problems in ADHD. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiat. 59 , 57–67 (2018).

Jaroslawska, A. J., Gathercole, S. E., Logie, M. R. & Holmes, J. Following instructions in a virtual school: does working memory play a role? Mem. Cogn. 44 , 580–589 (2016).

Engle, R. W. & Kane, M. J. in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory Vol. 44 (ed. Ross, B. H.) 145–199 (Elsevier Science, 2004).

Chacko, A., Kofler, M. & Jarrett, M. Improving outcomes for youth with ADHD: a conceptual framework for combined neurocognitive and skill-based treatment approaches. Clin. Child. Fam. Psychol. Rev. 17 , 368–384 (2014).

Antshel, K. M. & Russo, N. Autism spectrum disorders and ADHD: overlapping phenomenology, diagnostic issues, and treatment considerations. Curr. Psychiat. Rep. 21 , 34 (2019).

Townes, P. et al. Do ASD and ADHD have distinct executive function deficits? A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct comparison studies. J. Atten. Disord. 27 , 1571–1582 (2023).

Sullivan, G. M. & Feinn, R. Using effect size — or why the P value is not enough. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 4 , 279–282 (2012).

Kofler, M. J. et al. Executive functioning heterogeneity in pediatric ADHD. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 47 , 273–286 (2019).

Pievsky, M. A. & McGrath, R. E. The neurocognitive profile of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a review of meta-analyses. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 33 , 143–157 (2018).

Kasper, L. J., Alderson, R. M. & Hudec, K. L. Moderators of working memory deficits in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a meta-analytic review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 32 , 605–617 (2012).

Fosco, W. D., Kofler, M. J., Groves, N. B., Chan, E. S. & Raiker, J. S. Which ‘working’components of working memory aren’t working in youth with ADHD? J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 48 , 647–660 (2020).

Wager, T. D. & Smith, E. E. Neuroimaging studies of working memory. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 3 , 255–274 (2003).

Kofler, M. J. et al. Working memory and short-term memory deficits in ADHD: a bifactor modeling approach. Neuropsychology 34 , 686–698 (2020).

Pauli-Pott, U. & Becker, K. Neuropsychological basic deficits in preschoolers at risk for ADHD: a meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 31 , 626–637 (2011).

Schoemaker, K., Mulder, H., Deković, M. & Matthys, W. Executive functions in preschool children with externalizing behavior problems: a meta-analysis. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 41 , 457–471 (2013).

Demetriou, E. A. et al. Autism spectrum disorders: a meta-analysis of executive function. Mol. Psychiat. 23 , 1198–1204 (2018).

Habib, A., Harris, L., Pollick, F. & Melville, C. A meta-analysis of working memory in individuals with autism spectrum disorders. PLoS ONE 14 , e0216198 (2019).

Wang, Y. et al. A meta-analysis of working memory impairments in autism spectrum disorders. Neuropsychol. Rev. 27 , 46–61 (2017).

Edmunds, S. R., Colman, C., Vidal, P. & Faja, S. Brief report: examining the links between language processes and working memory impairments in toddlers and preschoolers with ASD. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 52 , 1872–1880 (2022).

Lai, C. L. E. et al. Meta-analysis of neuropsychological measures of executive functioning in children and adolescents with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. Autism Res. 10 , 911–939 (2017).

Yerys, B. E. et al. Set-shifting in children with autism spectrum disorders: reversal shifting deficits on the Intradimensional/Extradimensional Shift Test correlate with repetitive behaviors. Autism 13 , 523–538 (2009).

Yerys, B. E. et al. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms moderate cognition and behavior in children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism Res. 2 , 322–333 (2009).

Karalunas, S. L. et al. Overlapping and distinct cognitive impairments in attention-deficit/hyperactivity and autism spectrum disorder without intellectual disability. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 46 , 1705–1716 (2018).

Craig, F. et al. A review of executive function deficits in autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychiat. Dis. Treat . 12 , 1191–1202 (2016).

Google Scholar  

Neely, R. J., Green, J. L., Sciberras, E., Hazell, P. & Anderson, V. Relationship between executive functioning and symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder in 6–8 year old children. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 46 , 3270–3280 (2016).

Sinzig, J., Morsch, D., Bruning, N., Schmidt, M. H. & Lehmkuhl, G. Inhibition, flexibility, working memory and planning in autism spectrum disorders with and without comorbid ADHD-symptoms. Child. Adolesc. Psychiat. Ment. Health 2 , 1–4 (2008).

Benallie, K. J., McClain, M. B., Bakner, K. E., Roanhorse, T. & Ha, J. Executive functioning in children with ASD + ADHD and ASD + ID: a systematic review. Res. Autism Spectr. Disord. 86 , 101807 (2021).

Carroll, A. G. Comparing Executive Functioning Impairments Across Clinical Groups: Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, and Their Comorbid Occurrence in Children PhD thesis https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/comparing-executive-functioning-impairments/docview/2594697995/se-2?accountid=15728 (Indiana Univ. Pennsylvania, 2022).

Alderson, R. M., Rapport, M. D., Sarver, D. E. & Kofler, M. J. ADHD and behavioral inhibition: a re-examination of the stop-signal task. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 36 , 989–998 (2008).

Alderson, R. M., Rapport, M. D. & Kofler, M. J. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and behavioral inhibition: a meta-analytic review of the stop-signal paradigm. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 35 , 745–758 (2007).

Wright, L., Lipszyc, J., Dupuis, A., Thayapararajah, S. W. & Schachar, R. Response inhibition and psychopathology: a meta-analysis of go/no-go task performance. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 123 , 429–439 (2014).

Lipszyc, J. & Schachar, R. Inhibitory control and psychopathology: a meta-analysis of studies using the stop signal task. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 16 , 1064–1076 (2010).

Lansbergen, M. M., Kenemans, J. L. & van Engeland, H. Stroop interference and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychology 21 , 251–262 (2007).

Mullane, J. C., Corkum, P. V., Klein, R. M. & McLaughlin, E. Interference control in children with and without ADHD: a systematic review of Flanker and Simon task performance. Child. Neuropsychol. 15 , 321–342 (2009).

Geurts, H. M., van den Bergh, S. F. W. M. & Ruzzano, L. Prepotent response inhibition and interference control in autism spectrum disorders: two meta-analyses. Autism Res. 7 , 407–420 (2014).

Tonizzi, I., Giofrè, D. & Usai, M. C. Inhibitory control in autism spectrum disorders: meta-analyses on indirect and direct measures. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 52 , 4949–4965 (2022).

Irwin, L. N., Kofler, M. J., Soto, E. F. & Groves, N. B. Do children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have set shifting deficits? Neuropsychology 33 , 470–481 (2019).

Irwin, L. N., Groves, N. B., Soto, E. F. & Kofler, M. J. Is there a functional relation between set shifting and hyperactivity in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)? J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 26 , 1019–1027 (2020).

Irwin Harper, L. N., Groves, N. B., Marsh, C. L., Cole, A. M. & Kofler, M. J. Does training working memory or inhibitory control produce far-transfer improvements in set shifting for children with ADHD? A randomized controlled trial. Child. Neuropsychol. 29 , 825–845 (2023).

Reed, P. Behavioural flexibility of children with autism spectrum disorder on a card-sorting task with varying task difficulty. Heliyon 4 , e00842 (2018).

Miller, H. L., Ragozzino, M. E., Cook, E. H., Sweeney, J. A. & Mosconi, M. W. Cognitive set shifting deficits and their relationship to repetitive behaviors in autism spectrum disorder. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 45 , 805–815 (2015).

Chen, S.-F. et al. Deficits in executive functions among youths with autism spectrum disorders: an age-stratified analysis. Psychol. Med. 46 , 1625–1638 (2016).

Boshomane, T. T., Pillay, B. J. & Meyer, A. Mental flexibility (set-shifting) deficits in children with ADHD: a replication and extension study. J. Psychol. Afr. 31 , 344–349 (2021).

Fair, D. A., Bathula, D., Nikolas, M. A. & Nigg, J. T. Distinct neuropsychological subgroups in typically developing youth inform heterogeneity in children with ADHD. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109 , 6769–6774 (2012).

Dajani, D. R., Llabre, M. M., Nebel, M. B., Mostofsky, S. H. & Uddin, L. Q. Heterogeneity of executive functions among comorbid neurodevelopmental disorders. Sci. Rep. 6 , 36566 (2016).

Karalunas, S. L. et al. Heterogeneity in development of aspects of working memory predicts longitudinal attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptom change. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 126 , 774–792 (2017).

Irwin, L. N. et al. Activities of daily living and working memory in pediatric attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Child. Neuropsychol. 27 , 468–490 (2021).

Korkman, M., Kirk, U. & Kemp, S. NEPSY II: Clinical and Interpretive Manual (Harcourt Assessment, PsychCorp, 2007).

Wechsler, D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 5th edn (WISC-V) ( Pearson, 2014).

Andersson, A. et al. Research review: the strength of the genetic overlap between ADHD and other psychiatric symptoms — a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiat. 61 , 1173–1183 (2020).

Yerys, B. E. et al. Evaluation of the ADHD rating scale in youth with autism. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 47 , 90–100 (2017).

Zhou, X., Reynolds, C., Zhu, J. & Kamphaus, R. W. Differentiating autism from ADHD in children and adolescents using BASC-3. J. Pediatr. Neuropsychol. 6 , 61–65 (2020).

Rosen, T. E., Mazefsky, C. A., Vasa, R. A. & Lerner, M. D. Co-occurring psychiatric conditions in autism spectrum disorder. Int. Rev. Psychiat. 30 , 40–61 (2018).

Mazefsky, C. A. et al. ASD, a psychiatric disorder, or both? Psychiatric diagnoses in adolescents with high-functioning ASD. J. Clin. Child. Adolesc. Psychol. 41 , 516–523 (2012).

Miodovnik, A., Harstad, E., Sideridis, G. & Huntington, N. Timing of the diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics 136 , e830–e837 (2015).

Katusic, M. Z., Myers, S. M., Weaver, A. L. & Voigt, R. G. IQ in autism spectrum disorder: a population-based birth cohort study. Pediatrics 148 , e2020049899 (2021).

Witwer, A. N. & Lecavalier, L. Validity of comorbid psychiatric disorders in youngsters with autism spectrum disorders. J. Dev. Phys. Disabil. 22 , 367–380 (2010).

Musser, E. D. et al. Shared familial transmission of autism spectrum and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiat. 55 , 819–827 (2014).

Lerner, M. D. et al. Verbal ability and psychiatric symptoms in clinically referred inpatient and outpatient youth with ASD. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 48 , 3689–3701 (2018).

Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E. & Conway, A. R. Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 128 , 309–331 (1999).

Giofrè, D., Mammarella, I. C. & Cornoldi, C. The structure of working memory and how it relates to intelligence in children. Intelligence 41 , 396–406 (2013).

Tourva, A., Spanoudis, G. & Demetriou, A. Cognitive correlates of developing intelligence: the contribution of working memory, processing speed and attention. Intelligence 54 , 136–146 (2016).

Lilienfeld, S. O. & Landfield, K. in P sychopathology: History, Diagnosis, and Empirical Foundations (eds Craighead, W. E., Miklowitz, D. J. & Craighead, L. W.) 1–33 (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Brown, T. A. & Barlow, D. H. A proposal for a dimensional classification system based on the shared features of the DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders: implications for assessment and treatment. Psychol. Assess. 21 , 256–271 (2009).

Cuthbert, B. N. & Insel, T. R. Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Med. 11 , 126 (2013).

Sokolova, E. et al. A causal and mediation analysis of the comorbidity between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD).  J. Autism Dev. Disord. 47 , 1595–1604 (2017).

Krakowski, A. D. et al. Characterizing the ASD–ADHD phenotype: measurement structure and invariance in a clinical sample. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiat. 63 , 1534–1543 (2022).

Anning, K. L., Langley, K., Hobson, C. & Van Goozen, S. H. M. Dimensional associations between executive function processes and symptoms of ADHD, ASD, oppositional defiance and anxiety in young school-referred children. Cortex 167 , 132–147 (2023).

Snyder, H. R., Miyake, A. & Hankin, B. L. Advancing understanding of executive function impairments and psychopathology: bridging the gap between clinical and cognitive approaches. Front. Psychol. 6 , 328 (2015).

Semrud-Clikeman, M. & Ellison, P. A. T. Child Neuropsychology (Springer, 2009).

Sattler, J. Assessment of Children: Cognitive Foundations and Applications and Resource Guide to Accompany Assessment of Children: Cognitive Foundations and Applications (Sattler, 2018).

Benson, N. F. et al. Test use and assessment practices of school psychologists in the United States: findings from the 2017 national survey. J. Sch. Psychol. 72 , 29–48 (2019).

Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E. & Kramer, J. H. Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System Assessment D-KEFS Database 10.1037/t15082-000 (APA PsycTests, 2001).

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S. & Mather, N. Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (Riverside Publishing, 2001).

Sonuga-Barke, E. J., Sergeant, J. A., Nigg, J. & Willcutt, E. Executive dysfunction and delay aversion in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: nosologic and diagnostic implications. Child. Adolesc. Psychiat. Clin. N. Am. 17 , 367–384 (2008).

Canivez, G. L., Dombrowski, S. C. & Watkins, M. W. Factor structure of the WISC-V in four standardization age groups: exploratory and hierarchical factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Psychol. Sch. 55 , 741–769 (2018).

Floyd, R. G., Bergeron, R., Hamilton, G. & Parra, G. R. How do executive functions fit with the Cattell–Horn–Carroll model? Some evidence from a joint factor analysis of the Delis–Kaplan executive function system and the Woodcock–Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities. Psychol. Sch. 47 , 721–738 (2010).

Singh, L. J., Floyd, R. G., Reynolds, M. R., Pike, N. A. & Huenergarde, M. C. What does the developmental Neuropsychological Assessment–II (NEPSY-II) measure in children ages 7 to 12? A structural and psychometric analysis. Child Neuropsychol . https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2024.2357376 (2024).

Abad, F. J., Sorrel, M. A., Román, F. J. & Colom, R. The relationships between WAIS-IV factor index scores and educational level: a bifactor model approach. Psychol. Assess. 28 , 987 (2016).

Canivez, G. L. et al. Construct validity of the WISC-V in clinical cases: exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the 10 primary subtests. Assessment 27 , 274–296 (2020).

Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W. & Dombrowski, S. C. Factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children — Fifth edition: exploratory factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Psychol. Assess. 28 , 975–986 (2016).

Dombrowski, S. C., Canivez, G. L. & Watkins, M. W. Factor structure of the 10 WISC-V primary subtests across four standardization age groups. Contemp. Sch. Psychol. 22 , 90–104 (2018).

Dombrowski, S. C., Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W. & Beaujean, A. A. Exploratory bifactor analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children — Fifth edition with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Intelligence 53 , 194–201 (2015).

Gignac, G. E. & Watkins, M. W. Bifactor modeling and the estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS-IV. Multivar. Behav. Res. 48 , 639–662 (2013).

Kranzler, J. H., Benson, N. & Floyd, R. G. Using estimated factor scores from a bifactor analysis to examine the unique effects of the latent variables measured by the WAIS-IV on academic achievement. Psychol. Assess. 27 , 1402–1416 (2015).

Watkins, M. W. et al. Long-term stability of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children — 5th edition scores in a clinical sample. Appl. Neuropsychol. Child. 11 , 422–428 (2022).

Wells, E. L., Kofler, M. J., Soto, E. F., Schaefer, H. S. & Sarver, D. E. Assessing working memory in children with ADHD: minor administration and scoring changes may improve digit span backward’s construct validity. Res. Dev. Disabil. 72 , 166–178 (2018).

Conway, A. R. et al. Working memory span tasks: a methodological review and user’s guide. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 12 , 769–786 (2005).

Soto, E. F. et al. Executive functioning rating scales: ecologically valid or construct invalid? Neuropsychology 34 , 605–619 (2020).

Rapport, M. D., Orban, S. A., Kofler, M. J. & Friedman, L. M. Do programs designed to train working memory, other executive functions, and attention benefit children with ADHD? A meta-analytic review of cognitive, academic, and behavioral outcomes. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 33 , 1237–1252 (2013).

Redick, T. S. & Lindsey, D. R. Complex span and n -back measures of working memory: a meta-analysis. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 20 , 1102–1113 (2013).

Isquith, P. K., Roth, R. M. & Gioia, G. Contribution of rating scales to the assessment of executive functions. Appl. Neuropsychol. Child. 2 , 125–132 (2013).

Toplak, M. E., West, R. F. & Stanovich, K. E. Practitioner review: do performance-based measures and ratings of executive function assess the same construct? J. Child. Psychol. Psychiat. 54 , 131–143 (2013).

Miranda, A., Colomer, C., Mercader, J., Fernández, M. I. & Presentación, M. J. Performance-based tests versus behavioral ratings in the assessment of executive functioning in preschoolers: associations with ADHD symptoms and reading achievement. Front. Psychol. 6 , 545 (2015).

Nordvall, O., Jonsson, B. & Neely, A. S. Self-reported and performance-based measures of executive functions in interned youth. Psychol. Crime. Law 23 , 240–253 (2017).

Spiegel, J. A., Lonigan, C. J. & Phillips, B. M. Factor structure and utility of the behavior rating inventory of executive function — preschool version. Psychol. Assess. 29 , 172–185 (2017).

Friedman, N. P. & Miyake, A. Unity and diversity of executive functions: individual differences as a window on cognitive structure. Cortex 86 , 186–204 (2017).

Biederman, J. et al. Impact of executive function deficits and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) on academic outcomes in children. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 72 , 757–766 (2004).

Coghill, D. R., Seth, S. & Matthews, K. A comprehensive assessment of memory, delay aversion, timing, inhibition, decision making and variability in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: advancing beyond the three-pathway models. Psychol. Med. 44 , 1989–2001 (2014).

Nigg, J. T., Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E. & Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S. Causal heterogeneity in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: do we need neuropsychologically impaired subtypes? Biol. Psychiat. 57 , 1224–1230 (2005).

Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., Nigg, J. T., Faraone, S. V. & Pennington, B. F. Validity of the executive function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analytic review. Biol. Psychiat. 57 , 1336–1346 (2005).

Solanto, M. V. et al. The ecological validity of delay aversion and response inhibition as measures of impulsivity in AD/HD: a supplement to the NIMH multimodal treatment study of AD/HD. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 29 , 215–228 (2001).

Sonuga-Barke, E., Bitsakou, P. & Thompson, M. Beyond the dual pathway model: evidence for the dissociation of timing, inhibitory, and delay-related impairments in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J. Am. Acad. Child. Adolesc. Psychiat. 49 , 345–355 (2010).

Willoughby, M. T. & Blair, C. B. Measuring executive function in early childhood: a case for formative measurement. Psychol. Assess. 28 , 319 (2016).

Redick, T. S. et al. Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 28 , 164–171 (2012).

Nee, D. E. et al. A meta-analysis of executive components of working memory. Cereb. Cortex 23 , 264–282 (2013).

Kofler, M. J. et al. Rethinking hyperactivity in pediatric ADHD: preliminary evidence for a reconceptualization of hyperactivity/impulsivity from the perspective of informant perceptual processes. Psychol. Assess. 32 , 752–767 (2020).

Hwang-Gu, S.-L. et al. Symptoms of ADHD affect intrasubject variability in youths with autism spectrum disorder: an ex-Gaussian analysis. J. Clin. Child. Adolesc. Psychol. 48 , 455–468 (2019).

Fosco, W. D. et al. Inhibitory control and information processing in ADHD: comparing the dual task and performance adjustment hypotheses. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 47 , 961–974 (2019).

Kofler, M. J. et al. Working memory and intraindividual variability as neurocognitive indicators in ADHD: examining competing model predictions. Neuropsychology 28 , 459–471 (2014).

Rapport, M. D. et al. Working memory deficits in boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): the contribution of central executive and subsystem processes. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 36 , 825–837 (2008).

Kofler, M. J. et al. A randomized controlled trial of central executive training (CET) versus inhibitory control training (ICT) for ADHD. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 88 , 738–756 (2020).

Chan, E. S. M., Gaye, F., Cole, A. M., Singh, L. J. & Kofler, M. J. Central executive training for ADHD: impact on organizational skills at home and school. A randomized controlled trial. Neuropsychology 37 , 859–871 (2023).

Kofler, M. J., Sarver, D. E. & Wells, E. L. Working memory and increased activity level (hyperactivity) in ADHD: experimental evidence for a functional relation. J. Atten. Disord. 24 , 1330–1344 (2020).

Rapport, M. D. et al. Hyperactivity in boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a ubiquitous core symptom or manifestation of working memory deficits? J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 37 , 521–534 (2009).

Schachar, R. J. et al. Autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: shared or unique neurocognitive profiles? Res. Child. Adolesc. Psychopathol. 51 , 17–31 (2023).

Alderson, R. M., Rapport, M. D., Hudec, K. L., Sarver, D. E. & Kofler, M. J. Competing core processes in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): do working memory deficiencies underlie behavioral inhibition deficits? J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 38 , 497–507 (2010).

Alderson, R. M. et al. Working memory and behavioral inhibition in boys with ADHD: an experimental examination of competing models. Child. Neuropsychol. 23 , 255–272 (2017).

Kofler, M. J. et al. Working memory and information processing in ADHD: evidence for directionality of effects. Neuropsychology 34 , 127–143 (2020).

Goschke, T. Dysfunctions of decision-making and cognitive control as transdiagnostic mechanisms of mental disorders: advances, gaps, and needs in current research. Int. J. Methods Psychiat. Res. 23 , 41–57 (2014).

Bennett, C. L., Petros, T. V., Johnson, M. & Ferraro, F. R. Individual differences in the influence of time of day on executive functions. Am. J. Psychol. 121 , 349–361 (2008).

Lara, T., Madrid, J. A. & Correa, Á. The vigilance decrement in executive function is attenuated when individual chronotypes perform at their optimal time of day. PLoS ONE 9 , e88820 (2014).

Constantino, J. N. & Todd, R. D. Autistic traits in the general population: a twin study. Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 60 , 524–530 (2003).

Robinson, E. B. et al. Evidence that autistic traits show the same etiology in the general population and at the quantitative extremes (5%, 2.5%, and 1%). Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 68 , 1113–1121 (2011).

McLennan, J. D. Understanding attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as a continuum. Can. Fam. Physician 62 , 979–982 (2016).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Yang, Y. et al. Child executive function and future externalizing and internalizing problems: a meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 97 , 102194 (2022).

Dennis, M. et al. Why IQ is not a covariate in cognitive studies of neurodevelopmental disorders. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 15 , 331–343 (2009).

Howard, S. J. et al. Challenging socioeconomic status: a cross-cultural comparison of early executive function. Dev. Sci. 23 , e12854 (2020).

Alloway, T. P., Alloway, R. G. & Wootan, S. Home sweet home: does where you live matter to working memory and other cognitive skills? J. Exp. Child. Psychol. 124 , 124–131 (2014).

Bitsko, R. H. et al. Mental health surveillance among children — United States, 2013–2019. MMWR Suppl. 71 , 1–42 (2022).

Maenner, M. J. et al. Prevalence and characteristics of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years — autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2020. MMWR Surveill. Summ. 72 , 1–14 (2023).

Lai, M.-C., Lombardo, M. V., Auyeung, B., Chakrabarti, B. & Baron-Cohen, S. Sex/gender differences and autism: setting the scene for future research. J. Am. Acad. Child. Adolesc. Psychiat. 54 , 11–24 (2015).

Millenet, S. et al. Sex-specific trajectories of ADHD symptoms from adolescence to young adulthood. Eur. Child. Adolesc. Psychiat. 27 , 1067–1075 (2018).

Cockcroft, K. Are working memory models WEIRD? Testing models of working memory in a non-WEIRD sample. Neuropsychology 36 , 456–467 (2022).

Cheon, B. K., Melani, I. & Hong, Y. How USA-centric is psychology? An archival study of implicit assumptions of generalizability of findings to human nature based on origins of study samples. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 11 , 928–937 (2020).

Webber-Ritchey, K. J. et al. Recruitment strategies to optimize participation by diverse populations. Nurs. Sci. Q. 34 , 235–243 (2021).

Rowley, S. J. & Camacho, T. C. Increasing diversity in cognitive developmental research: issues and solutions. J. Cogn. Dev. 16 , 683–692 (2015).

Buchanan, N. T., Perez, M., Prinstein, M. J. & Thurston, I. B. Upending racism in psychological science: strategies to change how science is conducted, reported, reviewed, and disseminated. Am. Psychol. 76 , 1097–1112 (2021).

Werner, K. M., Inzlicht, M. & Ford, B. Q. Whither inhibition? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 31 , 333–339 (2022).

Kofler, M. J. et al. Working memory and inhibitory control deficits in children with ADHD: an experimental evaluation of competing model predictions. Front. Psychiat. 15 , 1277583 (2024).

Howlett, C. A., Miles, S., Berryman, C., Phillipou, A. & Moseley, G. L. Conflation between self-report and neurocognitive assessments of cognitive flexibility: a critical review of the Jingle Fallacy. Aust. J. Psychol. 75 , 2174684 (2023).

Abikoff, H. et al. Remediating organizational functioning in children with ADHD: immediate and long-term effects from a randomized controlled trial. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 81 , 113–128 (2013).

Verbruggen, F., Chambers, C. D. & Logan, G. D. Fictitious inhibitory differences: how skewness and slowing distort the estimation of stopping latencies. Psychol. Sci. 24 , 352–362 (2013).

Duncan, A., Tamm, L., Birnschein, A. M. & Becker, S. P. Clinical correlates of sluggish cognitive tempo in adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Autism 23 , 1354–1362 (2019).

McFayden, T. et al. Sluggish cognitive tempo in autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, and their comorbidity: implications for impairment. J. Clin. Child. Adolesc. Psychol. 51 , 195–202 (2022).

Becker, S. P. et al. The internal, external, and diagnostic validity of sluggish cognitive tempo: a meta-analysis and critical review. J. Am. Acad. Child. Adolesc. Psychiat. 55 , 163–178 (2016).

Becker, S. P. & Barkley, R. A. Sluggish cognitive tempo. In Oxford Textbook of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (eds Banaschewski, T., Coghill, D. & Zuddas, A.) Ch. 15, 147–153 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).

McBurnett, K. et al. Structure and validity of sluggish cognitive tempo using an expanded item pool in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 42 , 37–48 (2014).

Kofler, M. J. et al. What cognitive processes are “sluggish” in sluggish cognitive tempo? J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 87 , 1030 (2019).

Mayes, S. D., Calhoun, S. L. & Waschbusch, D. A. Relationship between sluggish cognitive tempo and sleep, psychological, somatic, and cognitive problems and impairment in children with autism and children with ADHD. Clin. Child. Psychol. Psychiat. 26 , 518–530 (2021).

Reinvall, O. et al. Sluggish cognitive tempo in children and adolescents with higher functioning autism spectrum disorders: social impairments and internalizing symptoms. Scand. J. Psychol. 58 , 389–399 (2017).

Mueller, A. K. et al. Sluggish cognitive tempo and its neurocognitive, social and emotive correlates: a systematic review of the current literature. J. Mol. Psychiat. 2 , 5 (2014).

Tamm, L. et al. Neurocognition in children with cognitive disengagement syndrome: accurate but slow. Child. Neuropsychol. 30 , 221–240 (2024).

Stark, R. & Mandl, H. Bridging the gap between basic and applied research by an integrative research approach. Educ. Res. Eval. 13 , 249–261 (2007).

Munro, C. L. & Savel, R. H. Narrowing the 17-year research to practice gap. Am. J. Crit. Care 25 , 194–196 (2016).

Mallonee, S., Fowler, C. & Istre, G. R. Bridging the gap between research and practice: a continuing challenge. Inj. Prev. 12 , 357–359 (2006).

American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA) & National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, 2014).

Kane, M. J. & Engle, R. W. Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 132 , 47–70 (2003).

Hicks, K. L., Foster, J. L. & Engle, R. W. Measuring working memory capacity on the web with the online working memory lab (the OWL). J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 5 , 478–489 (2016).

Normand, S. & Tannock, R. Screening for working memory deficits in the classroom: the psychometric properties of the working memory rating scale in a longitudinal school-based study. J. Atten. Disord. 18 , 294–304 (2014).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Michael J. Kofler, Leah J. Singh & Sherelle L. Harmon

Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

Elia F. Soto

Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

Emma M. Jaisle, Jessica N. Smith & Kathleen E. Feeney

Department of Psychology, Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Erica D. Musser

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors researched data for the article and contributed substantially to the discussion of the content. M.J.K., E.F.S., L.J.S., S.L.H, E.M.J., J.N.S., K.E.F. and E.D.M. wrote the article and reviewed and/or edited the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Kofler .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Reviews Psychology thanks Alisha Pollastri, Russel Schachar and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kofler, M.J., Soto, E.F., Singh, L.J. et al. Executive function deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder. Nat Rev Psychol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00350-9

Download citation

Accepted : 23 July 2024

Published : 29 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00350-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.