literature review and hypothesis

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

It is common to present the literature with supporting articles that are the foundation for your hypotheses—your tentative answer to the research questions stating the relationship between variables (what we already know supports what you believe your hypothesized results will be). Providing definitions of your conceptual variables is needed.

Your lit review should develop a theory. To make a contribution to the literature, your idea needs to be articulated, organized, and connected in a way that suggests new directions for researchers, fills a gap in the lit. Ideas are not a theory, regardless of how original they are. To be a theory, ideas have to be presented with a clear logic and causal relationship among the variables studied.

As stated in Chapter 6, Matching Publication Sources, be sure to match your literature review to that of your target journal. Use the same literature title heading and any subheadings commonly used in the target journal (literature review, conceptual framework, theoretical development and hypotheses, theory and hypotheses). Match paragraph lengths and writing level and format hypotheses exactly like in the target journal. The number of your references should be in the same range as other articles in your target journal, unless it is a very new topic with limited prior research. Again, cite articles from the target journal.

Here are some do’s and don’ts when writing your lit review.

• Keywords . Do use keywords when searching for the literature you will include in your review.
• Target journal . Do review and emulate the lit reviews of articles you cite, and match the target journal lit reviews. As stated, be sure to cite articles from the journal you will submit your work to.
• Hypotheses . Do format your hypotheses in the same way as the target journal articles (Chapter 6 Matching Publication Sources).
• Relevant . Do cite all the “relevant” articles that relate to your study. An article is not a dissertation, so don’t reference irrelevant articles.

The above is an excerpt of Dr. Lussier’s book, Publish Don’t Perish . More points for lit review, along with 170+ tips to get published are included.

15 Comments:

I just could not go away your site prior to suggesting that I extremely loved the usual info a person provide on your guests? Is gonna be again regularly in order to investigate cross-check new posts

Everything is very open with a really clear explanation of the issues. It was really informative. Your website is very helpful. Thank you for sharing!

Hi there,I read your new stuff named “LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES |” on a regular basis.Your humoristic style is awesome, keep doing what you’re doing! And you can look our website about proxy.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES | aiqsbvcnpq iqsbvcnpq http://www.g2499py76wcfvlm58936r27a36blobi5s.org/ [url=http://www.g2499py76wcfvlm58936r27a36blobi5s.org/]uiqsbvcnpq[/url]

I had a Springfield College student do an internship with me to develop the website

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES | gdskmwvzgp http://www.g510m1752hjose40vwd9f300yo0q3z1os.org/ [url=http://www.g510m1752hjose40vwd9f300yo0q3z1os.org/]ugdskmwvzgp[/url] agdskmwvzgp

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES | aqvhfxphfh [url=http://www.gr03x865dwpto35t0a18o1op942wog92s.org/]uqvhfxphfh[/url] qvhfxphfh http://www.gr03x865dwpto35t0a18o1op942wog92s.org/

There was no comment

Are you writing the articles in your website yourself or you outsource them? I am a blogger and having difficulty with content. Other bloggers told me I should use an AI content writer, they are actually pretty good. Here is a sample article some bloggers shared with me. Please let me know what your opinion on it and should I go ahead and use AI – https://sites.google.com/view/best-ai-content-writing-tools/home

I’m really not a good blogger. I used material from my Textbooks. Search Lussier on Amazon for my books.

If you are going for finest contents like me, only visit this web site every day because it gives feature contents, thanks

my web site tracfone special

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and site URL in my browser for next time I post a comment.

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.

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

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.

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 August 21, 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, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• 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 sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

What Will You Do Differently?

Please help your librarians by filling out this two-minute survey of today's class session..

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

Literature reviews take time. here is some general information to know before you start.  .

•  VIDEO -- This video is a great overview of the entire process.  (2020; North Carolina State University Libraries) --The transcript is included --This is for everyone; ignore the mention of "graduate students" --9.5 minutes, and every second is important  
• OVERVIEW -- Read this page from Purdue's OWL. It's not long, and gives some tips to fill in what you just learned from the video.  
• NOT A RESEARCH ARTICLE -- A literature review follows a different style, format, and structure from a research article.  

• Next: Evaluate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE: Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 8:54 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• 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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

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.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature 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.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

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.  How many sources does the assignment require?

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

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.

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 summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why write 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, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will 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 scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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 objectives and questions .

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. 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 if 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 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 use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

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.

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

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?
• How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
• 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 find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

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’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference 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.

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to 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 organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

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 summarising sources in order.

Try to analyse 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 organise 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.

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

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, make sure to follow these tips:

• Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
• Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, 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 transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

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

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

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 dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

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

• To familiarise 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  dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

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 Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 21 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Librarian Assistance

For help, please contact the librarian for your subject area.  We have a guide to library specialists by subject .

• Last Updated: Aug 22, 2024 9:12 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey 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.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• 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.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review      This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

Integrative Review      Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review      Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review      A review does not always focus on what someone said [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection and data analysis, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our study.

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

28 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

Asking questions are actually fastidious thing if you are not understanding anything fully, but this article presents good understanding yet.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Privacy Policy

Home » What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Definition:

Hypothesis is an educated guess or proposed explanation for a phenomenon, based on some initial observations or data. It is a tentative statement that can be tested and potentially proven or disproven through further investigation and experimentation.

Hypothesis is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments and the collection and analysis of data. It is an essential element of the scientific method, as it allows researchers to make predictions about the outcome of their experiments and to test those predictions to determine their accuracy.

Types of Hypothesis

Types of Hypothesis are as follows:

Research Hypothesis

A research hypothesis is a statement that predicts a relationship between variables. It is usually formulated as a specific statement that can be tested through research, and it is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is no significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as a starting point for testing the research hypothesis, and if the results of the study reject the null hypothesis, it suggests that there is a significant difference or relationship between variables.

Alternative Hypothesis

An alternative hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is a significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as an alternative to the null hypothesis and is tested against the null hypothesis to determine which statement is more accurate.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the direction of the relationship between variables. For example, a researcher might predict that increasing the amount of exercise will result in a decrease in body weight.

Non-directional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the relationship between variables but does not specify the direction. For example, a researcher might predict that there is a relationship between the amount of exercise and body weight, but they do not specify whether increasing or decreasing exercise will affect body weight.

Statistical Hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is a statement that assumes a particular statistical model or distribution for the data. It is often used in statistical analysis to test the significance of a particular result.

Composite Hypothesis

A composite hypothesis is a statement that assumes more than one condition or outcome. It can be divided into several sub-hypotheses, each of which represents a different possible outcome.

Empirical Hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is a statement that is based on observed phenomena or data. It is often used in scientific research to develop theories or models that explain the observed phenomena.

Simple Hypothesis

A simple hypothesis is a statement that assumes only one outcome or condition. It is often used in scientific research to test a single variable or factor.

Complex Hypothesis

A complex hypothesis is a statement that assumes multiple outcomes or conditions. It is often used in scientific research to test the effects of multiple variables or factors on a particular outcome.

Applications of Hypothesis

Hypotheses are used in various fields to guide research and make predictions about the outcomes of experiments or observations. Here are some examples of how hypotheses are applied in different fields:

• Science : In scientific research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain natural phenomena. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular variable on a natural system, such as the effects of climate change on an ecosystem.
• Medicine : In medical research, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of treatments and therapies for specific conditions. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new drug on a particular disease.
• Psychology : In psychology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of human behavior and cognition. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular stimulus on the brain or behavior.
• Sociology : In sociology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of social phenomena, such as the effects of social structures or institutions on human behavior. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of income inequality on crime rates.
• Business : In business research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain business phenomena, such as consumer behavior or market trends. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new marketing campaign on consumer buying behavior.
• Engineering : In engineering, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of new technologies or designs. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the efficiency of a new solar panel design.

How to write a Hypothesis

Here are the steps to follow when writing a hypothesis:

Identify the Research Question

The first step is to identify the research question that you want to answer through your study. This question should be clear, specific, and focused. It should be something that can be investigated empirically and that has some relevance or significance in the field.

Conduct a Literature Review

Before writing your hypothesis, it’s essential to conduct a thorough literature review to understand what is already known about the topic. This will help you to identify the research gap and formulate a hypothesis that builds on existing knowledge.

Determine the Variables

The next step is to identify the variables involved in the research question. A variable is any characteristic or factor that can vary or change. There are two types of variables: independent and dependent. The independent variable is the one that is manipulated or changed by the researcher, while the dependent variable is the one that is measured or observed as a result of the independent variable.

Formulate the Hypothesis

Based on the research question and the variables involved, you can now formulate your hypothesis. A hypothesis should be a clear and concise statement that predicts the relationship between the variables. It should be testable through empirical research and based on existing theory or evidence.

Write the Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is the opposite of the alternative hypothesis, which is the hypothesis that you are testing. The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference or relationship between the variables. It is important to write the null hypothesis because it allows you to compare your results with what would be expected by chance.

Refine the Hypothesis

After formulating the hypothesis, it’s important to refine it and make it more precise. This may involve clarifying the variables, specifying the direction of the relationship, or making the hypothesis more testable.

Examples of Hypothesis

Here are a few examples of hypotheses in different fields:

• Psychology : “Increased exposure to violent video games leads to increased aggressive behavior in adolescents.”
• Biology : “Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to increased plant growth.”
• Sociology : “Individuals who grow up in households with higher socioeconomic status will have higher levels of education and income as adults.”
• Education : “Implementing a new teaching method will result in higher student achievement scores.”
• Marketing : “Customers who receive a personalized email will be more likely to make a purchase than those who receive a generic email.”
• Physics : “An increase in temperature will cause an increase in the volume of a gas, assuming all other variables remain constant.”
• Medicine : “Consuming a diet high in saturated fats will increase the risk of developing heart disease.”

Purpose of Hypothesis

The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a testable explanation for an observed phenomenon or a prediction of a future outcome based on existing knowledge or theories. A hypothesis is an essential part of the scientific method and helps to guide the research process by providing a clear focus for investigation. It enables scientists to design experiments or studies to gather evidence and data that can support or refute the proposed explanation or prediction.

The formulation of a hypothesis is based on existing knowledge, observations, and theories, and it should be specific, testable, and falsifiable. A specific hypothesis helps to define the research question, which is important in the research process as it guides the selection of an appropriate research design and methodology. Testability of the hypothesis means that it can be proven or disproven through empirical data collection and analysis. Falsifiability means that the hypothesis should be formulated in such a way that it can be proven wrong if it is incorrect.

In addition to guiding the research process, the testing of hypotheses can lead to new discoveries and advancements in scientific knowledge. When a hypothesis is supported by the data, it can be used to develop new theories or models to explain the observed phenomenon. When a hypothesis is not supported by the data, it can help to refine existing theories or prompt the development of new hypotheses to explain the phenomenon.

When to use Hypothesis

Here are some common situations in which hypotheses are used:

• In scientific research , hypotheses are used to guide the design of experiments and to help researchers make predictions about the outcomes of those experiments.
• In social science research , hypotheses are used to test theories about human behavior, social relationships, and other phenomena.
• I n business , hypotheses can be used to guide decisions about marketing, product development, and other areas. For example, a hypothesis might be that a new product will sell well in a particular market, and this hypothesis can be tested through market research.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Here are some common characteristics of a hypothesis:

• Testable : A hypothesis must be able to be tested through observation or experimentation. This means that it must be possible to collect data that will either support or refute the hypothesis.
• Falsifiable : A hypothesis must be able to be proven false if it is not supported by the data. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, then it is not a scientific hypothesis.
• Clear and concise : A hypothesis should be stated in a clear and concise manner so that it can be easily understood and tested.
• Based on existing knowledge : A hypothesis should be based on existing knowledge and research in the field. It should not be based on personal beliefs or opinions.
• Specific : A hypothesis should be specific in terms of the variables being tested and the predicted outcome. This will help to ensure that the research is focused and well-designed.
• Tentative: A hypothesis is a tentative statement or assumption that requires further testing and evidence to be confirmed or refuted. It is not a final conclusion or assertion.
• Relevant : A hypothesis should be relevant to the research question or problem being studied. It should address a gap in knowledge or provide a new perspective on the issue.

Advantages of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have several advantages in scientific research and experimentation:

• Guides research: A hypothesis provides a clear and specific direction for research. It helps to focus the research question, select appropriate methods and variables, and interpret the results.
• Predictive powe r: A hypothesis makes predictions about the outcome of research, which can be tested through experimentation. This allows researchers to evaluate the validity of the hypothesis and make new discoveries.
• Facilitates communication: A hypothesis provides a common language and framework for scientists to communicate with one another about their research. This helps to facilitate the exchange of ideas and promotes collaboration.
• Efficient use of resources: A hypothesis helps researchers to use their time, resources, and funding efficiently by directing them towards specific research questions and methods that are most likely to yield results.
• Provides a basis for further research: A hypothesis that is supported by data provides a basis for further research and exploration. It can lead to new hypotheses, theories, and discoveries.
• Increases objectivity: A hypothesis can help to increase objectivity in research by providing a clear and specific framework for testing and interpreting results. This can reduce bias and increase the reliability of research findings.

Limitations of Hypothesis

Some Limitations of the Hypothesis are as follows:

• Limited to observable phenomena: Hypotheses are limited to observable phenomena and cannot account for unobservable or intangible factors. This means that some research questions may not be amenable to hypothesis testing.
• May be inaccurate or incomplete: Hypotheses are based on existing knowledge and research, which may be incomplete or inaccurate. This can lead to flawed hypotheses and erroneous conclusions.
• May be biased: Hypotheses may be biased by the researcher’s own beliefs, values, or assumptions. This can lead to selective interpretation of data and a lack of objectivity in research.
• Cannot prove causation: A hypothesis can only show a correlation between variables, but it cannot prove causation. This requires further experimentation and analysis.
• Limited to specific contexts: Hypotheses are limited to specific contexts and may not be generalizable to other situations or populations. This means that results may not be applicable in other contexts or may require further testing.
• May be affected by chance : Hypotheses may be affected by chance or random variation, which can obscure or distort the true relationship between variables.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Table of Contents – Types, Formats, Examples

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and...

Research Problem – Examples, Types and Guide

Significance of the Study – Examples and Writing...

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and...

• Methodology
• Research Methodology

Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An overview and guidelines

• Erbil polytechnic university
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• JANET ATIENO AUMA
• J Baraero-Era

• Rizky Amelia

• Tutuk Indriyani
• Andi Ibrahim Yunus
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Methodology of Social Science & International Relations

6 hypothesis , research question & literature review.

Hypothesis is a potential explanation to a phenomenon, and in a much more rigorous way. It’s the core of research design, after Research Question and Literature Review. 1,Hypothesis should be used in formal logic, if XXX ,then XXX. 2,Hypothesis should have clear boundaries and testable. 3,Hypothesis should never be regarded as certain events, and it’s must be theoretical.

6.1 With Research Question

Hypothesis is the potential explanation or mechanism to the Research Question.If we try to research what result in Nagorno-Karabakh War. We need follow the steps, Research Question, Literature Review, Theoretical Framework, Hypothesis. Theoretical framework in literature is the most important resource to figure out the hypothesis.The meaning and contribution should start from existed research.

Figure 6.1: literature review & hypothesis

6.2 With Literature Review

After diving in the facts and literatures, we possiblely can have some hypotheses. Last time I introduced 3 steps of searching literatures, now we connect those with hypothesis building.

If you want to research Nagorno-Karabakh War, there are many structures we can use, like ethnic conflicts, new independent countries’ nation-buildings, or territorial conflicts. We can choose ethnic conflicts.

Inside international ethinic conflicts, then there are lots of possible hypotheses.Like ethinic diversity, regime, nationalism, economic imbalance, resource trap, cross-broder ethenic group, colonazation.The Main difference is the benchmark, that’s why firstly we need should choose problem domain. The problem domain determains our hypothesis boundary, and potential choices.

Figure 6.2: literature review & hypothesis

6.3 Rethinking Hypothesis

Should we take as much explanation as possible ? Should we call one approach is the most convincing ?

6.4 Hypothesis & Proving

Figure 6.3: circular argument

6.5 From Science

Try to introduce some explanations to obsity. 1, In evolutionary biology, in case of hunger or unstable envrionment, evolutionary selection make us to prefer high-calorie food, and feel more attractive. 2, Genomics， Ceratin genes can make our body much easier to store calorie. 3, Microbiology， Intestinal Flora affect our digestion procedures 4, Biochemistry, How stomach send the signals to our brain. 5, Neuroscience, How our brain handle incentive of food.refined/calorie 6, Medicine, Some disease can cuase obesity, like metabolism. others, like diet, sleeping, pressure

6.6 From Social Science

1, Economics, food industry’s profit-orentiation and marketing enhance our preference. 2, Political Science, Interest Group, Lobbying affect the policy 3, Psychology, Pressure and our neuro-mental mechanism 4, Sociology, social class, inequality, popoular culture, habit 5, IR, Globalisation, the expansion of global suger. 6, Reflection, How BMI, obesity is defined and interpretation.

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

• formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
• searching the extant literature,
• screening for inclusion,
• assessing the quality of primary studies,
• extracting data, and
• analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

• Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
• Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
• Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
• Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
• Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
• Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed inde­­pen­dently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guide­lines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

• Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
• Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
• Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
• A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
• Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
• Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
• Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
• Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
• Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
• Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
• Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
• Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
• Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
• Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
• Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
• Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
• Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
• Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
• Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
• Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
• King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
• Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
• Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
• Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
• Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
• Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
• Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
• Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
• Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
• Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel ​.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent ​.cgi?article ​=1221&context ​=ecis2011 .
• Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
• Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
• Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
• Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
• Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
• Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
• Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
• Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
• Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
• Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
• Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
• Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
• Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
• Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
• Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
• Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
• Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
• Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
• Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
• Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
• Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

• Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
• PDF version of this title (4.5M)
• Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

• Introduction
• Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
• Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
• Concluding Remarks

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

The Relationship Between Self-Regulated Learning and Executive Functions—a Systematic Review

• REVIEW ARTICLE
• Open access
• Published: 22 August 2024
• Volume 36 , article number  95 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Laura Dörrenbächer-Ulrich   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8361-9030 1 &
• Marius Bregulla 1  

1 Altmetric

Self-regulated learning (SRL) and executive functions (EF) are broad concepts stemming from different research areas. They have been defined and modeled in various ways and are repeatedly related to each other in the literature, but so far, no systematic analyses of these relations have been published. Therefore, a systematic analysis of their relationships described in the literature was conducted. Nineteen studies were synthesized concerning different categories (age groups, measurement methods, role of metacognition, relation to achievement, and longitudinal/intervention studies). In general, primarily low to moderate correlational relationships between SRL and EF were reported, with no detectable pattern depending on the age group. Measurement methods used to capture SRL and EF seem to influence the size of the correlations, with indirect measures correlating higher than direct/indirect measures. In addition, there is evidence that metacognition mediates the relationship between EF and SRL. In general, the notion that EF predicts SRL but not vice versa is supported. Following the systematic review, the results are critically discussed in the light of non-generalizable samples, measurement methods, and results interpretation issues. Suggestions for theory building and promising future research are given.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Pursuing goals is essential to human life and is relevant to various contexts, such as academics, working, social life, well-being, and health behavior. Concerning academic goals, adaptive learning goal-related behavior is entitled to self-regulated learning (Boekaerts, 1999 ). Self-regulated learning (SRL) is a construct that describes how individuals actively initiate goal-directed learning processes and control and regulate their cognitive processes within academic contexts (Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001 ). As this definition discloses, metacognition is an essential part of SRL (“control and regulate”) and is defined as encompassing higher-order cognitive processes that help to monitor, control, and adapt information processes on a lower level (Roebers, 2017 ). The term higher-order cognitive processes is also used to refer to executive functions (EF) as they describe the top-down regulation of cognitive and behavioral processes (Miyake et al., 2000 ). As the previous definitions made clear, several conceptualizations are highly relevant when describing goal-directed behavior (SRL, metacognition, EF), and it is not obviously clear how to differentiate between these concepts. In this context, Kim et al. ( 2023 ) speak of jingle-jangle fallacies, as the same terms are used for different conceptualizations resp. similar conceptualizations are named differently. Moreover, there is convincing evidence that SRL, metacognition, and EF are linked to academic achievement (e.g., Dent & Koenka, 2016 ; McClelland et al., 2013 ).

In order to disentangle the abovementioned conceptual overlaps, several reviews have delved into the literature and offered highly relevant insights: Dinsmore et al. ( 2008 ) carried out a review to shed light on the conceptual overlaps and differences between general self-regulation (execution of general goal-directed behavior; Hofmann et al., 2012 ), SRL, and metacognition, Kim et al. ( 2023 ) reviewed the literature on SRL and metacognition to integrate scientific views from cognitive and educational psychology. Referring to EF, Hofmann et al. ( 2012 ) wrote a pertinent review on the relationship between EF and general self-regulation, while Roebers ( 2017 ) illuminated the links between EF and metacognition within her seminal review. In order to complete the circle, the present systematic review aims to synthesize hitherto existing literature on the relationship between SRL and EF, as no review to date has focused on this conceptual overlap. We, therefore, explicitly do not integrate metacognition and general self-regulation into our search process, as such reviews already exist. Moreover, we aim to focus on self-regulated learning processes (and therefore representing an educational psychology perspective) and their relationship to EF. The review results should give new insights into and help structure associations between SRL and EF and uncover possible directional connections between both constructs. Summarizing and analyzing the current state of research is necessary to expedite theoretical work on this aim and stimulate empirical studies that further help disentangle both constructs.

Theoretical Background

Self-regulated learning: background, definition, models.

The well-known works of Bandura ( 1986 ) can be seen as the general theoretical foundation for research on self-regulation, introducing behavior, emotion, self-efficacy, and motivation as regulatory areas (Dinsmore et al., 2008 ). Although most of the articles on self-regulation were published in social psychology and personality journals (Boekaerts et al., 2000 ), from the 1990s on, the concept was applied to the academic domain, generating the term “self-regulated learning” (SRL). While there is no single widely accepted definition that would suffice all SRL research (Boekaerts, 1999 ), Perels et al. ( 2020 ) mention that even though numerous different definitions exist, they are united by using three key components: A cognitive component (processing of information, strategic knowledge, and learning strategies), a motivational component (activities that serve to initiate and sustain the learning process, in addition to action-promoting attributions of successes and failures, and self-efficacy beliefs), and a metacognitive component (planning of the learning process, observing oneself in the learning situation, reflecting on and subsequently adapting the learning behavior by evaluating its usefulness for the learning goal). Following that, recent reviews describe SRL as incorporating cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, emotional, and behavioral aspects of learning (Panadero, 2017 ; Zeidner & Stoeger, 2019 ).

One definition of SRL that encompasses the aforementioned main components in a condensed manner and is meant when referring to SRL in this review comes from Pintrich ( 2000 , p. 453): “self-regulated learning is … an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment”. Pintrich ( 2000 ) makes several assumptions to come to this definition: Firstly, learners do not just passively receive information but actively use information coming from the environment and from their minds to construct their own meanings, set their own goals, and choose learning strategies. Secondly, there needs to be the assumption that learners can at least partially monitor, control, and regulate their cognition, motivation, and behavior. Thirdly, Pintrich argues that a criterion or goal must be set and worked towards, and the subsequent process can be regulated and adapted when one is in danger of missing one’s goal. Lastly, self-regulatory endeavors are assumed to mediate between the described personal and contextual characteristics and eventual achievement.

SRL as a construct has been heavily researched over the last three decades. As a consequence of this and the fact that different definitions emphasize different aspects of the construct, a range of theoretical models have been proposed (see Panadero, 2017 ; Tinajero et al., 2024 ). However, Zeidner and Stoeger ( 2019 ) note that many commonalities between models emerge. According to most models, successful self-regulation in a learning context occurs when students actively engage in the learning process and take measures to actively adapt their behavior, personal processes, and external conditions to attain their goals. In his recent review, Panadero ( 2017 ) shows that Pintrich’s ( 2000 ) and Zimmerman’s ( 2000 ) models, which give a comprehensive overview of distinct SRL phases and areas of regulation, are most frequently used in the literature, with Zimmerman’s model being the most cited (Panadero, 2017 ; Tinajero et al., 2024 ). Moreover, both models are based on the same theory (i.e., Bandura’s ( 1986 ) social cognitive theory) and therefore bear resemblance (Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001 ). Besides such process models of SRL, component models focus on describing the competencies that positively impact SRL (Winne & Perry, 2000 ). To differentiate and provide a more thorough overview of the literature for the systematic analysis, Boekaerts’ three-layered model of SRL ( 1999 ) will be examined in addition to Zimmerman’s model ( 2000 ). In their review article, Tinajero et al. ( 2024 ) describe Zimmerman’s model ( 2000 ) as adopting a distant focus that established the process structure of SRL, while Boekaerts’ model ( 1999 ) adopts a more task-focused approach. Therefore, both models are helpful to cover the whole SRL construct.

Zimmerman’s Social Cognitive Model of Self-Regulation

By referring to self-regulation as “self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals” (Zimmerman, 2000 , p. 14), Zimmerman introduces a cyclical viewpoint that is not only essential to his social cognitive model of self-regulation but also to many other SRL models (Panadero, 2017 ). His process model explicitly focuses on describing process phases and the requirements to be met in the respective phase (see Fig. 1 b). It is cyclical because the feedback resulting from prior behavior can influence or be used to adjust current behavior. This leads to a model that resembles a simple control loop in which a current actual status is compared with a target status, and depending on the difference, behavioral or cognitive adjustments will or will not be made (Perels et al., 2020 ). Zimmerman ( 2000 ) deems these reoccurring adjustments necessary because personal, behavioral, and environmental factors continuously change during learning processes.

The forethought phase splits into task analysis and self-motivation beliefs: task analysis involves goal setting, where students analyze task features and the requirements for performance. Goal setting is conditioned by essential self-motivational beliefs like self-efficacy (beliefs about one’s ability to perform effectively), outcome expectations (what final result is expected), what value the task has, and how goal-oriented and interested the performer is. Considering these beliefs, the overall motivation for the task will be determined, as well as the effort and the activation of self-regulatory strategies. In the following performance or volitional control phase, the actual execution of the task takes place, including self-control and self-observation processes.

The self-control part reflects a process that aims to keep concentration and interest high with the help of various strategies (e.g., self-instructions or self-praise; Panadero & Alonso-Tapia, 2014 ). Self-observation can be described as a comparison between the expert model and what the student is doing and the assessment of one's performance (metacognitive monitoring) (Panadero & Alonso-Tapia., 2014 ). For the self-reflection phase, self-judgment and self-reaction are the two fundamental processes. They emerge after a task or performance has concluded and play an essential part in how a person responds to their (learning) experience. Judging oneself requires comparing the information gathered during the action with a standard or goal. During self-judgments, learners will also want to find causal attributions regarding the results of their learning session by analyzing their accomplishments or shortcomings and drawing conclusions about their abilities or invested effort (Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001 ). These attributions result in positive and negative emotions, which can impact motivation and regulation in future performances. Self-reaction includes satisfaction or dissatisfaction and adaptive or defensive interferences. Returning to the cyclical aspect of Zimmerman’s ( 2000 ) model, the late self-reflection phase prepares the next forethought phase.

Boekaerts’ Three-Layered Model of SRL

The three-layered model of SRL (Boekaerts, 1999 ) consists of three concentrical ellipses (see Fig. 1 a): The inner ellipse stands for the regulation of processing modes and is enclosed by the regulation of the learning process ellipse; both are encompassed by an ellipse that signifies the regulation of the self. The innermost ellipse can be seen as the typical way students learn. For self-regulation to occur on this level of the model, i.e., dealing adequately with a particular learning task by being able to adapt the course of action, the learner must perceive the choice between different cognitive strategies (Winne & Perry, 2000 ). The middle layer of the model represents the regulation of the learning processes, i.e. the learner guides and directs their learning process by monitoring whether they perform the task as planned in the inner ellipse. This is achieved using metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies, including orienting, planning, executing, monitoring, evaluating, and correcting (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986 ). Regulation on this level is done internally when students can set their own goals, but some do need external regulation, for example, the guidance of a teacher or parent. The outer layer integrates the regulation of the self, including aspects like volition and motivation. If learning activities are self-initiated, they are more likely driven by personal goals compared to externally initiated learning, which is mainly imposed by the wishes and expectations of others. In general, the learner’s overarching goals are potent drivers of behavior and can reveal how a learner regulates the self. The following section will give an overview of EF’s definitions and model to lay this construct's theoretical foundation for the systematic review.

a Cyclical model of self-regulation (Zimmerman, 2000 ) and  b three-layered model of SRL (Boekaerts, 1999 )

Executive Functions: Background, Definitions, Models

Executive functions (EF) describe a family of top-down or higher-order cognitive processes that are involved in goal-directed, flexible, and adaptive behavior and execute cognitive control through attentional, decision-making, and coordinative functions (Diamond, 2013 ; Miyake et al., 2000 ). Since the 1960s, Luria (e.g., Luria et al., 1967 ) systematically studied frontal lobe injuries and the accompanying effects (Suchy, 2009 ) and later described the functions of the frontal lobes as taking on an executive role (Goldstein et al., 2014a , b ; Luria, 1980 ). Therefore, neuroanatomy and neuropsychology had a significant impact on the emergence of EF research. Overview articles on EF (Jurado & Rosselli, 2007 ; Suchy, 2009 ) often include clinical populations like patients who suffered brain damage from accidents or diseases in their concept assessment. Furthermore, Jurado and Rosselli ( 2007 ) list an extensive collection of neuroimaging research that links cognitive abilities associated with EF, like planning, attentional control, cognitive flexibility, and verbal/nonverbal fluency, to brain areas like the frontal lobes, different subcortical structures, and thalamic pathways. Additionally to neuropsychological research, other lines of research played an essential part in developing the EF construct: Broadbent ( 1958 ) contributed to the topic via the distinction between automatic and controlled processes, and Shiffrin and Schneider ( 1977 ) proposed the concept of selective attention. Baddeley’s ( 1992 ) influential working memory model includes a component named the central executive, which is assumed to have specific control over attention and cognitive processes. Norman and Shallice ( 1986 ) see evidence for a so-called supervisory attentional system that can replace automatic action with intentional behavior. As with SRL, EF has been approached in many ways, leading to different understandings of the concept.

EF has become an umbrella term for a whole collection of cognitive processes and abilities, including “stopping prepotent or automatic responses, resisting distraction or interference from irrelevant information in the environment or memory, switching between task sets, aspects of working memory processes, dual tasking, planning, monitoring, and verbal and design fluency” (Friedman & Miyake, 2017 , p. 186). This, and the fact that Goldstein et al. ( 2014a , b ) cited over 30 construct definitions from EF researchers, makes it not trivial to define the concept for general use in this work. Based on the approaches to define EF supposed by Suchy ( 2009 ), we consider it beneficial to include neurocognitive processes (like working memory, sequencing, inhibition, initiation, and response selection), use constructivist definitions, and consider a list of complex skills (like planning, reasoning, problem-solving, and judgment). Executive functions are directive capacities responsible for a person’s ability to engage in purposeful, organized, strategic, self-regulated, goal-directed processing of perceptions, emotions, thoughts, and actions.

Although some models treat EF as a unitary construct, many EF researchers see evidence for EF being a multidimensional construct (Karr et al., 2018 ). In order to account for multidimensional models and the elementary neurocognitive processes approach, the well-established model of Miyake et al. ( 2000 ) will be explored in more detail. Miyake et al. ( 2000 ) build their model on three frequently proposed dimensions of EF: shifting, updating, and inhibition. The authors approach the topic via evidence for performance differences across executive tasks in clinical populations (e.g., Godefroy et al., 1999 ). Another consideration is that although the interrelations between different EF tasks are low, this does not necessarily indicate distinguishable EF because of the task impurity problem (Miyake & Shah, 1999 ). This means that when EF is being tested, the process requires other cognitive skills or functions that may be independent of EF-related brain structures but are reflected in the test results (Rabbitt, 1997 ).

To counter these challenges, Miyake et al. ( 2000 ) choose a latent variable analysis to explore EF’s organization and cognitive role. The latent EF used in this model has the advantage that it is, compared to more complex proposed EF-like problem-solving, relatively elementary and limited in functionality and, therefore, can be operationalized more precisely (Miyake et al., 2000 ). Shifting requires switching between tasks or mental sets and results in different temporal costs that may stem from a differing ability to engage and disengage from tasks or handle interference from previous tasks (Miyake et al., 2000 ). Updating (or working memory ) refers to a function that involves monitoring what kind of information is presented and relevant for the task at the moment and actively changing the information stored in the working memory by replacing old, irrelevant representations with new, relevant ones (Morris & Jones, 1990 ). Inhibition is consciously suppressing prevalent, automatic, or prepotent responses when needed (Miyake et al., 2000 ). Using confirmatory factor analysis, the authors conclude that a three-factor model for shifting, updating, and inhibition fits the gathered data best when statistically compared to the various conceivable two-factor models and a one-factor model. However, further model comparisons showed that three completely separable factors were statistically unlikely, suggesting that the EFs assessed had at least some fundamental commonality.

Several other models build upon the model of Miyake and expand it: Diamond ( 2013 ) amplified these primary EF and hypothesized that they could build the basis for complex and higher-ranked functions such as reasoning, problem-solving, and planning. By arranging different tasks on a continuum from simple to complex EF requirements, Luciana et al. ( 2005 ) aimed at integrating both simple and complex EF within one model: While spatial memory span is seen as a simple function with relatively low cognitive requirements, behavioral organization during spatial self-ordered search tasks is seen as a complex function with relatively high cognitive requirements. In contrast, Prencipe et al. ( 2011 ) use a differentiation based on the dominating involvement of the EF processes in other processes. While “cold” EFs (e.g., working memory) are mainly responsible for abstract processes, “hot” EFs (e.g., decision-making during delay of gratification situations) are influenced more by affective and motivational stimuli. Cold EFs, therefore, can be seen as the regulation basis for hot EFs (Hofmann et al., 2012 ). Both perspectives could be integrated if hot EFs were seen as more complex than cold EFs due to their emotional relevance. Figure 2 illustrates how all three perspectives could be integrated within one model (author, year).

Extended illustrative structure of EF. Processes on the left correspond to a model by Luciana et al. ( 2005 ); processes on the right correspond to a model by Prencipe et al. ( 2011 ), both integrating the primary EF functions of Miyake et al. ( 2000 ) and the higher-level functions of Diamond ( 2013 ) (adapted from author, year)

Similarities and Differences between SRL and EF

Based on the previous sections and the presented models, it can be resumed that SRL and EF have conceptual overlaps: Both constructs describe goal-related behavior and, therefore, higher-order cognitive processes with dynamic and regulatory functions that aim at monitoring, controlling, and regulating information processing and optimizing lower-level task processing (Roebers, 2017 ). Nevertheless, research histories of both constructs strongly differ as research on EF stems from frontal lobe functioning studies in clinical neuropsychology and also from developmental psychology (Roebers, 2017 ), while SRL is a concept of educational psychology that directly resulted from school studies (Dinsmore et al., 2008 ). In the following, we will describe several topics that help to uncover similarities and differences between SRL and EF.

Components of SRL and EF

When comparing SRL and EF on the component level, the review of Hofmann et al. ( 2012 ) can be very helpful as the authors proposed how EF components could be transferred to general self-regulation: while working memory is assumed to support the representation of goals, control of attention and shielding from distractions, inhibition is hypothesized to inhibit impulses and habitual behaviors that endanger goal achievement. Shifting could help individuals to switch flexibly between different strategies or multiple goals. As this transfer to self-regulation is not learning-specific, we illustrate how EF components could support SRL components (see also Hoyle & Dent, 2018 ): While working memory is necessary to process the information on the lowest level (cognitive component of SRL), it is also needed to monitor and control information processing (metacognitive component of SRL) as well as to actively represent goals and use these goals to control attention (motivational component of SRL). Inhibition is assumed to mainly support the motivational component of SRL as volitional strategies have to be used to maintain the motivation for goal achievement (and therefore shield learning processes from distracting thoughts). Shifting is hypothesized to mainly support metacognition, as the flexible adaption of the strategy used should result from monitoring and controlling learning processes. In line with this, Bol and Garner ( 2011 ) try to conceptualize SRL as an application of EF (for the context of learning in distance education environments with electronically enhanced texts). In general, they see “executive functions as neurocognitive processes that promote self-regulation at both the basic cognitive (e.g., attentional control) and metacognitive (e.g., planning and self-monitoring) levels” (Bol & Garner, 2011 , p. 114). The authors suggest EF variations may influence the SRL cycle during interactions with electronic learning material. Low EF, therefore, could lead to difficulties in goal setting and strategic planning, resulting in the inability to switch learning strategies when necessary. Moreover, they assume that EF supports attentional control, which is imperative during the volitional stage of SRL. Referring to the categorization of Prencipe et al. ( 2011 ), cold EF seems more likely to be related to the (meta-)cognitive component of SRL, while hot EF most likely are strongly related to the motivational component of SRL. For the differentiation between simple and complex EF (Diamond, 2013 ; Luciana et al., 2005 ), the transfer to SRL is not as easy as SRL strategies most likely can be seen as complex (due to their general reliance on metacognitive knowledge and skills).

In conclusion, regarding the theoretical component level of both SRL (cognition, metacognition, and motivation; referring to the model of Boekaerts, 1999 ) and EF (working memory, inhibition, shifting; referring to the model of Miyake et al., 2000 ), it can be assumed that EF components support the different SRL components in various ways with some EF components are likely to have a more substantial influence on SRL components than others (e.g., working memory seems to support all three SRL components, while inhibition and shifting mainly support one SRL component). Regarding process models of SRL, such as Zimmerman’s model ( 2000 ), it is evident that SRL is more than the sum of the components: The cyclical nature of the model highlights that an optimal SRL process encompasses different phases (which all comprise several SRL components themselves). One phase can only be executed in an optimal goal-oriented way if the previous phase has been passed successfully. Each phase gives hints to the learners about whether the behavior is still goal-oriented and where they can regulate their behavior through strategy application. The feedback loop from the reflection to the following planning phase is enormously important as the learner can conclude previous learning cycles and the possible outcomes (success/failure). This cyclical nature is missing in the above-described EF models and helps to differentiate both constructs. In EF models, the different components are more collocated, and how they interfere with one another is not apparent nor theoretically deduced. This is also obvious when looking at the model of Miyake et al. ( 2000 ), who used a latent variables analysis approach. The three-factor model was the best-fitting model compared to the two-factor and one-factor models.

• Metacognition

In general, metacognition is defined as “thinking about thinking” or, more specifically, as “knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomena (Flavell, 1979 , p. 906). In his seminal work, Flavell ( 1979 ) distinguished between metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experiences: Metacognitive knowledge describes knowledge or beliefs about the interaction of different factors and their influence on the outcomes of cognitive processes. This knowledge can refer to persons (e.g., some people can better learn through hearing than through reading), task demands/goals (e.g., some tasks/goals are easier to accomplish/achieve than others), and strategies to achieve these goals (e.g., repeating is a valuable strategy to learn word lists but not to understand Maths). Metacognitive experiences are conscious reflections about cognition and primarily arise in cognitively challenging situations that require a lot of decisions, planning, and evaluation. Metacognitive experiences interact with and help to form and develop metacognitive knowledge. Besides metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experiences, Veenman et al. ( 2006 ) introduce metacognitive skills, which are about a “person’s procedural knowledge for regulating one’s problem-solving and learning activities” (e.g., planning a learning task; p. 4).

Besides Flavell’s work, Nelson and Narens’s ( 1990 ) model is essential when describing metacognition. Their conceptual framework on the relation of metacognition and cognition defines an object-level (basic information processing operations) and a meta-level (learner’s model of the task and cognitive operations during performance). Metacognitive monitoring processes connect both levels cyclically as they transfer information about the object-level to the meta-level. Moreover, the meta-level can initiate control processes and regulate object-level processes to reach a specific goal. Pintrich et al. ( 2000 ) combine the work of Flavell ( 1979 ) and Nelson and Narens ( 1990 ) and state that metacognition comprises metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring and judgments, and metacognitive control. The authors describe that metacognitive knowledge can either refer to declarative (“What”), procedural (“How”), or conditional (“When” and “Why”) strategy knowledge. In contrast, metacognitive monitoring refers to the learner’s awareness regarding his/her current knowledge or learning process evaluation (Dunlosky and Metcalfe, 2008 ). It is deemed a “situation-specific and context-dependent” process that acts on the object-level and helps the learner regulate the learning process on the meta-level (Händel and Dresel, 2022 , p. 2). Metacognitive judgments (i.e., a probabilistic judgment on performance quality) are indicators for metacognitive monitoring (Nelson and Narens, 1990 ). The process of selecting and using strategies for adapting learning processes is called metacognitive control.

For the overlap between general self-regulation, SRL, and metacognition, Dinsmore et al. ( 2008 ) report seven keywords within their review that unite all three constructs, which are “monitor, control, regulate, cognition, motivation, behavior, and knowledge” (p. 400). It is obvious that the first four keywords are also highly relevant when describing EF and that the overlap between EF and SRL mainly refers to the metacognitive component of SRL (Boekaerts, 1999 ). Metacognition, therefore, seems to play a special role in the relationship between SRL and EF as both correlate with knowledge and control of one’s cognitive processes and with metacognition (Follmer & Sperling, 2016 ). Metacognition is a highly relevant construct on its own, but it is also an essential subcomponent of EF and SRL (Hoyle & Dent, 2018 ). The motivational component of SRL, which refers to initiating learning processes and pursuing goal achievement using volitional strategies, shows partial overlap with what hot EF means.

Developmental Aspects

Concerning developmental aspects, children have already established the foundation for SRL during preschool and primary education (Bronson, 2000 ; Chatzipanteli et al., 2014 ). However, their skill sets are further strengthened and expanded by experiences throughout secondary and tertiary education (Hoyle & Dent, 2018 ). For EF, essential development occurs before the age of six, as the foundations for working memory, inhibition, and updating are laid out at the preschool age (Welsh, 2001 ). These three core components and the advancement of complex thinking, planning, and decision-making can be observed from elementary school to adolescence (Roebers, 2017 ; Welsh, 2001 ). Based on this somewhat earlier onset of development for EF than for metacognition, Roebers ( 2017 ) hypothesizes that EF has a causal role in the development of metacognition in early years, with this influence diminishing when domain-specific knowledge comes into play (which is important for metacognitive development). Karr et al. ( 2018 ) found a divergence of EF from preschool into adulthood. In contrast, Rheinberg et al. ( 2000 ) see a rising demand for SRL abilities with increasingly complex learning materials in higher grades. It could be argued that both concepts are subject to change throughout life. Thus, researchers could try to conclude their relationship from empirically observable parallel or divergent developments.

Measurement

Concerning measurement, SRL is mainly measured in authentic learning environments that ensure external validity, and the studies mostly show a cross-sectional or longitudinal instead of an experimental design (Kim et al., 2023 ). This is frequently done using self-report questionnaires that are sometimes very general (referring to learning tasks in general, e.g., Dörrenbächer & Perels, 2016 ) but sometimes domain- or course-specific (Roth et al., 2016 ). Using more context-sensitive measures such as microanalysis or trace data can help assess SRL in a task-specific and, therefore, more objective way (Dörrenbächer-Ulrich et al., 2021 ). In general, there is no clear answer on how to measure SRL optimally as all assessment methods show benefits and points of criticism (Rovers et al., 2019 ), so the choice of instrument often depends on the theoretical model or the aim of the study. In contrast, EF is mainly measured decontextualized using single tasks to assess specific components of EF or task batteries that assess more than one EF component (Chan et al., 2008 ). For example, the “Stroop Test” is probably the best-known test for assessing the inhibition component of EF. At the same time, the “Wisconsin Card Sorting Test” (Heaton & PAR Staff, 1993 ) is a prominent test to measure the shifting component, and the “Tower of London” (Shallice, 1982 ) is often used to measure the planning component. These tasks are primarily applied in laboratory and highly controlled studies. Besides task-based tests, there are also questionnaires to measure EF (impairment) in everyday situations, such as the “Naturalistic Action Test” (Schwartz et al., 2002 ).

Achievement Criteria and Intervention Studies

For achievement, it can be stated that both SRL and EF show substantial relations to academic performance measures. For SRL, meta-analyses show a positive relationship to achievement but with low effect sizes (e.g., Broadbent & Poon, 2015 ; Dent & Koenka, 2016 ). EF is a valid predictor for academic achievement (McClelland et al., 2013 ; Titz & Karbach, 2014 ) and can explain about 20–60% of school children’s achievement variance (Roebers et al., 2014 ), while this has been shown for elementary up to high school students. As both SRL and EF are positively related to academic achievement, it is helpful to look at the relationship of both constructs to achievement outcomes to find overlaps and differences between SRL and EF.

Literature addressing the fostering of SRL (e.g., Perels et al., 2020 ) or EF (e.g., Dawson & Guare, 2014 ) can serve as another indicator for concept overlaps. For example, if respective interventions aimed at fostering one of the concepts lead to qualitative changes in the other concept (defined as “far transfer”; see Kassai et al., 2019 ), this could indicate conceptual overlaps or entanglements. However, it is essential to consider how the interventions were designed and whether they exclusively foster one or both constructs, in this case, conclusions about conceptual relationships are challenging to draw.

Aims of the Present Systematic Review

The aim of compiling this theoretical background on SRL and EF was to explore the emergence and different definitions of the two concepts and the models that attempt to structure them. As has become evident, the two constructs are broad, defined, and modeled in many ways, and primarily grounded in different research fields. Moreover, we aimed to sum up the similarities and differences between the constructs by comparing their components, their development, ways of measuring both constructs and their relationship to achievement. In the systematic analysis, an effort will be made to structure associations between SRL and EF in a way that allows parallels to be drawn between different categories of relationships across studies. This way, findings from correlational associations could be compared with those from SRL-EF mediation modeling to reach more reliable conclusions about possible concept overlaps or entanglements. Another goal is to clarify whether SRL or EF is an application of the other or whether other directional connections can be found. Embedding these results in the thoroughly researched theoretical background may lead to insights regarding the shortcomings of the analyzed study designs, which may benefit future research. In conclusion, we aimed to investigate the following research questions:

RQ 1: How are SRL and EF related, and does this relationship depend on the age of the study sample or measurement methods?

RQ 2: What role does metacognition play within the relationship of SRL and EF?

RQ 3: How are SRL and EF related to academic achievement?

RQ 4: What are the results of longitudinal or interventional studies on the relationship between SRL and EF?

To compile the literature and systematically compare SRL and EF, a search engine had to be chosen first, and search parameters had to be defined. EBSCO, a provider of research databases, electronic journals, journal subscriptions, e-books, and discovery services, was chosen as the literature source. On its search engine EBSCOhost, the relevant databases “APA PsycArticles”, “APA PsycInfo”, “ERIC” and “PSYNDEX Literature with PSYNDEX Tests” were searched as follows: On January 31, 2024, the search string “TX ( self-regulated learning OR srl) AND TX ( executive function OR executive functioning)” resulted in 214 potential sources. No further restrictions were placed on the search criteria. Thus, non-peer-reviewed sources were also included, and no time limits regarding the date of publication were set. Of the 214 sources found, eleven exact duplicates were removed, leaving 203 sources to be studied in terms of content.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

For this review, several inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined: as this review aims at giving a first overview of studies dealing with the relationship between SRL and EF and therefore aims to integrate both constructs on a general and conceptual level, sources that examined clinical populations, like individuals diagnosed with ADHD (e.g., Sibley et al., 2019 ) or autism spectrum disorder (e.g., Grainger et al., 2016 ) were excluded. Given that all studies were in English, none had to be excluded based on language. All papers that addressed any conceptual relationship or comparison between SRL and EF were considered to meet the inclusion criteria. For example, studies that described correlations (e.g., Effeney et al., 2013 ), mediation models (e.g., Follmer & Sperling, 2016 ), divergences, and convergences of the two concepts (e.g., Garner, 2009 ) were included. At this point, it should be reiterated that the goal is to systematically extract the researchers’ results and conclusions on the relation between SRL and EF, not to compare results focusing exclusively on one of the constructs. Based on the abstracts, 161 papers were excluded according to the above criteria. In contrast, most papers were excluded as they did not focus on self-regulated learning (e.g., they mentioned the construct in the discussion but did not examine it in the main study) or as they did not investigate the relationship between both constructs. If the exclusion and inclusion criteria could not be applied without a doubt, the papers were retained in the literature pool for further analysis. In addition, six studies were excluded because they were not accessible through databases acquired by the University’s libraries. Of the remaining 36 potential sources, an extra 19 were excluded after additional textual examination following the exclusion and inclusion criteria. Both authors made the analysis of these 36 sources, and in the case of non-convergence, the authors discussed why to keep or exclude a paper. As we detected two papers matching our criteria cited within the previously found texts, altogether 19 sources remained for in-depth analysis (see Fig. 3 ; Page et al., 2021 ).

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram. *APA PsycArticles ( n  = 113), APA PsycInfo ( n  = 84), ERIC ( n  = 13), and PSYNDEX Literature with PSYNDEX Tests ( n  = 4)

Categorization Structure for the Analysis

To compile the researchers’ results and conclusions and assess them systematically, first, a structure was designed to categorize them. The categories were formed based on the theoretical foundations and the abovementioned points in which the constructs show differences. We, therefore, categorize the results concerning the age or developmental stage, type of measurement, role of metacognition, relation to achievement, and longitudinal studies/interventions. In order to classify the measures within single studies as referring to SRL or EF, we stuck to the classification used by the original study’s authors.

Correlations of SRL and EF

As it has been expected , most of the analyzed research papers examine relationships between SRL and EF or, more often, relationships between concept subcomponents. In order to categorize the findings and answer our first research question, if relations of SRL and EF differ depending on age or measurement methods, we will analyze the research papers concerning these two factors. For an overview of all studies and core results, see Table 1 . As Bol and Garner’s ( 2011 ) paper was theoretical, we did not integrate it into our results synopsis. The systematic review of Dörrenbächer-Ulrich et al. ( 2023 ) will only be integrated into our theory-building discussion section.

Comparison of Different Age Groups

Overall, we found five studies that examined the relation of SRL and EF in preschoolers , but only four included information on correlational coefficients. In general, the studies found low to moderate relations between SRL and EF in preschoolers: Davis et al. ( 2021 ) studied a sample of children at the end of kindergarten and again, 1 year later, at the end of their first school year. The SRL teacher rating correlated significantly moderately with the direct EF measures at T1 and low to moderate at T2. Using a direct, quantitative SRL measurement tool for preschoolers, Jacob et al. ( 2019b ) found a significant, low correlation to an EF planning assessment task. In the study of Grüneisen et al. ( 2023 ), analyses showed a moderate correlation between hot EF and a composite SRL measure (strategy knowledge test + parent rating). In accordance, Vitiello’s and Greenfield’s ( 2017 ) study resulted in low to low-moderate associations between an EF task battery and a teacher rating scale for approaches to learning (which they equate with SRL).

Four studies dealt with the relationship between SRL and EF in elementary school children , but two used the same sample (Cirino et al., 2018 , 2019 ). In general, correlations between measures of EF and SRL seem to be low in elementary school children. While Cirino et al. ( 2017 ) found the SRL and direct EF measures to be only weakly related to one another, Cirino et al. ( 2018 ) found low correlations between SRL scales and EF measures, with most correlations being non-significant. In a sample of third graders, measures for inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility correlated positively and moderately with SRL scores. In contrast, scores from the backward digit span task did not significantly correlate with SRL scores (Rutherford et al., 2018 ).

Only two studies analyzed the relation of SRL and EF in adolescent learners and partially showed moderate correlations. Effeney et al. ( 2013 ) conducted a study with children aged 10.5 to 17.5 years. They used both a self-report measure for SRL and EF. The EF total score and the SRL global score correlated moderately. Standard regression analysis resulted in the EF global score being a significant predictor of the SRL global score and explaining a significant proportion of variance in the SRL global score (18.8%). The analyses of Gestsdottir et al. ( 2023 ) resulted in non-significant correlations between different EF measures and the Self-efficacy for Self-Regulated Learning questionnaire. Only the working memory reaction time showed a significant moderate correlation.

We identified four articles on the relationship between SRL and EF in college students and adult learners . In general, correlations between measures of SRL and EF tend to be low to moderate in college and adult learners. In a sample of undergraduate students, Follmer and Sperling ( 2016 ) found a significant moderate correlation between the SRL score and an indirect EF measure and a significant but lower correlation between the SRL score and the direct EF measures. Studying the relationship between self-reported SRL and self-reported EF, Garner ( 2009 ) reported low to moderate correlations between the constructs’ components. The SRL subscale on intrinsic goal orientation showed the highest correlation with the EF motivational subscale. Meijs et al. ( 2021 ) measured self-reported SRL strategy use and utilized cognitive tests on working memory, shifting, and processing speed for EF. While time and effort management and complex cognitive strategy use were not predicted by any of the EF measures, simple cognitive strategy use was negatively predicted by processing speed, and critical thinking was positively predicted by shifting. In a sample of college freshmen, Petersen et al. ( 2006 ) used a self-report measure for SRL and EF. The analyses resulted in moderate correlations between the SRL self-report measure subscales and the EF total score (inversely scored). The authors found a shared variance between the SRL and EF measure of 33.2%.

Comparison of Different Measurement Methods

As EF can be measured using indirect (e.g., questionnaire) and direct (e.g., cognitive tasks) measures, we looked at differences in correlational patterns depending on the assessment method used. Table 1 overviews the SRL and EF measures used and the correlations found. We identified six studies that measured SRL and EF using indirect measures. In general, correlations between both constructs are higher if both are measured using indirect assessment methods (compared to EF measured directly). As can be seen in Table 1 , the studies used differing indirect measures for SRL (e.g., SSRLS, MSLQ, SRSI-SR, LASSI, MAI, TMQ, observational teacher rating; see Supplementary Material for further details concerning the measurement methods) and for EF (BRIEF, EFI, ESQ, EFRS). Nevertheless, all studies found moderate to high correlations between both constructs and their components. The correlations ranged between |.10|<  r  <|.61|.

Concerning studies that measured SRL indirectly and EF directly, we identified twelve studies. These studies also used varying indirect measures for SRL (HWD, HDD, SLQ, CLS, CHILD, MSLQ, SRSI-SR, self-efficacy for SRL questionnaire, knowledge test, teacher ratings, parent ratings, MAI, TMQ, PLBS, inCLASS) and a large variety of direct measure for assessing EF processes (due to the high amount of different direct EF tasks, we do not repeat them here). In contrast to the correlations reported for indirect SRL and indirect EF measures, the correlations between indirect SRL and direct EF measures turn out to be low to moderate and ranged between |.02|<  r  <|.36|, while it has to be stated that some studies also reported negative correlations between both constructs (e.g., Cirino et al., 2018 ).

The Role of Metacognition within the Relation of SRL and EF

Our search indicated five studies that took a closer look at the role of metacognition within the relationship between SRL and EF. In general, all three constructs are related moderately, and there is first evidence that metacognition acts as a mediator between EF and SRL. Effeney et al. ( 2013 ) used self-report measures for SRL and EF. The Behavioural Rating Inventory of Executive Function and Self-Report (BRIEF–SR, Guy et al., 2004 ) consists of the Behavioral Regulation Index (BRI; inhibition, shifting, emotional control, monitoring) and the Metacognitive Index (MI; working memory, planning, organization of materials, task completion) which both are inversely coded. The authors found higher correlations between the BRIEF-MI and SRL measures than between the BRIEF-BRI and SRL measures. Follmer and Sperling ( 2016 ) calculated two models to investigate if metacognition mediates the relationship between EF and SRL: The first model used self-reported metacognition as a mediator between indirect EF and SRL and between direct EF and SRL in the second model. For both models, they found metacognition to act as a mediator between EF and SRL. However, the direct effect of EF on SRL was not significant in the second model, suggesting that the effect of direct EF on indirect SRL was fully mediated by metacognition.

Follmer ( 2021 ) found moderate to high correlations between two indirect EF scores and an indirect metacognition measure. Nevertheless, three direct EF measures were not significantly correlated with the indirect metacognition measure. The moderate to high correlations between indirect metacognition and EF are in line with the result of Garner ( 2009 ), who found indirect metacognition and EF to be significantly correlated. Using exploratory factor analysis for the constructs of EF, SRL, and metacognition, Said ( 2014 ) found three factors that help to differentiate between high-achieving and low-achieving students: The first factor included metacognitive and behavioral EF scales, academic self-efficacy, and time management. Declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and knowledge monitoring ability are loaded onto the second factor. The direct EF measures are loaded onto the third factor.

Integrating Academic Achievement into the Relation of SRL and EF

We found five studies that integrated academic achievement measures into the examination of SRL and EF. In general, both constructs are positively related to academic achievement, and the first results hint at a mediating role of SRL in the relationship between EF and achievement. Vitiello and Greenfield ( 2017 ) tested the hypothesis that approaches to learning (which they adequate to SRL) mediate the relationship between EF and change in school readiness in preschoolers. Using structural equation modeling, the authors rejected their hypothesis but noted that the findings link SRL and EF to gains in school readiness. In contrast, the study of Grüneisen et al. ( 2023 ) supports the hypothesis of SRL acting as a mediator for the relationship between EF and achievement within a preschool sample. While EF was not related to academic competence, SRL showed a moderate relation to academic competence, and there was a significant indirect effect from EF via SRL on academic competence.

Within a sample of elementary school children, Rutherford et al. ( 2018 ) investigated the shared associations between SRL, EF, and academic achievement. The direct EF measure was a statistically significant predictor of academic achievement and of the SRL measure, which suggests that facets of EF can support SRL. Additionally, SRL had its own statistically significant direct path to achievement in all mediation models and mediated the effect of EF on achievement (at least partially). The study’s measurement timing supports the conclusion that better EF leads to more successful SRL, so improving EF may lead to higher performance scores via enhancing SRL. In a study with secondary school students (Gestsdottir et al.,  2023 ), SRL showed a positive moderate relationship with grade measures of the same year, while none of the EF measures showed significant relationships with achievement. Nevertheless, for the grades of the following year, there was no significant relationship with the SRL measure but a significant negative relationship with reaction times for the shifting measures (lower reaction times indicate better performance). In a sample of college students, Said ( 2014 ) conducted an exploratory factor analysis to find factors that represent SRL, metacognitive strategies, and EF. The author found three factors in which high-achieving students differed significantly from low-achieving students.

Results from Longitudinal and Interventional Studies

We found four studies using a longitudinal or interventional design that could help to detangle possible causal relationships between SRL and EF. Until now, findings are too scarce to find a general pattern, but the first results hint at the predictive value of EF for SRL but not vice versa. Davis et al. ( 2021 ) conducted a longitudinal study with two measurement points and studied a sample of children at the end of kindergarten and their first school year. Using cross-lagged panel analysis, the author concludes that results support the assumption that children’s EF longitudinally predicts future SRL to a moderate extent but not vice versa. The authors also tested a common factor model that fitted the data well, which they interpreted as indicating that SRL and EF measures could reflect the same underlying construct. Moreover, they tested different models that helped rule out alternative SRL-EF relationships (e.g., early SRL benefitting later EF or reciprocal relations).

Jacob et al. ( 2019a ) examined how an SRL intervention influences SRL and EF in preschoolers with different SRL precursor profiles. Although the intervention showed no effect, their findings suggest that high speech competency, in combination with high self-regulation, plays an essential part in acquiring SRL. However, this advantage did not show up for EF. Gestsdottir et al. ( 2023 ) measured SRL and EF in Grade 6 and several outcome measures (e.g., achievement, depression, anxiety, risky behavior) in Grade 6 and Grade 7. While they found EF deficits to be a stronger predictor for future development than for the concurrent state of risky behavior and internalizing symptoms of depression and anxiety, SRL was a stronger predictor for concurrent than future academic achievement. Even though Cirino et al. ( 2017 ) investigated the effects of SRL/EF training on reading comprehension, the experiment was designed so that SRL and EF training influences on reading comprehension could not be separated.

Synthesis and Assessment of the Systematic Analysis Results

In general, it can be stated that until now, a relatively small number of studies have investigated the relationship of SRL and EF albeit the theoretical overlap of both constructs. In conclusion, a low to moderate correlational relationship between SRL and EF has been confirmed for many SRL and EF measurements, with indirect measures correlating higher. Treated as a subscale of SRL or EF self-report measures, metacognition regularly shows high correlations with other subscales of SRL or EF self-report measures, and there is evidence that it mediates the relationship between SRL and EF. Given these results and the directional models identified, the notion that EF predicts SRL but not vice versa is supported. The results will be synthesized and discussed in the following section, focusing on the single research questions.

How are SRL and EF Related, and Does This Relationship Depend on the Age of the Study Sample or Measurement Methods?

Of the 19 works analyzed, 14 reported correlations between SRL and EF measures or measurement subcomponents, representing the most comprehensive comparison category between the two constructs. Concerning age differences , there are no clear patterns recognizable as most studies report low to moderate correlations of SRL and EF, not depending on age group. This is unsatisfying as we cannot draw any conclusion about developmental trajectories using the results of the reviewed studies. Although we have separated the study results depending on age group and found no effect, the results of Effeney et al. ( 2013 ) confirmed that age impacts the correlation between SRL and EF. This is why, for example, SRL-EF correlations in college students can only be compared to a limited extent to SRL-EF correlations in preschoolers. This is also underlined by the fact that self-report measures for SRL and EF show high correlations, especially for self-report measures (see below). However, these measures strongly depend on the verbal abilities of the participants. It, therefore, is unclear how far self-reports can be compared for age groups that heavily differ concerning the requirements to answer such questionnaires (verbal abilities, metacognitive competencies). To gain deeper insight into age influences on the correlation of SRL and EF, studies are needed that investigate the relationship using comparable measures within different age groups. Multimethod assessment of both SRL and EF using indirect and direct measures for different age groups could be very enlightening concerning age influences concerning the SRL-EF relationship.

What seems to make a more significant distinction regarding sizes of correlations of SRL and EF are the measurement methods used: While studies that measure both SRL and EF indirectly using questionnaires or teacher ratings result in moderate to high correlations between the constructs (e.g., Effeney et al., 2013 ; Follmer & Sperling, 2016 ), studies that measure EF directly instead show low to moderate correlations (e.g., Gestsdottir et al.,  2023 ; Meijs et al., 2021 ). This pattern seems to reflect an underlying influence of common method variance (Söhnchen, 2009 ) and, therefore, must be treated cautiously. It could also result from an acquiescence tendency in self-reports (mainly found in younger children, e.g., Mehrani & Peterson, 2018 ), which questions the validity of such scales. Moreover, the finding aligns with the results of the meta-analysis of Duckworth and Kern ( 2011 ), who found that different self-control questionnaires correlated strongly with different executive function tasks, which showed low convergent validity. In addition, EF mainly was not analyzed using multiple individual measures for each latent variable shifting, updating, and inhibition as proposed by Miyake et al. ( 2000 ), which may have resulted in them not being fully represented. Likewise, measures such as performance on the Tower Task may not fully capture EF (see Complex Executive Tasks in Miyake et al., 2000 ). Another explanation may be that these low correlations result from direct and self-report measures capturing aspects of the constructs that show less overlapping. This seems consistent with the many different approaches to EF mentioned earlier. Notably absent from this review is work reporting correlations between EF self-report measures and SRL non-self-report measures, as well as both direct EF measures and direct SRL measures (e.g., microanalysis; Cleary & Callan, 2018 ). Therefore, permuting measuring instrument methods could help connect the dots, and studies using direct and indirect measures for both SRL and EF could help to detangle the influence of measurement methods and the actual conceptual overlap of both constructs.

In general, all studies used a broad range of differing measures, which complicated the comparison of results. Nevertheless, as there were primarily low to moderate correlations despite using different measurement methods, this seems to speak to the robustness of the relationship between these concepts and, at the same time, underlines the haziness that these constructs can have. This becomes more evident with the fact that in several studies, measures for SRL were constructed with a relatively simple subscale structure and showed low reliability (e.g., HWD in Cirino et al., 2017 ), were newly developed (Jacob et al., 2019b ), or were constructed by selecting behavioral questions from a list, seemingly without prior evaluation trials (Rutherford et al., 2018 ). Concerning EF, a wide range of measures were used within the studies, and this became most evident in the study of Cirino et al. ( 2019 ), who used 27 measures to assess EF. Grouping all the different measures under the same SRL or EF construct exacerbates this fuzziness and limits the validity of statements about SRL-EF relationships. Moreover, the empirical overlap between SRL and EF strongly depends on how the measurement methods define the concepts: One of the highest correlations was found between a self-report questionnaire for SRL (SSRLS) and the BRIEF-SR for EF (Effeney et al., 2013 ; |.15|<  r  <|.61|). In this example, it is evident that both questionnaires show comparable subscales (SSRLS: goal setting and planning, self-efficacy for goal achievement, using task strategies, self-motivation; self-monitoring and self-evaluation; BRIEF-SR: Inhibit, Shift, Emotional Control, Monitor, Working Memory, Plan/Organise, Organisation of Materials, Task Completion) although the SRL questionnaire focuses on academic goals and the EF questionnaires focuses on everyday life goals. Therefore, theoretical foundations of measurement methods must be considered when interpreting the results.

What Role Does Metacognition Play Within the Relationship of SRL and EF?

Studies investigating the mediating role of metacognition within the relationship of SRL and EF speak in favor of this hypothesis, although not many studies have yet examined such models. In the study of Follmer and Sperling ( 2016 ), the mediation effect was more pronounced in a model using direct EF measure scores (inhibition and shifting instead of indirect measure), where the effect of EF on SRL was transmitted fully by metacognition. Effeney et al. ( 2013 ) conclude that their findings lend “support to descriptions of SRL and EF that are couched in terms of metacognition … and give[s] rise to the notion that metacognition occupies the conceptual “middle ground” between EF and SRL” (pp. 787–788). Moreover, Effeney et al. ( 2013 ) see their results supporting the notion that EF shares the “conceptual core” outlined by Dinsmore et al. ( 2008 ), that is, the endeavors that individuals make to watch over their thoughts and actions and act accordingly to gain some degree of control over them. In line with this, Cirino et al. ( 2018 ) identified SRL and metacognition as components of EF. The model that fitted the data best was a bifactor model with a common EF factor and five specific factors for working memory span/manipulation and planning, working memory updating, generative fluency, SRL, and metacognition. Nevertheless, the generally high correlations between EF, SRL, and metacognition and the possible mediating effect of metacognition should also be seen in light of the influence of measurement methods (see above). It is further worth mentioning that the works of Garner ( 2009 ), Effeney et al. ( 2013 ), Follmer and Sperling ( 2016 ), and Follmer ( 2021 ) in a way build on each other, as they all refer to their respective predecessors. This might have led to adapting similar views, taking convergent approaches, using related measures, and obtaining similar results.

How are SRL and EF Related to Academic Achievement?

Concerning the integration of achievement, it can be stated that both SRL and EF are positively related to academic achievement. Said ( 2014 ) presents a three-factorial model of SRL (integrating EF) that can be used to differentiate between low-achieving and high-achieving students with high effect sizes. Concerning the predictive validity of SLR and EF for academic outcomes and achievement, the results pattern found in the included studies is unclear: While in the study of Gestsdottir et al. ( 2023 ), SRL was found to be correlated to academic outcomes with EF measures showing no significant correlations, EF seems to be a stronger predictor than SRL for reading outcomes (Cirino et al., 2019 ) and school readiness (Vitiello & Greenfield, 2017 ). Using mediation models, Rutherford et al. ( 2018 ) showed that SRL mediated the relationship between EF and achievement, with both EF and SRL having their direct pathway to achievement. Grüneisen et al. ( 2023 ) found the same pattern of mediation in a sample of preschoolers, while EF was not related to academic competence in this study. It could be argued that academic achievement is closely linked to SRL, as SRL is usually assessed using academic tasks or contexts (Kim et al., 2023 ), while EF is mainly assessed decontextualized using cognitive tasks (Chan et al., 2008 ). Nevertheless, previous research results rather speak in favor of EF being a stronger predictor for academic achievement than SLR (Dent & Koenka, 2016 ; Titz & Karbach, 2014 ). However, these studies did not include both SRL and EF and, therefore, could not directly compare the predictive value of both constructs. Future studies should aim to specifically compare correlations of SLR and EF to academic achievement and further examine the previously found mediating role of SRL for the relationship between EF and achievement.

What are the Results of Longitudinal or Interventional Studies on the Relationship Between SRL and EF?

Concerning longitudinal and intervention studies, there is not much research yet that can be used to draw a conclusion. Evidence from cross-lagged panel analysis confirms that EF longitudinally predicts future SRL to a moderate extent in children (Davis et al., 2021 ). However, a common factor model allows for the interpretation that EF and SRL measures could equally well reflect the same underlying construct (Davis et al., 2021 ). We only detected one training study, which showed that SRL training did not influence EF (Jacob et al., 2019a ). Unfortunately, the longitudinal study of Gestsdottir et al. (2022) did not report cross-lagged correlations of SRL and EF. Due to this small basis, we cannot draw valid conclusions regarding the longitudinal relationship between SRL and EF yet, albeit present results speak in favor of EF predicting SRL and not vice versa. Future research, therefore, should target longitudinal studies using cross-lagged panel designs. In doing so, mediation analysis could uncover whether metacognition (longitudinally) mediates the relationship between EF and SRL. Training studies investigating far transfer (Kassai et al., 2019 ) to examine if SRL training would influence EF and vice versa would be especially helpful in detangling possible causal relationships.

Limitations of the Systematic Review

With 19 works analyzed, this review accumulated a relatively small set of results, limiting the validity of results that have not been sufficiently replicated. This may be because there is little literature on the subject, but it could also result from the systematic search process. The age of the literature analyzed supports this assertion, as the concepts of interest have been described in detail for well over 20 years in the case of SRL and decades longer in the case of EF, but the bulk of the literature analyzed is from the last 5 years. One reason for this is that in older articles, links between SRL and EF have been discussed on a componential level without mentioning both superordinate constructs (e.g., Bjorklund & Kipp, 1996 ; Pintrich & Zusho, 2002 ). Another reason is using alternative names for SRL or related constructs like self-regulation in academic contexts, approaches to learning, or learning-related skills. In these cases, the search process did not include inclusion in the literature pool, which may have resulted in a significant number of results on this topic being omitted.

Another limiting factor of this work is that in synthesizing the studies to attain some conclusions, results from directly and indirectly measured EF and self-reported and teacher-reported SRL were combined. As discussed above, this could have led to inaccurate conclusions. With more data available, it could become more accessible to determine which measure results can be subsumed and which must be considered separately. Although concerns were raised above about the quality of some measuring instruments, it was not within the scope of this work to verify how well SRL and EF were operationalized in each study. Examining correlating subscales of SRL and EF measures at a more profound (e.g., item) level could help decide which measure results can be compared and synthesized and would increase the precision of conclusions. Besides this measurement-related criticism, several studies had quite specific samples in that they oversampled for struggling readers (Cirino et al., 2017 , 2018 ), examined only male participants from a boys’ private school (Effeney et al., 2013 ), or had participants from predominantly low socioeconomic background (Rutherford et al., 2018 ; Vitiello & Greenfield, 2017 ). It can be assumed that not all results of these studies apply to an average population.

Implications for Theory

As outlined in the theoretical background section, SRL and EF both describe goal-related behavior (Miyake et al., 2000 ; Pintrich et al., 2000 ), including metacognitive monitoring and regulating behavioral aspects (Roebers, 2017 ). Despite this theoretical overlap, SRL and EF have been investigated somewhat unconnectedly, as SRL is a construct of educational psychology. At the same time, EF stems from cognitive and developmental psychology. Building upon the results of the present review, it can be stated that both constructs are related, but the size of correlations found was lower than expected for concepts that show this amount of theoretical overlap. One reason for that probably is the differing contexts when measuring SRL and EF: while SRL is always measured contextualized, referring to learning tasks, EF primarily are measured decontextualized using laboratory tasks. When EF is measured using questionnaires, some contextual factors come into play, but these differ from SRL as they are more related to everyday life. Another possible explanation that deserves further examination comes from the study of Meijs et al. ( 2021 ): The authors partially found negative relations between EF tasks and SRL components (which were also found in the studies of Cirino et al., 2017 , and Gestsdottir et al. 2023 ) and explain this by hypothesizing that students who can shift quickly and show high processing speed need less time for academic thinking and the execution of simple cognitive strategies (and therefore SRL). This would suggest an inverted U-shaped relationship, i.e., that students with relatively high EF show low SRL competencies (as they do not need them or do not frequently use them). Students with relatively low EF competencies should also show low SRL competencies as they do not have the essential regulatory capacities for using SLR strategies. Future research could investigate if a high relationship between SRL and EF is only found for students with average EF competencies (and not for low and high EF competencies).

Referring to the models of SRL presented in the theoretical background, it can be assumed that the authors’ concept definitions are reflected to some degree in the measures used: Fourteen studies refer to either Pintrich ( 2000 ) or Zimmerman ( 2000 ) when defining or describing SRL. Unfortunately, no study has investigated the phases of SRL, albeit using Zimmerman’s cyclical model ( 2000 ). This would be especially interesting as it seems possible that some EF components show higher overlaps to some phase-specific SRL strategies (e.g., inhibition should be mostly relevant for the performance phase of learning when learning needs to be shielded from distractors). Concerning Boekaerts’ ( 1999 ) SRL definitions or models, only two studies mentioned the three components in their theoretical introduction. Examining the components would be particularly helpful to detangle SRL and EF as it may be the case that some SRL components show higher overlap to some EF components (e.g., the metacognitive component of SRL should be highly related to working memory [needed for monitoring of goal progress] or complex EF like planning). We found that twelve studies referred to the EF model of Miyake et al. ( 2000 ) in some way, but few defined EF using this model. This is also obvious when looking at how EF was measured: Only a few studies measured all three components (inhibition, working memory, shifting), and if they did, these were always measured using cognitive tasks. If EF were measured using questionnaires, the components were not differentiated as the questionnaires assessed EF more broadly. In general, authors emphasized different aspects of SRL and EF, but definitions of SRL had more common ground than definitions of EF. This is in line with EF literature, as, for example, Miyake et al.’s ( 2000 ) model is not mentioned at all in some EF overview articles (e.g., Suchy, 2009 ) or only briefly touched upon in the Handbook of Executive Functioning (Goldstein & Naglieri, 2014 ), while in others (e.g., Diamond, 2013 ) it is treated as the standard of EF models. Future studies, therefore, should aim to use more comparable conceptualizations of SRL and EF and also investigate the relationship on a component level so that overlaps between the components of both constructs can be analyzed in more detail. At the moment, it is not possible to draw conclusions about the empirical relationships between the components of SRL and EF that are described in theoretical models as there are too less studies that investigate such component-based relationships.

We now try to compile our findings into a possible integrative framework uniting SRL and EF: Concerning the integration of EF and metacognition, Roebers ( 2017 ) has proposed to view EF and metacognition as being “expressions of the same underlying system of self-regulative processing” (p. 45) while this processing should be domain-general and acting on a second-order level. Monitoring processes are a core central and shared feature of EF and metacognition. Moreover, EF seems to be necessary for metacognitive processes and facilitates them (Roebers, 2017 ), while metacognitive monitoring is seen to be “slower, longer-lasting, more fine-tuned” (p. 46) and dependent on the first-order task. Therefore, the dependency on domain-specific knowledge and prior experience leads to increased metacognitive competencies, differentiating metacognitive processes from EF processes. Concerning the broadness of constructs, Roebers ( 2017 ) argues that the EF framework is broader than the metacognition framework. Kim et al. ( 2023 ) integrate the metacognitive and the SRL framework by stating that metacognition is a more cognitive construct and SRL is an educational construct. While metacognition is measured using experimental tasks, SRL is measured in authentic learning situations and, therefore, reflects an application of metacognitive competencies. What additionally distinguishes SRL from metacognition is the importance of motivational aspects (Boekaerts, 1999 ). Integrating both frameworks of Roebers ( 2017 ) and Kim et al. ( 2023 ) and using the results of our review as support, it can be stated that SRL and EF show conceptual overlap but are not the same. It seems plausible that EF processes promote SRL at a rudimentary cognitive and metacognitive level (Bol & Garner, 2011 ), that metacognitive competencies mediate the relationship between EF and SRL (Effeney et al., 2013 ), and that SRL is a domain-specific application of EF and metacognitive competences (Kim et al., 2023 ). This is underlined by studies showing that SRL is a mediator for the relationship between EF and achievement (Grüneisen et al., 2023 ). From a developmental perspective, EF seems to be a precursor ability for SRL: The findings of a review of Dörrenbächer-Ulrich et al. ( 2023 ) support the hypothesis that EF can be seen as a foundation for SRL and metacognition as the developmental peak of (simple) EF lies in early childhood, while metacognition and SRL show relevant developmental changes in later childhood and adolescence. In conclusion, the present review gives the first indications for a possible theoretical framework describing the relations between EF, metacognition, and SRL. Nevertheless, as only a few studies have tested this relationship empirically, it would be helpful to first invest in theoretical work on possible theory-grounded directional pathways between the constructs. Future research should then experimentally test such theories and models to gain insights into vindicable theory components or to alter and adapt the models based on empirical results.

Implications for Future Research

Much criticism within this review revolves around measurement methods. One challenge future studies could tackle is a differentiated approach to SRL and EF by combining self-report and non-self-report measures for each construct to capture both more comprehensively. For EF, a combination of more complex EF tasks like the Tower Task, multiple basic tasks for shifting, updating, and inhibition like the plus-minus task, and self-report measures like the EFI could be used. Likewise, SRL could be captured by a combination of self-report measures like the MSLQ, teacher reports, and self-assessment through contextual self-regulation measures. The latter, in particular, was not well represented in this review and could be achieved through the use of think-aloud protocols (Greene et al., 2011 ), microanalysis (Cleary & Callan, 2018 ), or structured personal diaries (Schmitz et al., 2011 ). A greater variety of non-self-report SRL measures in studies on the SRL-EF relationship may provide further evidence as to why direct EF measures have lower correlations with the SRL measures used in the studies analyzed here. Conducting such multimethod studies for different age groups could be very enlightening concerning age influences concerning the SRL-EF relationship.

As mentioned earlier, many measures seem to confirm some sort of relationship between SRL and EF, but their many differing subscales make it challenging to summarize correlations from different studies into precise statements. Intuitively, there is a need for the standardization of measuring instruments to increase precision. Of course, there are good reasons for different instruments to adequately capture the concepts in participants of different ages. However, if one wants to be more precise about the relationships between concepts, one needs more precise methods to measure those concepts (Dinsmore et al., 2008 ), and a plethora of measurement tools that represent authors’ unique ways of looking at the concepts seems to run counter to this principle. Nevertheless, a follow-up study that could shed light on the results compiled here could narrow down the study area and systematically extract properties of correlating SRL and EF measure subscales by analyzing their operationalizations.

As the relationship between SRL and EF is not as high as expected based on their theoretical overlap, investigating influential third variables could be helpful. One such variable could be intelligence, as previous research has shown a moderate association between EF and intelligence (Lee et al. 2009 ), and the same holds for metacognition (van der Stel & Veenman, 2008 ). For the studies that used specific samples (e.g., Cirino et al., 2017 , 2018 ; Rutherford et al., 2018 ), it would be instructive to see if their results can be replicated in studies with samples representing a more average population in the respective age group. Further studies in fostering SRL and EF would be informative as the studies analyzed (Cirino et al., 2017 ; Jacob et al., 2019a ) did not report any appreciable effects. Because there is evidence that fostering EF (e.g., Blair & Diamond, 2008 ) and SRL (e.g., Theobald, 2021 ) is generally possible, work in this area should be able to contribute to the understanding of the SRL-EF relationship if they are linked as suggested in this review. These studies could help find overlapping areas of the constructs and confirm or refute the directional models proposed by Davis et al. ( 2021 ) and the mediating role of metacognition (Follmer & Sperling, 2016 ). Training studies investigating far transfer (Kassai et al., 2019 ) to examine if SRL training would influence EF and vice versa would be especially helpful in detangling possible causal relationships. In addition, understanding the SRL-EF relationship would benefit from previously underrepresented longitudinal study designs that can be used for SRL or EF training studies. In the context of longitudinal studies, comparing the predictive value of SLR and EF for academic achievement and examining the previously found mediating role of SRL for the relationship between EF and achievement would be very interesting.

Self-regulated learning (SRL) and executive functions (EF) are broad concepts that stem from different research areas and have been defined and modeled in various ways. In particular, it was noted that EF has a decades-long history in different research areas, which may explain the many different approaches to this construct (Suchy, 2009 ). This systematic review examined literature from several databases that included the terms self-regulated learning and executive function for relationships between both constructs. It was found that most relevant research papers report on a low to moderate correlational relationship between SRL and EF. Metacognition, as measured by self-report instruments, regularly shows high correlations with EF or SRL self-report measure subscales, and there is evidence that it mediates the relationship between EF and SRL. The notion that EF predicts SRL but not vice versa is supported. Criticisms focus on non-generalizable samples, measurement methods that may not adequately capture EF or SRL, and the ease with which the literature on EF and SRL is interpreted in seemingly contradictory ways. Promising future research on this topic should include theory building on the relationship between EF and SRL and testing these theories experimentally. Using more SRL non-self-report measures, a more comprehensive collection of EF and SRL data per sample, and replicating the studies, focusing on longitudinal studies of SRL or EF training, would be very enlightening.

Data Availability

Data is available upon request from the corresponding author.

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the systematic review

Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working Memory. Science, 255 (5044), 556–559. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1736359

Article   Google Scholar  

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar  

Bjorklund, D. F., & Kipp, K. (1996). Parental investment theory and gender differences in the evolution of inhibition mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 120 (2), 163–188.

Blair, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in prevention and intervention: The promotion of self-regulation as a means of preventing school failure. Development and Psychopathology, 20 (3), 899–911. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000436

Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31 (6), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00014-2

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Self-regulation: an introductory overview. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 1–9). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50030-5

*Bol, L., & Garner, J. K. (2011). Challenges in supporting self-regulation in distance education environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education , 23 (2–3), 104–123. APA PsycInfo. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9046-7

Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication . Pergamon.

Book   Google Scholar  

Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27 , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007

Bronson, M. B. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: Nature and nurture. Guilford Press.

Chan, R. C., Shum, D., Toulopoulou, T., & Chen, E. Y. (2008). Assessment of executive functions: Review of instruments and identification of critical issues. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23 (2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2007.08.010

Chatzipanteli, A., Grammatikopoulos, V., & Gregoriadis, A. (2014). Development and evaluation of metacognition in early childhood education. Early Child Development and Care, 184 (8), 1223–1232. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2013.861456

Cirino, P. T., Ahmed, Y., Miciak, J., Taylor, W. P., Gerst, E. H., & Barnes, M. A. (2018). A framework for executive function in the late elementary years. Neuropsychology, 32 (2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000427

Cirino, P. T., Miciak, J., Ahmed, Y., Barnes, M. A., Taylor, W. P., & Gerst, E. H. (2019). Executive function: Association with multiple reading skills. Reading andWriting, 32 (7), 1819–1846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9923-9

Cirino, P. T., Miciak, J., Gerst, E., Barnes, M. A., Vaughn, S., Child, A., & Huston-Warren, E. (2017). Executive function, self-regulated learning, and reading comprehension: A training study. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 50 (4), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415618497

Cleary, T. J., & Callan, G. L. (2018). Assessing self-regulated learning using microanalytic methods. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 338–351). Routledge.

Davis, H., Valcan, D. S., & Pino-Pasternak, D. (2021). The relationship between executive functioning and self-regulated learning in Australian children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 39 (4), 625–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12391

Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2014). Interventions to promote executive development in children and adolescents. In S. Goldstein & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of Executive Functioning (pp. 427–443). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8106-5_24

Dent, A. L., & Koenka, A. C. (2016). The relation between self-regulated learning and academic achievement across childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28 , 425–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9320-8

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64 (1), 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20 (4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6

Dörrenbächer, L., & Perels, F. (2016). More is more? Evaluation of interventions to foster self-regulated learning in college. International Journal of Educational Research, 78 , 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.05.010

*Dörrenbächer-Ulrich, L., Dilhuit, S., & Perels, F. (2023). Investigating the relationship between self-regulated learning, metacognition, and executive functions by focusing on academic transition phases: a systematic review. Current Psychology , 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05551-8

Dörrenbächer-Ulrich, L., Weißenfels, M., Russer, L., & Perels, F. (2021). Multimethod assessment of self-regulated learning in college students: Different methods for different components? Instructional Science, 49 , 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09533-2

Duckworth, A. L., & Kern, M. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of the convergent validity of self-control measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 45 , 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.02.004

Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2008). Metacognition . Sage Publications.

Effeney, G., Carroll, A., & Bahr, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning and executive function: Exploring the relationships in a sample of adolescent males. Educational Psychology, 33 (7), 773–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785054

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

Follmer, D. J. (2021). Examining the role of calibration of executive function performance in college learners’ regulation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35 (3), 646–658. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3787

Follmer, D. J., & Sperling, R. A. (2016). The mediating role of metacognition in the relationship between executive function and self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (4), 559–575.

Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2017). Unity and diversity of executive functions: Individual differences as a window on cognitive structure. Cortex, 86 , 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.023

*Garner, J. K. (2009). Conceptualizing the relations between executive functions and self-regulated learning. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied , 143 (4), 405–426. APA PsycInfo. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.4.405-426

Gestsdottir, S., Geldhof, G. J., Birgisdóttir, F., & Andrésdóttir, J. C. (2023). Intentional self-regulation and executive functions: Overlap and uniqueness in predicting positive development among youth in Iceland. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 43 (5), 545–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316221113355

Godefroy, O., Cabaret, M., Petit-Chenal, V., Pruvo, J.-P., & Rousseaux, M. (1999). Control functions of the frontal lobes. Modularity of the Central-Supervisory System? Cortex , 35 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70782-2

Goldstein, S., & Naglieri, J. A. (Eds.). (2014a). Handbook of Executive Functioning . Springer.

Goldstein, S., Naglieri, J. A., Princiotta, D., & Otero, T. M. (2014b). Introduction: a history of executive functioning as a theoretical and clinical construct. In S. Goldstein & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of Executive Functioning (pp. 3–12). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8106-5_1

Grainger, C., Williams, D. M., & Lind, S. E. (2016). Metacognitive monitoring and control processes in children with autism spectrum disorder: Diminished judgement of confidence accuracy. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal , 42 , 65–74. APA PsycInfo. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.03.003

Greene, J. A., Robertson, J., & Croker Costa, L. J. (2011). Assessing Self- Regulated Learning Using Think-Aloud Methods. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (pp. 313–328). Routledge.

Grüneisen, L., Dörrenbächer-Ulrich, L., & Perels, F. (2023). Self-regulated learning as a mediator of the relation between executive functions and preschool academic competence. Acta Psychologica, 240 , 104053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.104053

Guy, S. C., Isquith, P. K., & Gioia, G. A. (2004). Behaviour rating inventory of executive function–Self-report version . Psychological Assessment Resources.

Händel, M., & Dresel, M. (2022). Structure, relationship, and determinants of monitoring strategies and judgment accuracy. An integrated model and evidence from two studies. Learning and Individual Differences, 100 , 102229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102229

Heaton, R. K., & PAR Staff. (1993). Wisconsin card sorting test: computer version 2. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources , 4 , 1–4.

Hofmann, W., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Executive functions and self-regulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16 (3), 174–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.006

Hoyle, R. H., & Dent, A. L. (2018). Developmental trajectories of skills and abilities relevant for self-regulation of learning and performance. In D.H. Schunk & J.A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed., pp. 49–63). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-4

Jacob, L., Dörrenbächer, S., & Perels, F. (2019a). The influence of interindividual differences in precursor abilities for self-regulated learning in preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 191 (15), 2364–2380. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2019.1705799

Jacob, L., Dörrenbächer, S., & Perels, F. (2019b). A pilot study of the online assessment of self-regulated learning in preschool children: Development of a direct, quantitative measurement tool. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 12 (2), 115–126.

Jurado, M. B., & Rosselli, M. (2007). The Elusive Nature of Executive Functions: A Review of our Current Understanding. Neuropsychology Review, 17 (3), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-007-9040-z

Karr, J. E., Areshenkoff, C. N., Rast, P., Hofer, S. M., Iverson, G. L., & Garcia-Barrera, M. A. (2018). The unity and diversity of executive functions: A systematic review and re-analysis of latent variable studies. Psychological Bulletin, 144 (11), 1147–1185. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000160

Kassai, R., Futo, J., Demetrovics, Z., & Takacs, Z. K. (2019). A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence on the near-and far-transfer effects among children’s executive function skills. Psychological Bulletin, 145 (2), 165. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000180

Kim, Y. E., Zepeda, C. D., & Butler, A. C. (2023). An interdisciplinary review of self-regulation of learning: Bridging cognitive and educational psychology perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 35 (3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09800-x

Lee, K., Pe, M. L., Ang, S. Y., & Stankov, L. (2009). Do measures of working memory predict academic proficiency better than measures of intelligence? Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 51 (4), 403.

Luciana, M., Conklin, H. M., Hooper, C. J., & Yarger, R. S. (2005). The development of nonverbal working memory and executive control processes in adolescents. Child Development, 76 (3), 697–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00872.x

Luria, A. R. (1980). Higher Cortical Functions in Man. Springer, US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-8579-4

Luria, A. R., Homskaya, E. D., Blinkóv, S. M., & Critchley, M. (1967). Impaired selectivity of mental processes in association with a lesion of the frontal lobe. Neuropsychologia, 5 (2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(67)90012-7

McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., Piccinin, A., Rhea, S. A., & Stallings, M. C. (2013). Relations between preschool attention span-persistence and age 25 educational outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28 (2), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.07.008

Mehrani, M. B., & Peterson, C. (2018). Responses to interview questions: A cross-linguistic study of acquiescence tendency. Infant and Child Development, 27 (2), e2063. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2063

Meijs, C., Gijselaers, H. J., Xu, K. M., Kirschner, P. A., & De Groot, R. H. (2021). The relation between cognitively measured executive functions and reported self-regulated learning strategy use in adult online distance education. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 641972. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.641972

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41 (1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734

Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Toward unified theories of working memory: Emerging general consensus, unresolved theoretical issues, and future research directions. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 442–481). Cambridge Univ. Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Morris, N., & Jones, D. M. (1990). Memory updating in working memory: The role of the central executive. British Journal of Psychology, 81 (2), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02349.x

Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26 , 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5

Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and Self-Regulation (pp. 1–18). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0629-1_1

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88 , 105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906

Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 , 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422

Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2014). How do students self-regulate? Review of Zimmerman’s cyclical model of self-regulated learning. Anales De Psicología / Annals of Psychology, 30 (2), 450–462. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.2.167221

Perels, F., Dörrenbächer-Ulrich, L., Landmann, M., Otto, B., Schnick-Vollmer, K., & Schmitz, B. (2020). Selbstregulation und selbstreguliertes Lernen. In E. Wild & J. Möller (Eds.), Pädagogische Psychologie (pp. 45–66). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61403-7_3

Petersen, R., Lavelle, E., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). The relationship between college students’ executive functioning and study strategies. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 36 (2), 59–67.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Chapter 14—The Role of Goal Orientation in Self- Regulated Learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 451–502). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3

Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Buros Institute of Mental Measurement: Lincoln.

Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002). Chapter 10—The Development of Academic Self-Regulation: The Role of Cognitive and Motivational Factors. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of Achievement Motivation (pp. 249–284). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50012-7

Prencipe, A., Kesek, A., Cohen, J., Lamm, C., Lewis, M. D., & Zelazo, P. D. (2011). Development of hot and cool executive function during the transition to adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108 (3), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.09.008

Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45 (3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830120074206

Rabbitt, P. (1997). Introduction: Methodologies and models in the study of executive function. In P. Rabbitt (Ed.), Methodology of Frontal and Executive Function (pp. 1–38). Psychology Press.

Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Rollett, W. (2000). Chapter 15—Motivation and action in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 503–529). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50044-5

Roebers, C. M. (2017). Executive function and metacognition: Towards a unifying framework of cognitive self-regulation. Developmental Review, 45 , 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2017.04.001

Roebers, C. M., Krebs, S. S., & Roderer, T. (2014). Metacognitive monitoring and control in elementary school children: Their interrelations and their role for test performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 29 , 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.003

Roth, A., Ogrin, S., & Schmitz, B. (2016). Assessing self-regulated learning in higher education: A systematic literature review of self-report instruments. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28 , 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9229-2

Rovers, S. F., Clarebout, G., Savelberg, H. H., de Bruin, A. B., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2019). Granularity matters: Comparing different ways of measuring self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 14 , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09188-6

Rutherford, T., Buschkuehl, M., Jaeggi, S. M., & Farkas, G. (2018). Links between achievement, executive functions, and self-regulated learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32 (6), 763–774.

*Said, N. (2014). The dimensions of self-regulated learning and academic achievement in college students (2014–99191–016; Issues 4-A(E)) [ProQuest Information & Learning]. APA PsycInfo.

Schmitz, B., Klug, J., & Schmidt, M. (2011). Assessing self-regulated learning using diary measures with university students. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (pp. 251–266). Routledge.

Schwartz, M. F., Segal, M., Veramonti, T., Ferraro, M., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2002). The Naturalistic Action Test: A standardised assessment for everyday action impairment. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 12 (4), 311–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602010244000084

Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences , 298 (1089), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1982.0082

Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review , 84 (2), 127–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127

Sibley, M. H., Graziano, P. A., Ortiz, M., Rodriguez, L., & Coxe, S. (2019). Academic impairment among high school students with ADHD: the role of motivation and goal-directed executive functions. Journal of School Psychology , 77 , 67–76. APA PsycInfo. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.10.005

Söhnchen, F. (2009). Common method variance und single source bias. In S. Albers, D. Klapper, U. Konradt, A. Walter, & J. Wolf (Eds.), Methodik der empirischen Forschung [Methods of empirical research] (pp. 137–152). Gabler Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-96406-9_10

Suchy, Y. (2009). Executive functioning: Overview, assessment, and research issues for non-neuropsychologists. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37 (2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9097-4

Theobald, M. (2021). Self-regulated learning training programs enhance university students’ academic performance, self-regulated learning strategies, and motivation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 66 , 101976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101976

Tinajero, C., Mayo, M. E., Villar, E., & Martínez-López, Z. (2024). Classic and modern models of self-regulated learning: Integrative and componential analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 15 , 1307574. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1307574

Titz, C., & Karbach, J. (2014). Working memory and executive functions: Effects of training on academic achievement. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 78 , 852–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0537-1

Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. (2008). Relation between intellectual ability and metacognitive skillfulness as predictors of learning performance of young students performing tasks in different domains. Learning and Individual Differences, 18 (1), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.08.003

Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1 , 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0

*Vitiello, V. E., & Greenfield, D. B. (2017). Executive functions and approaches to learning in predicting school readiness. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 53 , 1–9. APA PsycInfo. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.08.004

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). Macmillan.

Welsh, M. C. (2001). The prefrontal cortex and the development of executive function in childhood. In A. F. Kalverboer & A. Gramsbergen (Eds.), Handbook of brain and behaviour in human development (pp. 767–790). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Chapter 16—Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 531–566). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50045-7

Zeidner, M., & Stoeger, H. (2019). Self-Regulated Learning (SRL): A guide for the perplexed. High Ability Studies, 30 (1–2), 9–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1589369

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Chapter 2—Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This project (EnSeLa–Grant number DO 2173/2–1) is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, Germany Research Foundation). The authors are responsible for the content of this publication.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Sciences, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

Laura Dörrenbächer-Ulrich & Marius Bregulla

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Laura Dörrenbächer-Ulrich and Marius Bregulla wrote the review text. Laura Dörrenbächer-Ulrich had the idea for the review’s concept. Marius Bregulla conducted a systematic literature search and review of the studies. Both authors were involved in publication planning, reading drafts, suggestions for changes, and feedback on the final publication draft. All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Dörrenbächer-Ulrich .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(DOCX 34.1 KB)

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

Dörrenbächer-Ulrich, L., Bregulla, M. The Relationship Between Self-Regulated Learning and Executive Functions—a Systematic Review. Educ Psychol Rev 36 , 95 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09932-8

Download citation

Accepted : 05 August 2024

Published : 22 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09932-8

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

• Self-regulated learning
• Executive functions
• Systematic review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research