2020/09/10 by Hilde Lowell Gunnerud, Dieuwer ten Braak, Elin Reikerås +2 · 1 voice · 2 citations
Psychology · Neuroscience · #Reading and Literacy Development #Language Development and Disorders #Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
paper · doi:10.1037/bul0000301
openalex publication_date 2020/09/10 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/04
= 0.06), and there were indications of publication bias. A moderator analysis showed significant group differences on EF in favor of bilinguals for studies of children from middle-class socioeconomic backgrounds and studies from one specific lab. The EF components of cold inhibition, switching, and monitoring expressed significant bilingual advantages, but monitoring and cold inhibition were affected by publication bias. As for switching, this remained significant after controlling for publication bias. Thus, given the small mean effect size and small-study effects, this meta-analysis gives little support for a bilingual advantage on overall EF. Still, also after the moderator analysis, there was a large heterogeneity of true effects and a large amount of unexplained heterogeneity in the effect sizes. Thus, there might be bilingual advantages (or disadvantages) under conditions that this study is not able to identify through the analysis of 12 moderators. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).