Skip to main content
Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica

Psychology: Research and Review

Table 3 Hierarchical linear regression with direct scores of PPVT and sex (step 1) and CFC-I and limit setting difficulties (step 2) as predictors of EF, delay reward, and Tower of Hanoi scores

From: The development of episodic foresight in preschoolers: the role of socioeconomic status, parental future orientation, and family context

 

EF

DR

ToH

b (SE)

β entry

β final

b (SE)

β entry

β final

b (SE)

β entry

β final

Step 1

 PPVT

.08 (.01)

.60***

.36**

.08 (.02)

.41***

.24

.04 (.01)

.44***

.20

 Sex (girl = 1)

.24 (.49)

.05

.02

2.74 (.81)

.39**

.37**

.69 (.38)

.21

.14

Step 2

 Moher Ed

.44 (.17)

0.35*

 

.46 (.27)

.25

 

.23 (.13)

.26

 

 CFC-I

− .07 (.21)

− 0.04

 

− .14 (.33)

.05

 

− .14 (.16)

− .11

 

 EG-L

− .07 (.35)

− 0.02

 

− .55 (.55)

− .11

 

− .35 (.27)

− .15

 

Model

R2 = .44

R2 = .36

R2 = .32

  1. EF episodic foresight, DR delay reward, ToH Tower of Hanoi, PPVT Peabody Picture Verbal test-direct score, Mother Ed maternal education, CFC-I consideration of future consequences-immediate, EG-L Etxadi-Gangoiti scale-limit setting subscale
  2. *p < .05
  3. **p < .01
  4. ***p < .001
Back to article page