What we know about executive function research in Africa: A scoping review

The developmental literature has seen an increase in studies on children's executive function (EF) across diverse populations, given its importance for early childhood development and later-life outcomes. However, a small but increasing number of studies have focused on children's EF in low-income countries. This scoping review systematically synthesizes EF studies conducted in Africa to present current realities and outline future directions. Eligible studies were identified across databases using EF keywords combined with the names of the 54 African countries and 8 territories. After synthesizing 182 studies that met the inclusion criteria, the results show broad consensus on EF definitions, but little consistency in how dimensions of EF have been investigated, and mixed findings on how EF might be associated with contextual and developmental variables. We propose areas of reflection that can help to improve the representation of African perspectives on EF and guide future research.

The ability to regulate one's behaviors, including thoughts, emotions, and feelings in the face of daily demands, is considered crucial for school readiness, academic performance, and later life achievement (Best et al., 2011; Blair and Raver, 2015; Diamond, 2025; Willoughby et al., 2019a). Executive function (EF) sits under the broad umbrella of self-regulatory skills and comprises a set of cognitive processes involving inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility responsible for goal-directed behavior (Diamond, 2013; Ellefson et al., 2020). EF helps children to engage in deliberate behavior and act intentionally rather than automatically and instinctively (Diamond and Ling, 2016).

Decades of research have highlighted EF's importance for wider life skills and positive developmental outcomes in countries across Europe, North America, and other high-income settings where the minority of the world's population lives (Alam, 2008; Khan et al., 2022). For example, there is a huge body of EF evidence from minority world countries, as demonstrated by a Google Scholar search for “executive function development” returning over three million hits. In comparison, relatively little EF research has been published in “majority world” countries, settings where most of the world's population lives, with far fewer studies focusing on African countries (Black et al., 2016; Talwar et al., 2011; Willoughby et al., 2019a; Obradović and Willoughby, 2019; Obradović et al., 2019). In this paper, we focus on EF research in the majority world through a scoping review of EF research in Africa. The initial sections outline key issues in the conceptualization and relevance of EF, before describing the methodology used for our scoping review. We then discuss the findings and conclude with recommendations for future EF research with African populations.

EF components

Considerable research indicates that EF develops from infancy, through childhood, and into adolescence (Diamond, 2013; Obradović and Willoughby, 2019). The prefrontal cortex plays an important role in the development of EF because it coordinates activity from the cortical and subcortical areas of the brain involved in goal-directed behavior (Diamond, 2013; Funahashi, 2017; Funahashi and Andreau, 2013).

Whether EF can be broken down further into sub-components or not is debated in the literature (Fiske and Holmboe, 2019). Understandings of EF vary from a single component, especially in childhood (Brydges et al., 2012; Ettenhofer et al., 2006; Hughes et al., 2010) to a multidimensional model comprising several components (Diamond, 2013; Nweze and Nwani, 2020). In adults, factor analyses by (Miyake et al. 2000) revealed three EF components that have received widespread recognition. They are inhibitory control (the ability to suppress automatic thoughts, responses, or emotions), working memory (the ability to hold and update information in mind for later recall), and cognitive flexibility (the ability to switch between tasks or view a phenomenon from different perspectives, and effectively shift to suit changing demands; Bardack and Obradović, 2019; Bari and Robbins, 2013; Diamond and Ling, 2016; Nweze and Nwani, 2020; Willoughby et al., 2019a). The weight of evidence suggests that the three-part model is a good fit sometime after the preschool years, but not much earlier, with a one-part model prevailing throughout early childhood (Deodhar and Bertenthal, 2023; Hughes et al., 2010). Thus, research findings are mixed regarding when it is appropriate to view the three components of EF as operating independently.

Regardless of which model of EF is used, many studies with minority world populations in high-income countries have shown that EF is positively associated with literacy and numeracy in the preschool and early primary years, above and beyond other factors like general intelligence or language level (McClelland et al., 2007; Steele et al., 2012). Similarly, EF is positively associated with school attainment in adolescents and other outcomes like attending further education, health, and earnings (Duckworth and Seligman, 2005; Moffitt et al., 2011). These findings suggest that EF is critical as a foundational skill that supports academic outcomes and life skills across different stages of development.

Environmental factors and EF development

Numerous EF interventions have been shown to be effective in different age groups, suggesting that EF is malleable and sensitive to environmental factors (Takacs and Kassai, 2019). Within the minority world literature, EF is found to be associated with various environmental factors such as socioeconomic status (SES), and maternal education, economic resources such as income and material wealth, family influences like parenting styles and behaviors, and circumstances such as stressful life events and punitive environments (Blakey et al., 2020; Duncan and Magnuson, 2012; Bernier et al., 2010; Ellefson et al., 2020; Lawson et al., 2018; Talwar et al., 2011; Ainamani et al., 2021; Blair, 2010; Kira et al., 2022; Kobayashi et al., 2020). The evidence generally indicates that children from low-resource backgrounds tend to display lower EF than children from resource-rich backgrounds, justifying initiatives and interventions to close early developmental gaps for the most disadvantaged children (Blakey et al., 2020; Bradley and Corwyn, 2002; Fernald et al., 2011; Fox et al., 2010; Lawson et al., 2018; McCoy et al., 2016; Noble et al., 2007; Willoughby et al., 2019b).

Cross-cultural studies have also revealed developmental variation in EF across different settings (Legare et al., 2018; Metaferia et al., 2021). For instance, children in collectivist Eastern societies have been found to outperform their counterparts in more individualist Western societies on specific EF tasks (Ellefson et al., 2017; Wanless et al., 2013). Together, these findings highlight the importance of considering the interactions between an individual's socioeconomic factors, cultural context, and wider environment in the development of their EF.

However, to date, almost all comparisons of children's EF between low- and high-resource settings have been conducted in minority world settings (Karr et al., 2018; Lund et al., 2020; Mak et al., 2018; Yeniad et al., 2013). The dearth of research on EF in majority world settings, including in the African continent, leaves open the questions of whether we can generalize the definition of EF, its components, and EF associations with other developmental outcomes (Diamond, 2013; Howard et al., 2020; Miyake and Friedman, 2012; Nweze et al., 2020; Willoughby et al., 2019a; Zelazo, 2006).

The current review

To date, relatively little is known about how EF is conceptualized, measured, and investigated across the African continent. Therefore, a review of EF research in this context is important because Africa represents a highly diverse context comprising 54 sovereign countries with considerable variations in cultural practices, educational systems, socioeconomic conditions, and childhood and caregiving practices (Masuku et al., 2023; Mashau, 2015; Walubita, 2022). Despite the continent having one of the world's fastest-growing child populations, projected to reach one billion by 2055 (Cook et al., 2024; UNICEF, 2019; Zieff et al., 2024), African populations remain underrepresented in EF research (Cook et al., 2024; Jukes et al., 2024; Milosavljevic et al., 2024). Thus, understanding a variety of cultural instantiations of EF in Africa may lead to more nuanced models of the interaction between the individual and their sociocultural environment throughout their development (Milosavljevic et al., 2024).

In turn, models informed by a range of data can help to understand what works, for whom, and under what conditions in terms of efforts to improve children's EF (e.g., Diamond, 2025; Diamond and Lee, 2011; Hostinar et al., 2012; Pollak et al., 2010). Similarly, this can provide unique insights that contribute to more inclusive and effective interventions and may help researchers and policymakers identify strategic opportunities and priorities for investment (Cook et al., 2023). In the present review, we synthesized published EF research in Africa and focused on three core issues: (1) the range of EF definitions and how EF components are represented, (2) the nature of methodological approaches used in the published studies, and 3) the patterns of associations between EF and contextual, academic, and intervention-related variables.

Literature search and procedures

To address these queries, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist (Tricco et al., 2018). Databases searched for relevant studies published between 1990 and September 2025 included APA PsycINFO, APA PsycArticles, British Educational Index, Child Development and Adolescent Studies, ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science. Based on the EF literature, we used the following keywords for EF with the “OR” Boolean operator: executive function *, executive functions, executive functioning, self-regulation, inhibitory control, inhibition, working memory, cognitive flexibility, task switching, shifting, attention control, and prefrontal. Also, each of the 54 African countries and eight territories was entered in the EF search using the “AND” Boolean operator. We did not include the term “Africa” in our searches, given the high number of EF studies with African American learners in the United States of America, which fell outside the focus of our research. In addition to the database searches, supplementary procedures including author contact, reference list screening, and an international online webinar on EF in Africa were used to identify additional eligible studies (see Figure 1).

The first search was conducted in 2021 and then updated in September 2025 to capture newer studies. A total of 7,655 articles were obtained and screened. Studies were included if they met four criteria: (1) articles must have been produced (published or unpublished) in English between 1990 and September 2025; (2) they must include at least one EF keyword and may or may not involve a cognitive task; (3) the research must have been conducted in at least one of the 54 African countries or eight territories; and (4) the study consisted of typically developing samples (i.e., participants were not selected because of specific learning needs, such as autism spectrum disorder, or mental health concerns). Although the inclusion of atypically developing or neurodivergent populations would have facilitated a more comprehensive review of the relevant literature, it would have entailed incorporating distinct bodies of research, as well as introducing contextual and cultural issues surrounding the understanding, diagnosis, and management of neurodivergence across different African settings, where levels of diagnosis tend to be lower.

Study selection and coding

The initial search yielded titles and abstracts that were screened. Articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria based on the title and abstract (e.g., no samples from any African countries) were dropped. We included articles that compared samples from any of the African countries with those from other countries outside Africa. Article screening was conducted by the first author and supervised by the third author. Uncertainties regarding study eligibility during title/abstract and full-text screening were resolved through discussion among all authors.

Finally, 182 articles were found to be eligible for the review. The PRISMA-ScR flow chart in Figure 1 shows the search procedure used, including how studies were selected for inclusion.

The studies were coded based on the EF model adopted or reported. Coding varied from unspecified, domain-general, unitary, dual componential, to tripartite. Studies were coded as “unspecified” if they did not state which of the EF models applied to their study. For instance, articles that considered self-regulation or one of the EF components without specifying which model they adopted were coded as “unspecified.” On the other hand, studies that used tasks tapping into general cognitive abilities and considered EF as a domain of general cognition without specifically categorizing EF into any existing model were coded as adopting a “domain-general” model. Similarly, studies that evaluated EF components—mostly working memory—were coded using the “working memory model.” Also, studies that considered EF as a unified construct and interpreted their findings without distinguishing between the components were coded as using the “unitary model.” We coded any study that distinguished affective and cognitive components of EF as using the “dual-componential” model, while studies that considered the independence and interrelatedness of the components (inhibition, working memory, cognitive flexibility) were coded as using the “tripartite model.”

We identified 7,548 studies from the database searches and obtained an additional 107 studies from other sources. This includes 102 articles obtained from references of screened articles, two articles through emails sent to authors, and three articles from authors after an international online webinar exploring EF in Sub-Saharan Africa. Following the identification of the studies through titles and abstracts, 7,344 studies were screened out because they did not meet the inclusion criteria (e.g., duplicate studies, not carried out in Africa, they involved atypical samples or children screened for cognitive disorders). 311 studies were subjected to full-text reading, after which 129 were excluded as irrelevant, thereby leaving 182 studies used for the final analysis. The earliest study was published in 2001, and the chart in Figure 2 shows the growing frequency of EF publications in Africa over time. The largest number of studies were published in 2022. The studies are summarized in Supplementary Table 1 and are clustered by country in alphabetical order.

Author and participant characteristics

Across the studies analyzed, we first considered and identified the first authors' and participants' characteristics. Most of the first authors of the published papers were employed in minority world institutions, with more than 50% being affiliated to institutions outside the African continent (see Figure 3). In cases where authors were affiliated with more than one institution, the first institution was recorded as their main affiliation. Over 56% of the recorded funding for the first authors was awarded by institutions outside the African continent (see Supplementary Table 1 for details of the funders, where available).

Demographic characteristics of the participants in the studies are also provided in Supplementary Table 1. Participants' ages ranged from 6 months to 79 years. Data from the studies involved samples ranging from eight to 3,867 participants across 27 African countries namely: Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, and one study conducted in West Africa without the specific country's name. The majority of the studies were conducted in three countries (see Figure 4): South Africa (33.9%, n = 62), Ghana (12%, n = 22), and Kenya (6.6%, n = 12).

In several cases, multiple papers draw on data from the same samples and the same longitudinal cohort, in which case the highest number of participants is reported (e.g., McCoy et al., 2015, 2017; Willoughby et al., 2019a,b; Wolf, 2018; Wolf and McCoy, 2019; Wolf et al., 2018, 2019; Zuilkowski et al., 2016). A pre-/post-test experimental procedure was adopted in some studies (e.g., Swart and Janeke, 2022; Willoughby et al., 2021), so only the sample for the post-test is reported. Also, only the samples of African participants were reported for studies that compared participants in Africa to participants outside the region.

Definitions, models, and EF development

Overall, the majority of the studies included in the synthesis shown in Supplementary Table 1 converged on a definition of EF as a higher-order cognitive process responsible for regulating deliberate behavior. A third of the studies 61 (33.5%) considered EF as tripartite with three independent, but interconnected dimensions, including working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility. 16 (8.8%) studies focused specifically on the working memory model. In contrast, five (2.7%) studies used a unitary model of EF that did not differentiate between dimensions, while five (2.7%) used a dual-component model. 30 (16.3%) studies included in the scoping review did not explicitly use any EF model, while 66 (36%) studies were classified as using a domain-general cognitive model.

Consistent with models of EF development, the synthesis indicated that EF performance increases with age amongst African samples. The results showed that the unitary model of EF was commonly used for younger children, while other multi-dimensional models were applied across a broader range of age groups. Comparative studies across different countries yielded a mixture of results. For example, studies comparing children in Cameroon and South Africa with learners in Australia, Costa Rica, and Germany found that the former scored higher on delay inhibition tasks and lower on theory of mind and conflict inhibition tasks (e.g., Chasiotis et al., 2006; Lamm et al., 2018). Low-SES South African children also showed higher scores on inhibition and cognitive flexibility tasks compared to their Australian counterparts (Howard et al., 2020), but scored lower in cognitive flexibility tasks when compared to their American peers (Legare et al., 2018). Ethiopian, Kenyan, and Hungarian children showed no significant score differences on EF tasks, while children in similar Arabic cultures in Egypt and Kuwait were reported to express EF (working memory) in similar ways (Alansari and Soliman, 2012; Amukune et al., 2022; Metaferia et al., 2020).

Methodological approaches to researching EF

The study measures were administered mostly in schools, accounting for 45.6% of the study locations, while the rest were collected in homes, laboratories, local halls, clinics, public spaces, or online. A range of research designs were represented, including one observational, three self-reports, three qualitative multi-case/interviews, 13 randomized control trials, 22 longitudinal designs, 42 cross-sectional, and 98 experimental studies. As regards measures, two studies used interviews, 19 studies used participant-reported measures, while 161 studies used task-based measures, thereby accounting for over 88% of the total measures employed in the studies. Convergence results between different EF measures showed mixed findings. One study reported a positive correlation between assessor reports and direct assessments (Ahmed et al., 2022), while other studies found no convergence between report-based measures and task-based measures (e.g., Esopo et al., 2018; Yuan et al., 2022).

Regarding the contextualization of measures, one study (Lamm et al., 2018) utilized a culturally relevant self-regulatory task involving deep-fried dough locally called “puff-puff” to replace the classic Marshmallow test. Few studies (e.g., Ford et al., 2019; McCoy et al., 2015) used local performance-based measures, while two of the studies used interviews to gather preschool teachers' perceptions of children's EF behaviors (Etokabeka et al., 2022; Ezeugwu and Baker, 2025).

It is noteworthy that most of the studies, 173 (95%), adopted and adapted measures developed with samples outside the African continent. Few studies validated the measures of EF for local use, including but not limited to, Early Learning Outcomes Measure (ELOM), Childhood Executive Functioning Inventory (CHEXI), Battery for Neuropsychological Evaluation of Children (BENCI), Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), Stroop Task, Tower of London task, Rey Osterrieth complex figure, Iowa gambling task, the self-regulation scale, NIH-Toolbox (e.g., Amukune et al., 2022; Anderson et al., 2021; Esopo et al., 2018; Fasfous et al., 2015; Holding et al., 2018; Rowe et al., 2021; Vosloo et al., 2013; Willoughby et al., 2019a; Ruffieux et al., 2009; Wray et al., 2020; Yuan et al., 2022; see Supplementary Table 1 for details). While most of the studies combined more than one measure of EF, some used measures of general intelligence to assess children's EF (e.g., Holding et al., 2018; Scharpf et al., 2022). Validated EF measures, including tablet-based assessments, were reported to show good validity and reliability (e.g., Amukune et al., 2022; Esopo et al., 2018; Loss et al., 2024; Raikes et al., 2019; Roos et al., 2010).

Relations between EF and developmental and contextual variables

Across the synthesized studies, EF was associated with a range of developmental and contextual variables. The reported associations varied across studies, with studies reporting positive, negative, and mixed findings. Some studies revealed positive associations between children's EF and parental/caregiver education, proximity and support, the quality of parent relationships, play behaviors, early childhood education, physical activity, creative thinking, caregiver education, family stimulation, access to school meals, and attending early childhood education (e.g., Alcock et al., 2023; Cook et al., 2021, 2024; Finch et al., 2022; Fernald et al., 2011; Li et al., 2024; Lopez et al., 2024; Metaferia et al., 2021; Wolf and McCoy, 2019a). At the same time, some studies revealed negative associations between EF and indicators of school punitive measures, parental maltreatment, teachers' depressive symptoms and burnout, maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy, eye tracking at infancy, parental loss, maternal stressors and alcohol, and stunting (Aurino et al., 2020; Fisher, 2020; Oh and Wolf, 2023; Peele et al., 2023; Plattner et al., 2019; Pyykkö et al., 2020; Sanou et al., 2017, 2018; Scharpf et al., 2021). These findings are expected based on existing literature.

On the other hand, other studies reported that EF was not predicted by variables like parental stimulation, poverty, cognitive stimulation, mother's trauma, home stimulation, exposure to violence, exclusive breastfeeding, nutritional status and physical activities, and schooling (e.g., Avornyo and Wolf, 2025; Cook et al., 2022; Mwakalebela et al., 2025; Giroux et al., 2020; Ingabire et al., 2024; Milosavljevic et al., 2024; Onyango et al., 2021; Rochat et al., 2016; Sánchez et al., 2024; Suntheimer et al., 2024; Suntheimer and Wolf, 2023).

Meanwhile, the evidence was mixed across studies regarding the relation between EF development and variables such as academic outcomes like literacy and numeracy, the use of food supplements, family poverty and SES, and exposure to adversity (e.g., Avornyo and Wolf, 2025; Ingabire et al., 2024; Kira and Shuwiekh, 2023; Milosavljevic et al., 2024; Prado et al., 2016a; Nweze et al., 2021; Scharpf et al., 2021, 2022; Suntheimer et al., 2024).

For example, in one study, working memory predicted numeracy, literacy, and school completion, and inhibitory control predicted math-test scores and grade attainment (Lopez et al., 2024), while in other studies, inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility did not predict literacy and numeracy (e.g., Bayley, 2022; Finch et al., 2022; Makaure et al., 2024). Also in South Africa, inhibition and cognitive flexibility were found to be positively correlated with 3- to 6-year-olds' physical activity, while working memory was negatively correlated (Cook et al., 2019).

Even though higher economic wellbeing related positively to EF in 7- to 10-year-olds in South Africa, it did not necessarily predict improved working memory (Turbeville et al., 2019). Similarly, gross motor skill was predicted positively by inhibition and working memory, but not cognitive flexibility. In Nigeria, participants displayed improved working memory scores after exposure to experiences of life adversity (Nweze et al., 2020), while exposure to violence and adverse childhood experiences was not associated with self-regulation and EF in a South African sample (Cook et al., 2022; Kobayashi et al., 2020). In some studies, multilinguals showed better EF than monolinguals (e.g., Cockcroft et al., 2019; Espi-Sanchis and Cockcroft, 2022). In certain studies, EF mediates the relation between SES and literacy, cumulative risk, and learning outcomes (e.g., Suntheimer et al., 2022). Together, the synthesis underscores the complexity of the relation between EF development, context, and outcomes.

Validation and adaptation of EF measures

Studies that examined the psychometric properties of EF measures generally showed evidence of good reliability and validity (see Supplementary Table 1). These included the CHEXI, RACER, NIH Toolbox, BRIEF, BENCI, ELOM, WSCT, SSRQ, OCS-EF, Tygerberg Cognitive Battery, and MELQO (e.g., Ahmed et al., 2022; Amukune and Józsa, 2021; Anderson et al., 2021; Duffey et al., 2022; Esopo et al., 2018; Fasfous et al., 2015; Ford et al., 2019; Pitchford and Outhwaite, 2016; Potgieter and Botha, 2009; Raikes et al., 2019; Roos et al., 2010; Rowe et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2022).

Intervention studies and EF outcomes

The synthesis also indicates mixed findings regarding the effectiveness of interventions on children's EF skills. For example, interventions involving teacher training, with and without parental awareness components, EF games such as “red-light purple-light” and expressive writing, participation in the production safety net, zinc and multiple micronutrients showed no consistent evidence of improving children's EF skills (Brett et al., 2022; Freund et al., 2024; Prado et al., 2016b,d; Sudfeld et al., 2019; Willoughby et al., 2021; Wolf, 2018; Wolf et al., 2019; Mwakalebela et al., 2025; Prado et al., 2016c). However, yoga and aerobic dance, milk in food, food supplements, and teacher training interventions were found to improve children's EF (Lee et al., 2018; Wolf, 2018; Roberts et al., 2020; Zinelabidine et al., 2022). Another study also reported that early cognitive interventions mediated the relationship between children's EF and poverty (McCoy et al., 2015).

This scoping review is the first to synthesize EF research in Africa. We examined EF definitions and dimensions, the methodological approaches employed, and the relations between EF and other variables across 182 papers. Findings show relatively few studies that have considered EF with participants on the African continent, compared to studies with minority world populations, and that most of these were conducted by authors funded and employed by institutions outside the African continent. The synthesis suggests growing interest in EF research in the African context, although it still remains in relatively early stages compared to minority world settings.

EF definitions were broadly consistent across the studies, although there were differences in the model of EF adopted. This difference points to possible variations in the underlying structure of EF across different cultures and contexts, or at least differences in its conceptualization (Ardila, 2005; Sarma and Thomas, 2020). Regarding methodology, the synthesis shows experimental and cross-sectional methods to be the most common study designs. With a few exceptions, including a longitudinal study that yielded several of the papers reviewed, most of the research entailed data collection over short periods, offering limited insights into the same children's developmental trajectory over a specified period (the same is true for the body of literature based in the minority world). The studies also typically used task-based measures adapted from minority world contexts, rather than locally designed tools (e.g., Ford et al., 2019; McCoy et al., 2015, 2017; Willoughby et al., 2019a,b; Zuilkowski et al., 2016). This raises concerns about their ecological relevance as, unless they have been successfully validated in the relevant context, they may not fully capture the nuances of EF display or uncover the environmental and cognitive demands of participants in African settings (Ezeugwu and Baker, 2025). This underscores the need for more culturally appropriate measures of EF that can offer a more representative understanding of EF skills in populations that are currently underrepresented in the published literature (Ezeugwu and Baker, 2025).

Most of the studies were conducted in Ghana, Kenya, and South Africa, and carried out in the child's school with locally trained researchers involved in the data collection. The focus on these three countries likely reflects pockets of increased activity by local researchers, strong collaborations with institutions from outside the continent, and perhaps the greater availability of funding sources. EF was found to relate to children's growth and positive outcomes in some of the studies, but not all. In minority world settings, a positive association between EF and children's developmental outcomes, including reading, numeracy, academic achievement, and language skills, has often been recorded (Gooch et al., 2016; Poon, 2018; Zelazo and Carlson, 2020). On the other hand, the relation between EF and adversity has not been consistently demonstrated in minority world studies (see McDermott et al., 2012; Hostinar et al., 2012; Sheridan et al., 2017).

The multifaceted model of EF used by many of the studies, comprising unspecified to three distinct factors (inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility), may account for the mixed and complex relations with contextual factors and developmental outcomes. For example, the dimensions of EF may not necessarily follow the same developmental trajectory or timeline (e.g., Nweze and Nwani, 2020). Also, the same contextual factors might function differently depending on the different contexts. For African children, this may mean expressing EF adaptively to meet the demands of everyday situations (Ezeugwu and Baker, 2025; Cook et al., 2022).

However, we also observed some findings that would not have been predicted based on the trend in EF literature. For example, regarding a positive association between EF and experiences of adversity (Nweze et al., 2021). This raises an interesting question as to why adversity may build EF in some circumstances while it may hinder its development in other circumstances (Nweze et al., 2021; Talwar et al., 2011). Cultural functions of EF may also vary, and thus, relations between EF and other factors may also vary (Ezeugwu and Baker, 2025; Milosavljevic et al., 2024; Sarma and Thomas, 2020). Further research, particularly some qualitative ethnographic research, is needed to explore the cultural functions of EF in more depth.

We note that this review is not without its limitations. First, only studies published in English and within a specified timeframe were included, which may have limited the breadth of the evidence considered. Also, we did not conduct a formal assessment of the methodological quality, although this is consistent with the objectives of our review. In addition, the observed heterogeneity in definitions, measures, designs, and outcomes, limited direct comparisons across the included studies. Importantly, although we expected to capture the geographical context (e.g., African countries) of studies to be identifiable through the title and abstract, studies with limited reporting may have been more difficult to retrieve. However, future syntheses and meta-analyses may provide more evaluation as the EF evidence base in Africa continues to expand.

Suggestions for broadening the representation of African perspectives on EF

One notable feature of the studies included in our scoping review is that most of the authors were employed in institutions outside the African continent. Increasing Africanized perspectives of EF with involvement from local researchers would benefit the field because they could contextualize the cognitive processes under investigation. This can help develop actionable solutions to broaden participation in EF research, which goes beyond expanding global samples and extending research questions and paradigms of the minority world. This could also help researchers to understand EF developmental mechanisms and expressions to improve scientific understanding of how interactions between the individual and their context may affect their development (Smith, 1999; Doebel, 2020; Ezeugwu and Baker, 2025; Pope et al., 2019).

Researchers and practitioners must first understand and agree on construct operationalization for a better and more complete perspective on the role of cultural and environmental factors in this context (Ezeugwu and Baker, 2025). This will require paying attention to culture-specific values, childhood experiences, and the meaning attached to words that may be significant within the study populations. For example, the word “ play ” may mean different things in different settings, and so it is not as simple as translating items into different languages (Courtois et al., 2024).

Our scoping review suggests that steps are rarely built into the research design to consider a culturally situated understanding of the EF constructs in Africa. Instead, most studies adopted existing EF definitions and dimensions popular in the literature, and adopted or adapted measures developed elsewhere without establishing their validity and reliability with the samples under investigation (Jukes et al., 2024). As noted by previous researchers, it is not enough to say a construct is positively related to another construct without first considering what a given culture makes of the construct (e.g., Cook et al., 2019; Sarma and Thomas, 2020). Once researchers and practitioners have reflected on the research questions and constructs, they can operationalize the constructs with locally inspired tools, either by adapting existing tools or developing and validating new ones (Ford et al., 2019; Willoughby et al., 2019b; Zuilkowski et al., 2016). This will enable a broader and deeper understanding of how EF development interacts with context.

Our review highlights the need for increased EF research in and from African contexts. The small set of available studies, with relatively small samples across a wide age range, limits our ability to draw strong conclusions about how EF findings from minority world contexts may generalize to the African settings. In particular, the fact that most studies of EF in Africa are quantitative and employed measures developed from dissimilar contexts suggests that more qualitative work on the meaning of EF in African cultures could lead to more culturally informed operationalization of the key concepts. In addition, the mixed findings on the role of life adversity and poverty in EF development and the role of EF in developmental outcomes like academic achievement suggest that further work could be focused on understanding the developmental mechanisms of EF in a variety of contexts. When more qualitative and quantitative research is available in the future, meta-analyses and narrative syntheses can be conducted. More broadly, research from a variety of perspectives can improve models of cognition and shed light on the interaction between the individual's development and their environment.