*3.2. Parental Perception of Children's Executive Functions and Correlations with Parental Distress*

The parental perception of children's EFs descriptive data are given in Tables 7–12; while correlation data are showed in Table 13.


**Table 7.** EF descriptive data and ANOVA analysis for child and parental age.

Min and max scores for each subscale: 4; 16.

#### **Table 8.** EF descriptive data for educational level.



**Table 9.** EF descriptive data and ANOVA analyses for parental work regimen during the first lockdown, child gender, and child with typical/atypical development condition.

Min and max scores for each subscale: 4; 16. **\*** concerns work regimen during the first lockdown, 43 answers are missing.

**Table 10.** EF descriptive data and ANOVA analyses for couples' conditions and psychological support needs.


Min and max scores for each subscale: 4; 16.


#### **Table 11.** EF descriptive data and ANOVA analyses for order of birth.

Min and max scores for each subscale: 4; 16.

#### **Table 12.** EF descriptive data and ANOVA analyses for parental job condition.


Min and max scores for each subscale: 4; 16.


**Table 13.** Correlation between BR2 and EF variables.

\*\* *p* ≤ 0.01.

Concerning the parental perception of children's EFs, statistically significant differences were found as the effect of having children with typical/atypical patterns of development, parental age, parental educational level, and children's age; in particular, there was a significant effect on having children with typical/atypical patterns of development on working memory (F(1, 307) = 4.24; *p* < 0.05; η<sup>2</sup> p = 0.014), attention (F(1, 307) = 5.271; *p* < 0.01; η2 <sup>p</sup> = 0.017) and shifting (F(1, 307) = 3.806; *p* < 0.05; η<sup>2</sup> <sup>p</sup> = 0.012), in spite of the low effect size value. Parents of children exhibiting atypical patterns of development rated the lowest performance of their children on working memory, attention, and shifting tasks. Moreover, there was a significant effect of parental age on children's inhibition (F(1, 307) = 3.87; *p* < 0.01; η<sup>2</sup> p = 0.02); in fact, younger parents (<36 years old) rated the lowest performance of their children on inhibitory control tasks. Furthermore, there was a significant effect of children's age on parental perception of working memory (F(1, 307) = 3.491; *p* < 0.05; η2 <sup>p</sup> = 0.02), planning (F(1, 307) = 5.188; *p* < 0.01; η<sup>2</sup> <sup>p</sup> = 0.03), inhibition (F(1, 307)= 6.926; *p* = 0.001; η<sup>2</sup> <sup>p</sup> = 0.04), and EF total score (F(1, 307) = 4.387; *p* = 0.01; η<sup>2</sup> p = 0.03); in particular, the younger children (4–6 years) were perceived by their parents as less able to cope with tasks of working memory, planning, and inhibition. Moreover, there was a significant effect of the parents' educational levels on parental perception of children's EFs inhibition (F(1, 307) = 2.646; *p* < 0.05; η<sup>2</sup> p = 0.03).

Finally, correlation analyses were performed to assess the association between parental distress and parental perception of children's EFs. Positive significant correlations (*p* < 0.01) were found among each component of parental distress and each component of the child's EF perception, demonstrating how parents with higher levels of resources and minor levels of distress perceived their children as more able to perform tasks requiring EF competencies during a COVID-19 lockdown.

Considering the correlational data, a multiple linear regression was performed with the stepwise method (see Table 14); the variable "common antecedents" was removed in relation to all pf the EF components, as a probability of F ≥ 0.100 was found (significance of F with regard to the common antecedents: 0.989 for working memory, 0.929 for attention control, 0.269 for planning, 0.874 for shifting, and 0.157 for inhibition). The data are in line with what we expect, based on the correlations carried out, which showed a stronger correlation between the different EFs considered and the specific antecedents.

**Table 14.** Linear regression analysis relating specific antecedents and each component of ESA.


Predictors: (constant): SPECIFIC ANTECEDENTS.
