CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 105Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderBehavioral Health and InterventionsBehavioral and Psychological Studies

Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD

Open access
Gawrilow, Caterina, Gollwitzer, Peter M.·2008·Cognitive Therapy and Research
DOI 10.1007/s10608-007-9150-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Two experiments with boys with ADHD found that if-then implementation intentions improved response inhibition on a Go/No-Go task, bringing ADHD children to control levels in Study 1 and combining with methylphenidate for the highest performance in Study 2. The strategy did not slow Go-trial responses and effects were not explained by task commitment.

Key findings

  • Study 1: ADHD boys who formed implementation intentions inhibited responses on 89.90% (SD = 5.84) of stop trials versus 78.26% (SD = 9.65) for goal intentions, t(28) = 4.05, p < .001; control children did not differ by intention condition (89.44% vs. 87.34%, t < 1, ns). ADHD goal-intention children were lower than controls, t(28) = 2.28, p < .05, but ADHD implementation-intention children did not differ from controls, t < 1, ns.
  • Study 2: Intention × Medication interaction, F(1, 19) = 5.78, p < .05. With MPH, implementation intention yielded 89.61% (SD = 4.89) inhibition versus 72.01% (SD = 27.46) for goal intention, t(19) = 2.27, p < .05; without MPH, no significant intention effect (86.02% vs. 78.07%, t < 1, ns). Implementation intention with MPH improved from 86.02% to 89.61%, t(19) = 2.05, p = .06.
  • Combined meta-analysis of Studies 1 and 2: medium effect, d = 0.48, N = 50, k = 2, homogeneous, χ²(1) = 0.19, ns, significant, 95% CI = −0.08 to 1.0, p = 0.04. No response-time cost: Study 1 ADHD implementation-intention RT was 620.56 ms versus 687.28 ms for goal intention; Study 2 MPH sped RTs (610.95 ms vs. 659.61 ms, F(1, 19) = 19.41, p < .001). Task commitment did not differ between intention conditions.

Methods

  • Study 1: 58 male children, ages 8.4–14.1 years (M = 11.2, SD = 1.3); 30 with ADHD (ICD-10 Hyperkinetic Disorder F90.0; 13 MPH-medicated, 17 not) and 28 nonclinical controls; randomized to goal versus implementation intention; completed a classification + Go/No-Go task (300 trials, 100 stop trials); analyzed response inhibition and RT with ANOVA/ANCOVA.
  • Study 2: 20 boys with ADHD, ages 8–14 years (M = 11.15, SD = 1.65), receiving MPH 15–20 mg; within-subject medication (48-h washout, then after MPH) crossed with between-subject goal versus implementation intention; same task; measured inhibition, RT, and task commitment; used ANOVA, t-tests, and ANCOVA.
  • Measures: main dependent variable was mean frequency of response inhibition (% correct stops); secondary measure was classification RT; Study 1 included parent CBCL ratings; Study 2 included a task commitment questionnaire.

Limitations

  • Authors state sample homogeneity: only boys participated, so it is unclear whether girls with ADHD would benefit similarly; many participants had comorbid disorders, which the authors argue supports generalizability but requires future subgroup study.
  • Authors state control children without ADHD could not profit because the task was too easy for them (near 90% inhibition already in the goal-intention condition), and intellectual ability was not assessed, leaving unclear whether effects depend on task difficulty or IQ.
  • Authors note Study 2’s repeated task may create practice effects; they argue this threatens external rather than internal validity. Evident from the text: Study 2 had no placebo and medication was always administered after the no-medication session, so order/expectancy effects cannot be fully separated; Study 1 also had no no-intention control group, which the authors justify by prior findings.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10608-007-9150-1

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

26 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

4 of 26 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Making if-then plans (implementation intentions) is a powerful self-regulation strategy for facilitating control of specific critical goal-directed behaviors.

    “A powerful self-regulation strategy geared towards facilitating the control of specific critical goal-directed behaviors is the making of if-then plans (i.e., forming implementation intentions, Gollwitzer, 1999).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gollwitzer, 1999 source
  • Findingown data

    The interaction of Group and Intention factors on response times was not significant.

    “The interaction of the Group and Intention factors was not significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    There was a marginally significant main effect of Group on response inhibition.

    “and a marginally significant main effect of Group, F(1, 54) = 3.39, p = .07.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    There was a significant interaction between Intention and Group on response inhibition, indicating that the effect of forming implementation intentions depended on ADHD status.

    “These main effects were qualified by a significant interaction effect, F(1, 54) = 4.20, p < .05, between the Intention and Group factors, indicating that the effect of forming implementation intentions was dependent on ADHD status.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Children with ADHD found the task easier than did children without ADHD.

    “Children with ADHD found the task easier (M = 2.64, SD = 1.72) than did children without ADHD (M = 3.75, SD = 1.06).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 22
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Action control by implementation intentions is an efficient strategy that requires few cognitive resources.

    “This finding supports the assumption (Gollwitzer, 1999) that action control by implementation intentions is an efficient strategy (i.e., requires few cognitive resources).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gollwitzer, 1999 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    ADHD is associated with decreased activity in frontal brain areas and increased activity in posterior brain areas, and MPH affects not only frontal but also posterior areas.

    “Research additionally shows that ADHD is associated with decreased activity in frontal brain areas and increased activity in posterior (parietal and occipital) brain areas (Durston, 2003), and that MPH affects not only frontal but also posterior areas (Mehta et al., 2000).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Durston, 2003 source
    • cites Mehta et al., 2000 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Children with ADHD tend to show impaired planning abilities that can be restored with MPH.

    “This observation is in line with previous research demonstrating that children with ADHD tend to show impaired planning abilities (e.g., Clarke, Prior, & Kinsella, 2000) that can be restored with MPH (e.g., Arnsten & Dudley, 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Clarke, Prior, & Kinsella, 2000 source
    • cites Arnsten & Dudley, 2005 source

      The Background links prefrontal dysfunction in ADHD to poor planning. The Discussion reports that MPH improves several cognitive functions in children and adults with ADHD, but it does not say that MPH restores planning abilities in children. The study’s own MPH results concern delayed alternation in rats, not planning in children; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were no main or interaction effects of Block on response inhibition.

    “Finally, no main or interaction effects of the Block factor (1-5 vs. 6-10) were observed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Children in the goal intention condition showed slower response times than children in the implementation intention condition, and children with ADHD demonstrated slower response times than control children.

    “Children in the goal intention condition showed slower response times than children in the implementation intention condition, and children with ADHD demonstrated slower response times than control children (see Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, children with ADHD in the goal intention condition did not improve response inhibition under medication but tended to exhibit a decrease: without MPH M = 78.07%, SD = 22.72; with MPH M = 72.01%, SD = 27.46; t(19) < 1, ns.

    “Children in the goal intention condition, on the other hand, did not improve their response inhibition under medication but tended to exhibit a decrease in performance (without MPH, M = 78.07%,SD = 22.72; with MPH, M = 72.01%,SD = 27.46;t(19) < 1, ns).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Parents accurately reported that their children had not received any psychostimulant medication 48 h prior to testing.
    • Rests on an assumption: Parents complied with the instruction that no fatty meal be eaten on the day of the experiment.
    • Rests on an assumption: Children actually received their MPH medication from their parents during the break.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, a 2 (Intention) × 2 (Medication) repeated measurement ANOVA on response times yielded a significant main effect of Medication, F(1, 19) = 19.41, p < .001, indicating that children generally profited from MPH concerning response times (without medication: M = 659.61 ms, SD = 64.02 ms; with medication: M = 610.95 ms, SD = 54.08 ms).

    “A 2 (Intention: goal intention versus implementation intention) • 2 (Medication: yes versus no) repeated measurement ANOVA on response times yielded a significant main effect of Medication, F(1, 19) = 19.41,p < .001,indicating that the children generally profited from medication with MPH concerning their response times (without medication: M = 659.61ms; SD = 64.02ms; with medication: M = 610.95ms;”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Parents accurately reported that their children had not received any psychostimulant medication 48 h prior to testing.
    • Rests on an assumption: Parents complied with the instruction that no fatty meal be eaten on the day of the experiment.
    • Rests on an assumption: Children actually received their MPH medication from their parents during the break.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, neither the main effect of Intention nor the interaction effect of Medication and Intention on response times was significant.

    “Neither the main effect of Intention, nor the interaction effect of Medication and Intention were significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, children with ADHD in the implementation intention condition showed response inhibition of 86.02% (SD = 6.09) without MPH and 89.61% (SD = 4.89) with MPH, t(19) = 2.05, p = .06.

    “Without MPH they showed a response inhibition of 86.02% (SD = 6.09) and with MPH their response inhibition increased to 89.61% (SD = 4.89), t(19) = 2.05, p = .06.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Parents accurately reported that their children had not received any psychostimulant medication 48 h prior to testing.
    • Rests on an assumption: Parents complied with the instruction that no fatty meal be eaten on the day of the experiment.
    • Rests on an assumption: Children actually received their MPH medication from their parents during the break.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A meta-analysis of the implementation intention effects of Studies 1 and 2 taken together indicates that the effect size is medium (d = 0.48, N = 50, k = 2), homogeneous (Chi-square (1) = 0.19, ns), and significant (95% CI = -0.08 to 1.0, p = 0.04).

    “A meta-analysis of the implementation intention effects of Studies 1 and 2 taken together indicates that the effect size is medium (d = 0.48, N = 50, k = 2), homogenous (Chi-square (1) = 0.19, ns), and significant (95% CI = -0.08 to 1.0, p = 0.04).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Implementation intentions facilitate the attainment of all kinds of goals, including academic, health, and interpersonal goals.

    “As recently reported in a meta-analysis, implementation intentions facilitate the attainment of all kinds of goals (e.g., academic, health, and interpersonal goals; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Children with ADHD demonstrate deficient inhibitory control in everyday behavior and impaired performance on tasks measuring inhibitory control, such as the Continuous Performance Task and the Stop Signal Task.

    “Children with ADHD not only demonstrate a deficient inhibitory control in their everyday behavior, but also impaired performance on different tasks measuring inhibitory control, such as the Continuous Performance Task (CPT, Rosvold, Mirsky, Saranson, Bransome, & Beck, 1956) and the Stop Signal Task (SST, Logan & Cowan, 1984).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Rosvold, Mirsky, Saranson, Bransome, & Beck, 1956 source
    • cites Logan & Cowan, 1984 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Study 1 did not vary medication with MPH in children with ADHD.

    “Second, in Study 1 we did not vary the medication with MPH in children with ADHD.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The finding that children with ADHD found the task easier is in line with research demonstrating that children with ADHD often have distorted self-perceptions of competence.

    “This finding is in line with research demonstrating that children with ADHD often have distorted self-perceptions of competence (e.g., Owens & Hoza, 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Owens & Hoza, 2003 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were randomly assigned to goal intention versus implementation intention conditions.

    “The participants were randomly assigned to one of two intention conditions: goal intention versus implementation intention.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Goal commitment questionnaires have high reliability and validity.

    “Goal commitment questionnaires have high reliability and validity (Seijts & Latham, 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Seijts & Latham, 2000 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Implementation intentions support performance on task switching and spatial Simon task paradigms.

    “Most relevant to the present research, implementation intentions were also found to support performance on two tasks where challenges to executive control are especially prevalent, namely task switching and spatial Simon task paradigms (Cohen, Bayer, Jaudas, & Gollwitzer, in press).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cohen, Bayer, Jaudas, & Gollwitzer, in press

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    MPH reduces ADHD symptoms and has been found to increase inhibition abilities in children with ADHD.

    “MPH reduces ADHD symptoms (Jensen et al., 2001) and has been found to increase inhibition abilities in children with ADHD (Bedard et al., 2003).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Jensen et al., 2001 source
    • cites Bedard et al., 2003 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Implementation intentions support the attainment of difficult goals.

    “In particular, implementation intentions appear to support the attainment of difficult goals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    There were no significant differences between children with and without ADHD concerning socioeconomic status.

    “There were no significant differences between children with and without ADHD concerning socioeconomic status (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The beneficial response inhibition effect of implementation intentions had no costs for participants, that is, they did not display slowed response times for the Go responses.

    “Importantly, the beneficial response inhibition effect of implementation intentions had no costs for participants, that is, they did not display slowed response times for the Go responses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The present studies' sample was homogeneous, with only boys participating.

    “One limitation of the present studies is the homogeneity of the sample, e.g., that only boys participated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Control children without ADHD were not able to profit from implementation intentions, which appears to be a consequence of low task difficulty for children without an action-control related disorder.

    “Further, control children without ADHD were not able to profit from implementation intentions which appears to be a consequence of low task difficulty for children without an action-control related disorder (response inhibition was close to 90% already in the goal intention condition).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    This was the first time that the interaction of implementation intentions and psychostimulant medication was tested.

    “Finally, this was the first time that the interaction of implementation intentions and psychostimulant medication was tested.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    In Study 2, children performed the experimental task twice, first without medication and then with medication, so a practice effect might have contributed to participants' second performance.

    “Lastly, one limitation of Study 2 might be seen in the fact that the participating children performed the experimental task twice, at first without medication and following right afterwards with medication.Therefore, a practice effect might have contributed to participants' second performance, and not just the effect of the medication.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The procedure of administering MPH after a 48-h medication hiatus and reassessing after 60 min has been recently used by Hood et al. (2005), demonstrating that children with ADHD show significant improvement in cognitive attention processes after administration of MPH.

    “This procedure has been recently used by Hood, Baird, Rankin, and Isaacs (2005) demonstrating that children with ADHD show significant improvement in cognitive attention processes (i.e., tasks taken from the Test of Everyday Attention for Children TEA-Ch; Manly et al., 2001) after administration of MPH.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hood, Baird, Rankin, and Isaacs, 2005 source
    • cites Manly et al., 2001 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Children with ADHD and with implementation intentions compared to those with mere goal intentions showed better response inhibition in the No-Go trials and faster (Study 1) or equally fast (Study 2) responses in the Go trials.

    “Children with ADHD and with implementation intentions as compared to those with mere goal intentions not only showed better response inhibition in the No-Go trials, but also faster (Study 1) or equally fast (Study 2) responses in the Go trials (i.e., the classification of means of transportation versus animals).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Meichenbaum and colleagues demonstrated that impulsive children could be instructed to talk to themselves, and results indicated that children committed fewer errors when they participated in self-instruction training.

    “Years ago, Meichenbaum and colleagues (e.g., Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971) demonstrated that impulsive children could be instructed to talk to themselves.Specifically, these researchers conducted several experiments in which they taught children to use private speech (e.g., ''Good, I'm doing fine so far.Remember go slow!'') in a self-instruction training.Results indicated that children committed”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Children were randomly assigned to either the goal intention or the implementation intention condition.

    “We assigned children randomly to either the goal intention or the implementation intention condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
29 of 29

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The new classification task combined with a Go/No-Go task validly measures response inhibition in children with ADHD.

    “For the two studies reported in this paper, we developed a new task paradigm (i.e., a classification task combined with a Go/No-Go task) modeled after both the CPT and the SST.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Medication status (MPH) did not confound the effect of implementation intentions in Study 1.

    “Within the ADHD group, 13 children were medicated with one form of methylphenidate (MPH), whereas the remaining 17 children were not medicated with MPH at the time of investigation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Parents would be more willing to participate in a study requiring discontinuation of medication during summer holidays than during the school year.

    “We conducted Study 2 during the summer holidays of 2004, reasoning that parents would be more willing to participate in a study that requires discontinuation of medication during holidays as opposed to during the school year.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Parents accurately reported that their children had not received any psychostimulant medication 48 h prior to testing.

    “In addition, we quizzed each parent(s) in an interview to make sure that the children had not received any psychostimulant medication 48 h prior to testing.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Parents complied with the instruction that no fatty meal be eaten on the day of the experiment.

    “no fatty meal should be eaten on the day of the experiment.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The potential practice effect from performing the task twice is the same across the goal/implementation intention conditions and the medication/no medication conditions.

    “However, as this potential practice effect should be the same in the goal intention/implementation intention condition as well as the medication/no medication condition, we only observed an interaction effect of intention condition and medication.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Children actually received their MPH medication from their parents during the break.

    “During this break, participants received their medication (MPH) from their parents, and thereafter watched a cartoon (The Call of the Simpsons, Groening, 1990).”
7 of 7

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Gawrilow and Gollwitzer (2008) found that only children with ADHD benefited from the intervention, while those without ADHD did not.

    “Only children with ADHD benefited from the intervention, while those without ADHD did not.”

    From The effectiveness of implementation intentions in children: A systematic review and meta‐analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Gawrilow and Gollwitzer (2008)

  • Effects have been demonstrated in patients with frontal lobe lesions and children with ADHD, suggesting that implementation intentions may be effective even in populations with suboptimal self-regulation abilities.

    “On the one hand, effects have been demonstrated in patients with frontal lobe lesions (e.g. Lengfelder & Gollwitzer, 2001) and children with ADHD (e.g. Gawrilow & Gollwitzer, 2008), suggesting that implementation intentions may be effective even in populations with suboptimal self‐regulation abilities.”

    From The effectiveness of implementation intentions in children: A systematic review and meta‐analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Gawrilow & Gollwitzer, 2008

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 19) = 3.96, p = .05

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .05 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .061. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .061

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 19) = 3.46, p = .07

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .07 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .078. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .078

  • Inconsistent p-value: t(19) = 2.05, p = .06

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .06 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .054 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .06 · recomputed p = .054

3 of 3

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 19) = 3.46reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .078

    “F(1, 19) = 3.46, p = .07”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 19) = 3.96reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .061

    “F(1, 19) = 3.96, p = .05”

  • Doesn’t add upt(19) = 2.05reported p = .06 · recomputed p = .054

    “t(19) = 2.05, p = .06”

  • Consistentt(57) = 7.14reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(57) = 7.14, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(57) = 3.71reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(57) = 3.71, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(57) = 5.52reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(57) = 5.52, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 54) = 8.71reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .005

    “F(1, 54) = 8.71, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 54) = 3.39reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .071

    “F(1, 54) = 3.39, p = .07”

  • ConsistentF(1, 54) = 4.2reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .045

    “F(1, 54) = 4.20, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(28) = 4.05reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(28) = 4.05, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(26) < 1reported n.s. · recomputed p = .327

    “t(26) < 1, ns.”

  • Consistentt(28) = 2.28reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .030

    “t(28) = 2.28, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 57) = 3.3reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .075

    “F(1, 57) = 3.30, p = .07”

  • ConsistentF(1, 57) = 3.33reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .073

    “F(1, 57) = 3.33, p = .07”

  • Consistentr(14) = -0.29reported p > .25 · recomputed p = .276

    “r(14) = -.29,p > .25”

  • Consistentt(57) = 2.29reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .026

    “t(57) = 2.29, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 19) = 5.78reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .027

    “F(1, 19) = 5.78, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 19) < 1reported n.s. · recomputed p = .330

    “F(1, 19) < 1, ns”

  • ConsistentF(1, 19) = 5.17reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .035

    “F(1, 19) = 5.17, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 19) = 4.24reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .053

    “F(1,19) = 4.24, p = .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 19) = 5.55reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .029

    “F(1, 19) = 5.55, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(19) < 1reported n.s. · recomputed p = .330

    “t(19) < 1, ns”

  • Consistentt(19) < 1reported n.s. · recomputed p = .330

    “t(19) < 1, ns.”

  • Consistentt(19) = 2.27reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .035

    “t(19) = 2.27, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 19) = 19.41reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 19) = 19.41,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(56) < 1reported n.s. · recomputed p = .322

    “t(56) < 1, ns.”

26 of 26

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Medication-to-retest wait is described as both 60 and 45 minutes

    Major

    The Study 2 overview says reassessment followed a 60-minute period for medication to take effect. The procedure instead describes medication being given during a 45-minute break, followed by reassessment.

  • Meta-analysis confidence interval conflicts with its p-value

    Major

    The reported 95% confidence interval for the effect size includes zero, whereas the reported two-sided p-value of 0.04 indicates significance at the 5% level.

  • Study 1 between-group t-test degrees of freedom exceed the sample size

    Minor

    Study 1 has 30 ADHD and 28 control children. An ordinary independent-groups t-test using all 58 children has 56 degrees of freedom, not the reported 57.

  • Study 2 goal-condition standard deviation differs from Table 3

    Minor

    The text gives the medicated goal-intention group's response-inhibition SD as 27.64, while Table 3 gives 27.46.

  • Study 1 ANCOVA reports more residual degrees of freedom than participants

    Minor

    The age-adjusted analysis reports F(1, 58), although Study 1 included only 58 children. An ANCOVA with participants, an age covariate, and intention and group factors cannot have 58 residual degrees of freedom.

  • Study 2 trial count is said to match Study 1 but does not

    Minor

    Study 2 describes 20 blocks of 30 trials as the same amount used in Study 1, which states that each child completed 10 blocks of 30 trials.

  • Study 2 between-group ANOVA degrees of freedom are incompatible with N = 20

    Minor

    The Study 2 ANOVA includes a between-participants intention factor with two conditions. With 20 participants, its between-participants residual degrees of freedom would be 18, not the reported 19.

7 of 7

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Arbeitsgruppe Deutsche Child Behavior Checklist. (1998). Elternfragebogen über das Verhalten von Kindern und Jugendlichen. Deutsche Bearbeitung der Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/4-18). Köln: Arbeitsgruppe Kinder-, Jugend- und Familiendiagnostik (KJFD). [German consensus version of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/4-18)].
  2. Cohen, A., Bayer, U. C., Jaudas, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (in press). Implementation intentions and executive control: Task switch performance and the Simon effect. Psychological Research.
  3. Reid, R., Trout, A. L., & Schartz, M. (2005). Self-regulation interventions for children with ADHD. Exceptional Children, 71, 361–377.
  4. Smith, A., & Taylor, E. (2006). Response inhibition and hyperactivity in clinical, non-clinical populations: A meta-analysis using the stop task. In R. D. Oades (Ed.), AD/HD and HKS: Current ideas and ways forward (pp. 203–225). Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers.
  5. WHO (1991). Internationale Klassifikation psychischer Stoerungen: ICD 10, Kapitel V. Bern: Huber. [Tenth revision of the International classification of diseases, Chapter V (F): Mental and behavioral disorders].

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gawrilow, C., & Gollwitzer, P. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Konstanz (DE)
  • New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Gawrilow, Caterina
ORCID
Venue
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2007-06-13
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
261-280
ISSN
  • 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2819
DOI
10.1007/s10608-007-9150-1
OpenAlex
W2158085314
Cited by
103
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cognitive Therapy and Research (publishedVersion)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
implementation intentions, response inhibition, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, children, action control, self-regulation, go/no-go task, psychostimulants

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-01.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-01.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review