The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 26 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD
Open accessOverview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
26 Own result · 19 Own interpretation · 10 No full text of the sources · 9 Own method · 5 Sources not found · 3 Not checked yet · 3 No basis given · 2 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Self-regulation by implementation intentions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Gollwitzer, 1999 source
The Conclusion describes forming implementation intentions as a deliberate self-regulatory strategy that delegates control of goal-directed behavior to specified cues. It also reports reliably strong effects on problems of goal pursuit. The supplied passage does not specify a page. (LLM, conf=0.94)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interaction of the Group and Intention factors was not significant.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and a marginally significant main effect of Group, F(1, 54) = 3.39, p = .07.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Children with ADHD found the task easier (M = 2.64, SD = 1.72) than did children without ADHD (M = 3.75, SD = 1.06).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“again, no significant main effect of Medication was observed.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the significant interaction effect between Intention and Medication stayed significant, F(1, 19) = 5.55, p < .05”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and no significant main effect of Medication.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Simple effect analyses revealed no effect of intention without medication, F(1, 19) < 1, ns”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“similar results were observed after medication (Cronbach's a = .65;goal intention with medication: M = 2.43, SD = 1.17; implementation intention with medication: M = 1.96,SD = .90;t(19) < 1, ns).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Further analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This finding supports the assumption (Gollwitzer, 1999) that action control by implementation intentions is an efficient strategy (i.e., requires few cognitive resources).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Gollwitzer, 1999 source
In “The Specified Goal-Directed Behavior,” the paper says that responding induced by implementation intentions is effortless and places little load on limited cognitive resources, even when another task is demanding. This supports the citing sentence’s characterization of action control by implementation intentions as efficient. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Durston, 2003 source
- Supportedcites Mehta et al., 2000 source
The paper’s opening summary reports methylphenidate-related changes in both the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and posterior parietal cortex. The Discussion likewise identifies changes in both regions. The separate claim about activity patterns in ADHD is attributed to Durston (2003), not to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Clarke, Prior, & Kinsella, 2000 source
- Partly supportedcites Arnsten & Dudley, 2005 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, no main or interaction effects of the Block factor (1-5 vs. 6-10) were observed.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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;”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Further analyses
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neither the main effect of Intention, nor the interaction effect of Medication and Intention were significant.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Further analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Discussion
hedgedcorrelationaln = 50 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Self-regulation by implementation intentions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Introduction
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, in Study 1 we did not vary the medication with MPH in children with ADHD.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“This finding is in line with research demonstrating that children with ADHD often have distorted self-perceptions of competence (e.g., Owens & Hoza, 2003).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Owens & Hoza, 2003 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The participants were randomly assigned to one of two intention conditions: goal intention versus implementation intention.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Goal commitment questionnaires have high reliability and validity (Seijts & Latham, 2000).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Seijts & Latham, 2000 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Self-regulation by implementation intentions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cohen, Bayer, Jaudas, & Gollwitzer, in press
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“MPH reduces ADHD symptoms (Jensen et al., 2001) and has been found to increase inhibition abilities in children with ADHD (Bedard et al., 2003).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Discussion
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In particular, implementation intentions appear to support the attainment of difficult goals.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Self-regulation by implementation intentions
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no significant differences between children with and without ADHD concerning socioeconomic status (Table 1).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > General discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One limitation of the present studies is the homogeneity of the sample, e.g., that only boys participated.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Limitations of the present studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Limitations of the present studies
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, this was the first time that the interaction of implementation intentions and psychostimulant medication was tested.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Implications for implementation intention research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Limitations of the present studies
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Overview
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > General discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Implications for ADHD interventions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We assigned children randomly to either the goal intention or the implementation intention condition.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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).”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(1, 19) = 3.96, p = .05”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
Reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .061
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(1, 19) = 3.46, p = .07”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
Reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .078
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“t(19) = 2.05, p = .06”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
Reported p = .06 · recomputed p = .054
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.”
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.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Overview
“after a period of 60 min to allow the medication to take effect we reassessed the children on the same task.”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Procedure
“Next, participants took a 45-min break.During this break, participants received their medication (MPH) from their parents, and thereafter watched a cartoon (The Call of the Simpsons, Groening, 1990).Subsequently, the participants repeated the experimental procedure as described above”
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Discussion
“significant (95% CI = -0.08 to 1.0, p = 0.04)”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Discussion
“95% CI = -0.08 to 1.0”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Participants
“total CBCL t(57) = 7.14, p < .001”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Participants
“The clinical group, consisting of 30 boys with ADHD, was recruited from a collaborating local pediatric clinic”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
“goal intention condition: M = 72.01,SD = 27.64”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Conclusion
“| Response inhibition (%) | 72.01 (27.46) | 89.61 (4.89) |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
“Results indicated no significant effect of the covariate Age, F(1, 58) = .985,ns”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Participants
“Fifty-eight male children with ages ranging from 8.4 to 14.1 years (M = 11.2;SD = 1.3) participated in this experimental study”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Material
“Overall, the same amount of experimental trials as in Study 1 was used in Study 2 (i.e., 20 blocks with 30 trials each).”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Procedure
“Altogether, every child completed 10 blocks of 30 trials (300 trials in total), 100 of which were stop trials.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Response inhibition
“A 2 (Intention: goal intention versus implementation intention) • 2 (Medication: yes versus no) ANOVA on response inhibition revealed a marginally significant main effect of Intention, F(1, 19) = 3.46”
§ Implementation Intentions Facilitate Response Inhibition in Children with ADHD > Participants
“Twenty boys with ADHD between the ages of 8 and 14 years old (M = 11.15years; SD = 1.65 years) participated in this study.”
Citations
Cites
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
Cook, R. J., Dickens, B. M., & Fathalla, M. F. (2003) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199241323.003.0025 · Cited by 10,825
Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.7.493 · Cited by 5,478
Self-citationAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Handbook for Diagnosis and Treatment
Barkley, R. A., & Poillion, M. J. (1994) · Behavioral Disorders · doi:10.1177/019874299401900205 · Cited by 4,635
Christiane, Druml, Wolzt, & Pleiner (2001) · Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Sunyatseni · Cited by 3,419
Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)38002-1 · Cited by 3,236 · cited 2×
“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).”
BackgroundSelf-citationOn the ability to inhibit thought and action: a theory of an act of control
Logan, G. D., & Cowan, W. B. (1984) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.91.3.295 · Cited by 2,590
A continuous performance test of brain damage
Rosvold, H. E., Mirsky, A. F., Sarason, I., Bransome, E. D., & Beck, L. H. (1956) · Journal of Consulting Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0043220 · Cited by 2,261
Goal Achievement: The Role of Intentions
Gollwitzer, P. (1993) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/14792779343000059 · Cited by 1,754
Self-citationADHD and The Nature of Self-Control
Barkley, R. A., & Wasserstein, J. (2000) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.14.1.111 · Cited by 1,640
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- 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)].
- 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.
- Reid, R., Trout, A. L., & Schartz, M. (2005). Self-regulation interventions for children with ADHD. Exceptional Children, 71, 361–377.
- 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.
- 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
Items 101–105 of 105
Job, V., & Goschke, T. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-68476-4_10
The Implications of Motivational Barriers to Care in Mental Health Contexts
Fine, L. C. (2025) · AJOB Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/21507740.2025.2519449
Motivation und Volition im Handlungsverlauf
Achtziger, A., Doerflinger, J. T., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-69368-1_12
Self-citationPlanning promotes studying – The higher the plan quality the better: A micro-randomized trial
Schaaf, M., Brod, G., & Breitwieser, J. (2025) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2025.102422 · Cited by 1
Exploring the Mechanisms of Implementation Intentions: A Preschool Intervention
Meyer, L. G. (2015) · CU Scholar (University of Colorado Boulder)
Metadata
- Authors
- Gawrilow, C., & Gollwitzer, P. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Konstanz (DE)
- New York University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gawrilow, Caterina
- Venue
- Cognitive Therapy and Research
- Published
- 2007-06-13
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 261-280
- ISSN
- 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-2819
- 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
- green
- nbn-resolving.de
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-01, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-01 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
