CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 67Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyCognitive Abilities and Testing

Improving Working Memory in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: The Separate and Combined Effects of Incentives and Stimulant Medication

Open access
Strand, Michael T., Hawk, Larry W., Bubnik, Michelle, Shiels, Keri, Pelham, William E., Waxmonsky, James G.·2012·Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
DOI 10.1007/s10802-012-9627-6PMC PMC3422611
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Working memory (WM) is considered a core deficit in Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), with numerous studies demonstrating impaired WM among children with ADHD. We tested the degree to which WM in children with ADHD was improved by performance-based incentives, an analog of behavioral intervention. In two studies, WM performance was assessed using a visuo-spatial n-back task. Study 1 compared children (ages 9-12 years) with ADHD-Combined type (n = 24) to a group of typically developing (TD) children (n = 32). Study 1 replicated WM deficits among children with ADHD. Incentives improved WM, particularly among children with ADHD. The provision of incentives reduced the ADHD-control group difference by approximately half but did not normalize WM. Study 2 examined the separate and combined effects of incentives and stimulant medication among 17 children with ADHD-Combined type. Both incentives and a moderate dose of long-acting methylphenidate (MPH; ~0.3 mg/kg t.i.d. equivalent) robustly improved WM relative to the no-incentive, placebo condition. The combination of incentives and medication improved WM significantly more than either incentives or MPH alone. These studies indicate that contingencies markedly improve WM among children with ADHD-Combined type, with effect sizes comparable to a moderate dose of stimulant medication. More broadly, this work calls attention to the role of motivation in studying cognitive deficits in ADHD and in testing multifactorial models of ADHD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10802-012-9627-6

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

0 of 38 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    In Study 2, the amount of improvement from medication did not differ between the 1-back and 2-back conditions.

    “the amount of improvement with medication did not differ between the 1- and 2-back, F<1.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Compared with no treatment, incentives alone improved accuracy.

    “Compared to no treatment, both incentives alone and MPH alone improved accuracy, F = 19.9, ps = .001, .002, ds = 1.04, 0.88.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Study 1's baseline session, performance did not differ between the 1-back and 2-back conditions.

    “however, performance did not vary between WM manipulation conditions, Group × 1- v. 2-back, F(1,52) = 1.6, p= .21, d = .31.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Incentives improved working memory more in children with ADHD than in controls.

    “As hypothesized, incentives facilitated working memory more among children with ADHD than among controls.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The separate effects of incentives and methylphenidate on accuracy did not differ.

    “The separate effects of incentives and MPH on accuracy did not differ, F = 19.9, p = .87, d = .04.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 24
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 19
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 1, incentives cut the ADHD-control difference by about half but did not bring working memory to normal levels.

    “The provision of incentives reduced the ADHD-control group difference by approximately half but did not normalize WM.”
    • Also stated in: § Normalization · plain
      “On average, accuracy remained lower among the ADHD group during incentive conditions than among the control group during no incentive conditions, group F = 4.5, p < .05, d = .55.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 1, incentives improved working memory, and the improvement was larger in children with ADHD than in typically developing children.

    “Incentives improved WM, particularly among children with ADHD.”
    • Also stated in: § Incentive visit · plain
      “Most importantly, incentives led to greater improvement in accuracy among children with ADHD, F(1,52) = 77.1, p <.001, d = 1.28, compared to the TD control group, F(1,52) = 17.9, p < .001, d = 1.1, Group × Incentive F(1,52) = 14.9, p < .001, d = .9.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 1's normalization analysis, incentives normalized average performance on the 0-back but not on the working memory manipulation conditions.

    “However, a marginal Group (ADHD-Incentive v. TD-No-incentive) × 0-back v. 1- and 2-back interaction, F(1,52) = 3.1, p = .08, suggested that incentives normalized average performance during the 0-back, F(1, 52) = 1.5, p = .23 , d = .33, but not during the WM manipulation conditions, F(1,52) = 5.0, p = .03, d = .58, Group × 1- and 2-back, F(1,52) = .4, p = .52.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Performance incentives did not normalize working memory, but they roughly halved the ADHD-control performance difference at the present reinforcement dose.

    “Though performance-based incentives did not normalize working memory, the ADHD-control difference in performance was roughly cut in half with the present “dose” of reinforcement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The present studies show that both stimulant treatment and performance incentives acutely improve visuo-spatial working memory.

    “The present studies demonstrate that both stimulant treatment and incentives for better performance each acutely improve visuo-spatial working memory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both incentive and methylphenidate effects on working memory were large and easily detected despite the small sample.

    “Both incentive and methylphenidate effects on working memory were large and easily detected despite the small sample.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 2, medication condition varied between days and incentive condition alternated within day, with medication and incentive orders counterbalanced across participants.

    “Medication condition varied between days and incentive condition alternated within day. Medication order and incentive order were counterbalanced between subjects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    No single cognitive process, including working memory, is highly specific or sensitive to ADHD.

    “Of course, no single cognitive process, including working memory, is highly specific or sensitive to ADHD (Pennington et al., 2005; Willcutt et al., 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pennington et al., 2005; Willcutt et al., 2005

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

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 2, children taking stimulant medication stopped it at least 24 hours before participation.

    “Children who were currently taking stimulant medication discontinued medication use for at least 24 hours prior participation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    ADHD may be associated with an altered reward threshold.

    “Specifically, ADHD may be associated with problems in the reward threshold (e.g., Haenlein & Caul, 1987)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Haenlein & Caul, 1987 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Children in the control group had fewer than four symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity on the DBD-RS, no significant impairment on the IRS, and no DISC-IV diagnosis of ADHD or another behavioral disorder.

    “Children included in the control group exhibited less than 4 symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity on the DBD-RS, were free of significant impairment on the IRS (all scores < 3 on the 0-6 scale), and did not meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD or any other behavioral disorder on the DISC-IV.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Combining contingency management with stimulant therapy may yield more improvement than either alone and is a recommended standard of care.

    “Though the combination of contingency management and stimulant therapy may produce more improvement than either modality alone (e.g., Carlson et al., 1992; Pelham et al., 1993; 2005; Fabiano et al., 2007) and is a recommended standard of care (AAP, 2011)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Carlson et al., 1992; Pelham et al., 1993; 2005

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

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 2, active medication or placebo was administered double-blind.

    “Children were administered active medication or placebo in a double-blind fashion shortly after their 7:30 a.m. arrival (medication order was counterbalanced), and cognitive testing began 90 minutes after administration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The present data replicate and extend Shiels et al.'s preliminary finding that incentives improve performance when working memory manipulation is required.

    “These data replicate and extend Shiels and colleagues’ (2008) preliminary finding that incentives enhance task performance when working memory manipulation was required (i.e., backward span).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shiels and colleagues’ (2008)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    ADHD may involve general discounting of delayed consequences.

    “or general discounting of delayed consequences (e.g., Luman, Tripp, & Scheres, 2010; Shiels et al., 2009; Sonuga-Barke, 2005)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Luman, Tripp, & Scheres, 2010; Shiels et al., 2009; Sonuga-Barke, 2005

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

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    ADHD may be characterized by a steeper reinforcement gradient.

    “and may be characterized by a steeper reinforcement gradient (e.g., Sagvolden et al., 2005)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sagvolden et al., 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    In Study 1's incentive version, the order of incentive and no-incentive blocks was counterbalanced across participants.

    “Incentive order (whether a child received an incentive block 1st or a no-incentive block 1st) was counterbalanced between subjects, since incentive order may influence working memory task performance in children with ADHD (see Shiels et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shiels et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 2, each child completed the task during one of several possible testing periods, and this timing was counterbalanced across children.

    “Each child completed the task during one of several possible testing periods throughout the day, and this timing was counterbalanced across children.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Across the two studies, contingencies substantially improve working memory in children with ADHD-Combined type, with effect sizes similar to those of a moderate stimulant dose.

    “These studies indicate that contingencies markedly improve WM among children with ADHD–Combined type, with effect sizes comparable to a moderate dose of stimulant medication.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 1's incentive session, load order was randomized and counterbalanced, and incentive and no-incentive blocks alternated within each load.

    “Load order was randomized and counterbalanced across participants, and incentive and no-incentive conditions alternated within load.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Shiels et al. (2008) study had no control group, so it is unclear whether a working memory deficit was present or whether incentive-related improvement represented normalization.

    “However, this prior study did not include a control group, and without comparison to typically developing peers, it remains unclear whether or not a working memory deficit was present in this sample, or if improved performance in response to incentives constituted working memory normalization.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shiels and colleagues (2008)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The few published n-back studies in children with ADHD have generally found working memory deficits, often larger as n-back load increases.

    “Indeed, the few published studies of the n-back among children with ADHD (e.g., Karatekin Bingham & White, 2009; Klein et al., 2006; Shallice et al., 2002) have generally demonstrated working memory deficits among children with ADHD, with greater deficits often apparent as n-back load is increased (see also the work of Ehlis et al., 2008, in adults).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Karatekin Bingham & White, 2009; Klein et al., 2006; Shallice et al., 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Working memory deficits in ADHD are robust, and the largest impairments occur on tasks that require executive control of visuo-spatial information.

    “Deficits in working memory among children with ADHD are robust, with the largest impairments on tasks that require executive control in dealing with visual and spatial information (i.e., visuo-spatial working memory; e.g., meta-analytic reviews of Martinussen, Hayden Hogg-Johnson, & Tannock, 2005; Nigg, Willcutt, Doyle, & Sonuga-Barke, 2002; Willcutt et al., 2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Martinussen, Hayden Hogg-Johnson, & Tannock, 2005; Nigg, Willcutt, Doyle, & Sonuga-Barke, 2002; Willcutt et al., 2005

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Study 1's results suggest that performance-based incentives substantially reduced group differences in working memory but did not fully normalize it at the group level.

    “Study 1 suggested that performance-based incentives markedly attenuated the group differences in working memory but did not fully normalize the process at the group level.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Participants who were taking stimulant medication stopped it at least 24 hours before each testing day.

    “All participants who were actively taking stimulant medication (n = 12) discontinued use at least 24 hours prior to each testing day.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationcitation

    The finding of larger ADHD-control differences at higher n-back loads is consistent with some prior studies, while other studies have found only a general deficit across loads.

    “This finding is consistent with previous studies demonstrating greater ADHD performance deficits, relative to controls, during larger n-back loads (e.g., Klein et al., 2006; Kobel 2008), though other studies have observed only a general deficit across n-back loads (e.g., Karatekin, Bingham, & White, 2009; Shallice, et al., 2002).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Klein et al., 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kobel 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Karatekin, Bingham, & White, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    In Study 2, identical opaque capsules were used to keep medication condition blinded.

    “In order to maintain blinding to medication condition, children received identical opaque capsules on each day of testing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Children in the ADHD group met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD-Combined type, confirmed by DBD-RS, IRS, and DISC-IV assessments.

    “All children in the ADHD group met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., or DSM–IV; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) criteria for ADHD– Combined type.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Preliminary evidence suggests that working memory training may be an effective treatment for ADHD.

    “and preliminary evidence suggests that training working memory may be an effective treatment for the disorder (e.g., Klingberg et al., 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Klingberg et al., 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Kobel et al. (2008) found that methylphenidate normalized working memory differences between children with ADHD and typically developing children on an n-back task, although the effect did not vary with load.

    “Kobel et al. (2008) have also demonstrated that methylphenidate normalized group differences in working memory performance among children with ADHD in comparison to TD children on an n-back task, although this effect did not vary across n-back load.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kobel et al. (2008) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Working memory is regarded as a core deficit in ADHD, and many studies have found impaired working memory in children with ADHD.

    “Working memory (WM) is considered a core deficit in Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), with numerous studies demonstrating impaired WM among children with ADHD.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Martinussen, Hayden Hogg-Johnson, & Tannock, 2005; Nigg, Willcutt, Doyle, & Sonuga-Barke, 2002; Willcutt et al., 2005

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The equivalence of incentives and methylphenidate was not due to a ceiling effect, because the combination produced greater improvement than either alone.

    “the equivalence of incentives and methylphenidate was not due to a ceiling effect on performance, as the combination of incentives and methylphenidate yielded greater improvement than either alone”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Methylphenidate effects on spatial working memory can be dose-dependent, but the exact dose-response function appears inconsistent across tasks.

    “The effects of methylphenidate on spatial working memory can be dose-dependent, though the exact nature of that dose-response function appears to be inconsistent across tasks (e.g., Bedard et al., 2004).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bedard et al., 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationown data

    The present data are broadly consistent with treatment guidelines that recommend both pharmacotherapy and behavioral intervention for school-age children with ADHD.

    “These novel data are broadly consistent with treatment guidelines recommending that school-age children with ADHD receive both pharmacotherapy and behavioral intervention (AAP, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites AAP, 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Stimulant medication is a well-studied and empirically supported treatment for ADHD.

    “stimulant medication, a well-studied and empirically supported treatment for ADHD (Greenhill et al., 2002; Plizska 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Greenhill et al., 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Plizska 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The present work and Dovis et al. complement each other and highlight the importance of considering or manipulating motivational context when assessing working memory in ADHD.

    “the two studies generally complement one another and indicate the importance explicitly considering, or even manipulating, the motivational context in which working memory is assessed in ADHD (see also Luman et al., 2005, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Luman et al., 2005, 2010

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

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

    Premisecitation

    Studies of incentives on cognition are even less likely to examine a dose-response function.

    “Studies of incentives on cognition are even less likely to examine a dose-response function (c.f., Dovis et al., in press; Luman et al., 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Dovis et al., in press

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Luman et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

37 of 37

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Performance-based incentives in the laboratory serve as an analogue of behavioral intervention in clinical settings.

    “performance-based incentives, an analog of behavioral intervention”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A 24-hour washout is sufficient to remove the effects of prior stimulant medication.

    “discontinued use at least 24 hours prior to each testing day.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The fixed ascending order in the baseline session does not differentially bias ADHD versus typically developing group comparisons.

    “Although this order confounds time on task and working memory load, pilot testing suggested that an ascending difficulty sequence was necessary on first exposure to the task to ensure children in this age range could reasonably understand the task.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The combination of incentives and stimulants in the laboratory is an analogue of combination treatment in real-world settings.

    “the combination of incentives and stimulants provides an analogue of combination treatment in real-world settings.”
4 of 4

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?

  • Children with ADHD, in contrast to TD peers, show suboptimal performance on visuospatial WM- and STM tasks under regular reinforcement conditions, and require relatively high incentives to perform to their full abilities.

    “Research indeed shows that children with ADHD, in contrast to their TD peers, show suboptimal performance on visuospatial WM- and visuospatial STM tasks under regular reinforcement conditions (e.g., feedback-only), and require relatively high incentives (e.g., feedback ? 10 euros) to perform to their full abilities [13, 33, 34].”

    From Prevalence and diagnostic validity of motivational impairments and deficits in visuospatial short-term memory and working memory in ADHD subtypes (2015) · cites this paper as [34]

    Study 1 and the Discussion report poorer visuospatial working-memory performance in children with ADHD than in typically developing peers, and improvement with incentives. But the paper does not establish the claim for separate visuospatial short-term-memory tasks or show that high incentives are required for children to perform to their full abilities: its incentives did not normalize working memory, and its Discussion reports improvement with both 1- and 10-euro rewards in another study. The Study 1 Methods also describe a no-incentive condition with non-informative signals, not feedback-only reinforcement. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Abnormal sensitivity to reinforcement is characteristic of children with ADHD on a group level.

    “Although both theory [e.g. 28, 29] and research [39, 40; also see 13, 33, 34] suggest that an abnormal sensitivity to reinforcement is characteristic of children with ADHD on a group level,”

    From Prevalence and diagnostic validity of motivational impairments and deficits in visuospatial short-term memory and working memory in ADHD subtypes (2015) · cites this paper as [34]

  • Preliminary evidence suggests that strong, immediate rewards for task performance that improve spatial working memory to the same extent as stimulant medication are similarly effective in reinforcing fast, consistent responses in children with ADHD.

    “Indeed, preliminary evidence suggests that the strong, immediate rewards for task performance that improve spatial working memory to the same extent as stimulant medication [95] are similarly effective in reinforcing fast, consistent responses in children with ADHD [96].”

    From Reaction Time Variability in ADHD: A Review (2012) · cites this paper as [95]

Statistics that don’t add up

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

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: F(1, 52) = 11.3, p < .001

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .001 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .001. The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .001

1 of 1

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, 52) = 11.3reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “F(1, 52) = 11.3, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 101.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,52) = 101.9, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 37.5reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,52) = 37.5, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 12.6reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,52) = 12.6, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 6.25reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .016

    “F(1,52) = 6.25, p = .016”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 5.38reported p = .024 · recomputed p = .024

    “F(1,52) = 5.38, p = .024”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 1.6reported p = .21 · recomputed p = .212

    “F(1,52) = 1.6, p = .21”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 80.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,52) = 80.9, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 53reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,52) = 53, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 24reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,52) = 24, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 24.8reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 52) = 24.8, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 7.8reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .007

    “F(1,52) = 7.8, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 0.9reported p = .34 · recomputed p = .347

    “F(1,52) = .9, p = .34”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 88.5reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,52) = 88.5, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 100.2reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,52) = 100.2, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 24.6reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 52) = 24.6, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 5reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .030

    “F(1,52) = 5.0, p = .03”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 77.1reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,52) = 77.1, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 17.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,52) = 17.9, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 14.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,52) = 14.9, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 3.1reported p = .08 · recomputed p = .084

    “F(1,52) = 3.1, p = .08”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 1.5reported p = .23 · recomputed p = .226

    “F(1, 52) = 1.5, p = .23”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 0.4reported p = .52 · recomputed p = .530

    “F(1,52) = .4, p = .52”

  • ConsistentF(1, 16) = 26.87reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,16) = 26.87, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 16) = 10.9reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .005

    “F(1,16) = 10.9, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 16) = 33.1reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,16) = 33.1, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 16) = 31.1reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,16) = 31.1, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 16) = 12.2reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “F(1,16) = 12.2, p = .003”

  • ConsistentF(1, 16) = 4.6reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .048

    “F (1,16) = 4.6, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 16) = 23.1reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,16) = 23.1, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 16) = 7.4reported p = .015 · recomputed p = .015

    “F(1, 16) = 7.4, p = .015”

  • ConsistentF(1, 16) = 3.8reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .069

    “F(1,16) = 3.8, p = .07”

32 of 32

Self-check

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

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for ASEBA School-Age Forms and Profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
  2. Quay, H. C. (1988). Attention-deficit disorder and the behavioral inhibition system: The relevance of the neuropsychological theory of Jeffrey A. Gray. In L. M. Bloomingdale & J. Sergeant (Eds.), Attention-deficit disorder: criteria, cognition, intervention (pp. 117–126). New York: Pergamon Press.
  3. Reynolds, C. R., & Richmond, B. O. (2005). Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS) (9th ed.). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
  4. Wechsler, D., Kaplan, E., Fein, D., Kramer, J., Delis, D., Morris, R., & Maerlender, A. (2004). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 4th Edition, Integrated (WISC-IV). San Antonio: The Psychological Corp.
  5. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson® III Test. Itasca: Riverside Publishing Company.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Strand, M. T., Hawk, L. W., Bubnik, M., Shiels, K., Pelham, W. E., & Waxmonsky, J. G.
Affiliations
University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Hawk, Larry W.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-04-03
Volume
40
Issue
7
Pages
1193-1207
ISSN
  • 0091-0627 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2835
DOI
10.1007/s10802-012-9627-6
PMC
PMC3422611
OpenAlex
W2156915655
Cited by
67
References
68
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH069434)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
working memory, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, combined type ADHD, performance-based incentives, behavioral interventions, stimulant medication, methylphenidate, motivation, children
MeSH terms
Central Nervous System Stimulants, Analysis of Variance, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Combined Modality Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Memory Disorders, Memory, Short-Term, Methylphenidate, Motivation, Reinforcement, Psychology

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 2026-10-04.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-04.

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