Cited by 38Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyBehavioral and Psychological Studies

ADHD and academic attainment: Is there an advantage in impulsivity?

Open access
Tymms, Peter, Merrell, Christine·2011·Learning and Individual Differences

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.07.014

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Impulsivity, as in blurting out in the classroom, acts as an overt sign of cognitive engagement and seemed to have a positive function.

    “For example, Tymms and Merrell (2011) note that impulsivity as in the case of 'blurting out' in the classroom acts as 'an overt sign of cognitive engagement it seemed to have a positive function' (Tymms and Merrell, 2011).”

    From Intensity and Variable Attention: Counter Narrating ADHD, from ADHD Deficits to ADHD Difference (2023) · cites this paper as Tymms and Merrell, 2011

    In §4.3 (p. 13), the paper proposes that impulsivity might indicate cognitive engagement and that blurting out may be an overt manifestation of it. The Discussion (p. 14) calls the academic advantage of blurting out a tentative finding. The claim overstates the proposed explanation by saying blurting out acts as a sign of cognitive engagement rather than presenting that link as a possibility. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Barkley, R. A. (1994). Delayed responding and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Toward a unified theory. In D. K. Rough (Ed.), Disruptive behaviour disorders in children: Essays in honour of Herbert Quay (pp. 11-57). New York: Plenum.
  2. Purdie, N., Hattie, J., and Carroll, A. (2002). A review of the research on interventions for ADHD: what works best? Review of Educational Research 72, (1), 61-99.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tymms, P., & Merrell, C.
Affiliations
Durham University (GB)
Corresponding author
Tymms, Peter
Venue
Learning and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-12
Volume
21
Issue
6
Pages
753-758
ISSN
1041-6080 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2081577002
Cited by
37
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Learning and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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 › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, academic performance, impulsivity, inattention, hyperactivity, reading achievement, mathematics achievement, DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, cognitive engagement, young children, teacher ratings

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.

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