Cited by 85Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyCognitive Abilities and Testing

Assessing working memory in children with ADHD: Minor administration and scoring changes may improve digit span backward’s construct validity.

Open access
Wells, Erica L., Kofler, Michael J., Soto, Elia F., Schaefer, Hillary S., Sarver, Dustin E.·2018·Research in Developmental Disabilities

Abstract

Background Pediatric ADHD is associated with impairments in working memory, but these deficits often go undetected when using clinic-based tests such as digit span backward.Aims The current study pilot-tested minor administration/scoring modifications to improve digit span backward's construct and predictive validities in a well-characterized sample of children with ADHD.Methods and procedures WISC-IV digit span was modified to administer all trials (i.e., ignore discontinue rule) and count digits rather than trials correct. Traditional and modified scores were compared to a battery of criterion working memory (construct validity) and academic achievement tests (predictive validity) for 34 children with ADHD ages 8-13 (M=10.41; 11 girls).Outcomes and results Traditional digit span backward scores failed to predict working memory or KTEA-2 achievement (allns). Alternate administration/scoring of digit span backward significantly improved its associations with working memory reordering (r=.58), working memory dual-processing (r=.53), working memory updating (r=.28), and KTEA-2 achievement (r=.49).Conclusions and implications Consistent with prior work, these findings urge caution when interpreting digit span performance. Minor test modifications may address test validity concerns, and should be considered in future test revisions. Digit span backward becomes a valid measure of working memory at exactly the point that testing is traditionally discontinued.

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.ridd.2017.10.024

Cites

72 of 72 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?

  • The concurrent and predictive validity of executive function performance tests is supported by studies showing strong convergence with ecologically valid functional outcomes.

    “their concurrent and predictive validity has been supported across a range of cognitive, developmental, and clinical studies demonstrating strong convergence with ecologically valid functional outcomes (Kofler et al., 2016; Miyake et al., 2000; St. Clare-Thompson & Gathercole, 2006; Wells et al., 2018).”

    From Executive functioning rating scales: Ecologically valid or construct invalid? (2020) · cites this paper as Wells et al., 2018

    The Results (Tier 2) report strong associations between the criterion working-memory tests and academic achievement, an outcome relevant to everyday functioning in the children studied. But the same section reports that traditionally administered digit span backward did not significantly predict achievement; the Discussion says its validity improved only with modified administration and scoring. The paper therefore supports a narrower finding, not strong convergence for executive-function performance tests generally or across a range of settings. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Studies with lower working memory effect sizes were more likely to use single tasks that mainly assess short-term memory rather than working memory.

    “In particular, studies finding lower effect sizes/impairment estimates were more likely to rely on estimates from single tasks that have been criticized for poor construct validity because they primarily assess short-term memory rather than working memory (e.g., backward digit span; Snyder et al., 2015; Wells et al., 2018).”

    From Working memory and short-term memory deficits in ADHD: A bifactor modeling approach (2020) · cites this paper as Wells et al., 2018

    The Discussion (‘Implications for core processes and ADHD’; page unavailable) contrasts smaller ADHD impairment estimates on digit span backward (d = 0.43) with larger estimates on working-memory tasks with prominent executive demands (d ≥ 2.0). The Results (‘Tier 1. Construct validity’; page unavailable) also find little association between traditionally scored digit span backward and working-memory processes. These passages support the digit-span example, but do not establish that studies with lower effect sizes were generally more likely to use single tasks. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The concurrent and predictive validity, sensitivity, and specificity of performance-based executive function tests have been supported by numerous cognitive, developmental, and clinical studies demonstrating strong convergence with functional outcomes that are ecologically valid.

    “Their concurrent and predictive validity, sensitivity and specificity has been supported by numerous cognitive, developmental, and clinical studies that have demonstrated strong convergence with functional outcomes that are ecologically valid (Miyake et al., 2000; Wells et al., 2018).”

    From Assessment of executive functions in school-aged children: A narrative review (2022) · cites this paper as Wells et al., 2018

    The Method (Neurocognitive Performance) and Discussion report associations between selected working-memory measures and academic achievement, supporting predictive validity in this child ADHD sample. But the Results (Tier 2) say traditionally administered digit span backward did not significantly predict achievement. The paper does not establish sensitivity, specificity, or strong convergence with ecologically valid functional outcomes for performance-based executive-function tests generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This validity evidence includes experimental and longitudinal linkages between executive function performance tests and objective and subjective measures of inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity, emotion recognition, reading skills, math performance, social skills, organizational skills, parent-child relationship quality, and activities of daily living.

    “This concurrent and predictive validity evidence includes experimental and longitudinal linkages between EF performance tests, objective and subjective measures of inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity, emotion recognition, reading skills, math performance, social skills, organizational skills, parent-child relationship quality, and activities of daily living (Karalunas et al., 2017; Wells et al”

    From Assessment of executive functions in school-aged children: A narrative review (2022) · cites this paper as Wells et al., 2018

    The Method (Neurocognitive Performance; page unavailable) reports links between working-memory task performance and objectively measured activity, attentive behavior, and impulsivity. The Results (Tier 2; page unavailable) link task performance with academic achievement, and the working-memory discussion mentions reading and math attainment. Our copy does not establish longitudinal linkages or address the claimed links with emotion recognition, organizational skills, parent-child relationship quality, or activities of daily living. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Reliability and validity evidence for the working memory tasks includes internal consistency (α=.82-.97), 1- to 3-week test-retest reliability (.76-.90), and expected relations with criterion working memory complex span (r=.69) and updating tasks (r=.61).

    “Reliability and validity evidence includes internal consistency (α=.82-.97; Kofler, Sarver et al., 2018), 1- to 3-week test-retest reliability (.76-.90; Sarver et al., 2015), and expected magnitude relations with criterion working memory complex span (r=.69) and updating tasks (r=.61; Wells et al., 2018).”

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. Raghubar KP Barnes MA Hecht SA 2010 Working memory and mathematics: A review Learning & individual differences 20 110 122
  2. Wechsler D 2011 WASI-II: Wechsler Abbreviated Scales of Intelligence Pearson

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wells, E. L., Kofler, M. J., Soto, E. F., Schaefer, H. S., & Sarver, D. E.
Affiliations
  • Florida State University (US)
  • Tufts University (US)
  • University of Mississippi Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Kofler, Michael J.
Venue
Research in Developmental Disabilities
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-01
Volume
72
Pages
166-178
ISSN
0891-4222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2770337398
Cited by
84
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5
FWCI
4.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Research in Developmental Disabilities (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • UVa Curry School of Education Foundation grant (PI: Kofler)
  • Galant Family and an NIH (R34 MH102499-01)
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
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, working memory, backward digit span, construct validity, predictive validity, WISC-IV, academic performance, children
MeSH terms
Academic Success, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Predictive Value of Tests, Wechsler Scales, Reproducibility of Results

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