CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 152Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Executive functioning in children with autism and Tourette syndrome

Open access
VERTÉ, SYLVIE, GEURTS, HILDE M., ROEYERS, HERBERT, OOSTERLAAN, JAAP, SERGEANT, JOSEPH A.·2005·Development and Psychopathology
DOI 10.1017/s0954579405050200
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The main aims of this study were to investigate if children with high-functioning autism (HFA) and children with Tourette syndrome (TS) can be differentiated in their executive functioning (EF) profile compared to normal controls (NCs) and compared to each other and to investigate whether children with HFA or children with TS and a comorbid group of children with both disorders are distinct conditions in terms of EF. Four groups of children participated in this study: HFA, TS, comorbid HFA + TS, and a NC group. All children were in the age range of 6 to 13 years. The groups were compared on five major domains of EF: inhibition, visual working memory, planning, cognitive flexibility, and verbal fluency. Children with HFA scored lower than NC children on all the EFs measured. Children with TS and NC children showed the same EF profile. The HFA group scored lower than the TS group for inhibition of a prepotent response and cognitive flexibility. Children with HFA performed poorer than children with comorbid HFA + TS on all functions, with the exception of inhibiting an ongoing response, interference control, and verbal fluency. Children with TS and children with comorbid HFA + TS could not be differentiated from one another in terms of EF. This study indicates that EF deficits are highly characteristic of children with HFA in comparison to children with TS and NC. The results suggest that for the comparison between HFA and TS groups, it is important to take into account comorbidity. A reevaluation of the EF hypothesis in children with TS is suggested. We thank the children and parents without whose participation this research would not have been possible.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0954579405050200

Cites

118 of 118 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 75 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Children with Tourette syndrome and children with comorbid high-functioning autism and Tourette syndrome were indistinguishable from each other in executive functioning.

    “Children with TS and children with comorbid HFA ϩ TS could not be differentiated from one another in terms of EF.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Children with high-functioning autism scored lower than normal controls on every executive function domain measured.

    “Children with HFA scored lower than NC children on all the EFs measured.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Children with high-functioning autism performed worse than children with comorbid high-functioning autism and Tourette syndrome on every function except ongoing-response inhibition, interference control, and verbal fluency.

    “Children with HFA performed poorer than children with comorbid HFA ϩ TS on all functions, with the exception of inhibiting an ongoing response, interference control, and verbal fluency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Children with Tourette syndrome and normal controls had the same executive functioning profile.

    “Children with TS and NC children showed the same EF profile.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The HFA group had faster decision times than the NC and HFA+TS groups.

    “The HFA group had faster decision times than the NC ~p ϭ .002! and HFA ϩ TS groups ~p ϭ .01!.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 79
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 12
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 34

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The high-functioning autism group scored lower than the Tourette syndrome group on prepotent-response inhibition and on cognitive flexibility.

    “The HFA group scored lower than the TS group for inhibition of a prepotent response and cognitive flexibility.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The HFA group used less time than the NC group on the circle drawing task, indicating more problems inhibiting an ongoing response.

    “Contrary to predictions, the HFA group used less time than the NC group ~p ϭ.001!, and thus had more problems in inhibiting an ongoing response.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Significant group differences were obtained for decision time, F(3,140)=4.17, p=.007, eta squared=.08, and execution time, F(3,140)=5.75, p=.001, eta squared=.11.

    “Significant group differences were obtained for the two temporal measures: F ~3, 140! ϭ 4.17, p ϭ .007,h 2 ϭ .08 for decision time and F ~3, 140! ϭ 5.75, p ϭ .001,h 2 ϭ .11for execution time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The NC group showed significantly fewer problems on all rating scale scores than the three clinical groups, except on the CD scale of the DBD where parent and teacher ratings could not distinguish the NC and TS groups.

    “In general, the NC group showed significantly less problems on all rating scale scores in comparison to the three clinical groups.The only exception was for the CD scale of the DBD.Parent and teacher ratings on this scale could not distinguish between the NC and TS groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The groups differed in full-scale IQ, and the HFA group had lower IQ than the NC group.

    “The groups differed with respect to FSIQ, F ~3, 145! ϭ 6.97, p , .001,h 2 ϭ .14; the HFA group had lower IQs than the NC group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The mean correlation between FSIQ and the EF variables was low, with a mean r of .26 and a range from .106 to .436.

    “The mean correlation between FSIQ and the EF variables was low ~r ϭ .26,range r ϭ 6.106-6.436!.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Within-group correlations of FSIQ and EF variables had mean r values of .16 for HFA, .26 for TS, .26 for HFA+TS, and .32 for NC.

    “mean r ϭ .16~range r ϭ 6.066-6.426! for the HFA group; mean r ϭ .26~range r ϭ 6.026-6.616! for the TS group; mean r ϭ .26~range r ϭ 6.036-6.546! for the HFA ϩ TS group; and mean r ϭ .32~range r ϭ 6.056-6.686! for the NC group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The HFA versus NC difficulty interaction contrast on SoP errors remained significant after controlling for age and FSIQ.

    “This contrast remained significant after controlling for age and FSIQ.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    After covarying for age and FSIQ, only contrasts 1 and 3 remained significant, and the HFA group remained slower than the NC and TS groups.

    “After covarying for both age and FSIQ, only contrasts 1 and 3 were still statistically significant.The HFA group remained significantly slower than the NC and TS groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a significant effect for change MRT, F(3,137)=7.69, p<.001, eta squared=.14, and for the number of errors in the change task, F(3,137)=4.33, p=.006, eta squared=.09.

    “There was a significant effect for change MRT, F ~3, 137! ϭ 7.69, p , .001,h 2 ϭ .14, as well as for the number of errors in the change task, F ~3, 137! ϭ 4.33, p ϭ .006,h 2 ϭ .09.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No correlations between FSIQ and non-EF variables were significant for the HFA group, one for the TS and HFA+TS groups, and five for the NC group.

    “No correlations were significant for the HFA group, one correlation was significant for the TS and HFA ϩ TS groups, while five correlations were significant for the NC group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Only three correlations between FSIQ and EF variables were significant for the HFA group, two for the TS and HFA+TS groups, and six for the NC group.

    “Only three correlations were significant for the HFA group, two correlations were significant for the TS and HFA ϩ TS groups, while six correlations were significant for the NC group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The HFA group had a greater time difference than the NC group on the TEA-Ch, indicating more problems with interference control.

    “The HFA group had a greater time difference than the NC group ~p ϭ .003!, and thus had more problems with interference control.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The mean correlation between the EF variables and non-EF variables was low, with a mean r of .26 and a range from .066 to .666.

    “The mean correlation between the EF variables and non-EF variables was low ~r ϭ .26,range r ϭ 6.066-6.666!”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a significant interaction between group and ToL decision time, F(6,276)=3.97, p=.001, eta squared=.08, but not for ToL score or ToL execution time.

    “When the difficulty level was taken into account, a significant interaction effect emerged between group and ToL decision time, F ~6, 276! ϭ 3.97, p ϭ .001,h 2 ϭ .08,but not ToL score, F ~6, 286! ϭ 2.12, ns, h 2 ϭ .04,and ToL execution time, F ~6, 278! ϭ 1.53, ns, h 2 ϭ .03.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The clinical groups could not be differentiated on any parent or teacher DBD subscales, except that parents rated the TS group as exhibiting less CD symptoms than the HFA group.

    “The clinical groups could not be differentiated on any of the parent or teacher DBD subscales, with one exception: according to parents, the TS group exhibited less CD symptoms than the HFA group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The HFA and HFA+TS groups showed significantly more autism symptoms than the TS group on the ADI-R, and the HFA and HFA+TS groups did not differ.

    “In line with expectations, the HFA and HFA ϩ TS groups showed significantly more symptoms of autism than the TS group on the ADI-R.The HFA and HFA ϩ TS groups did not differ.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    As difficulty increased, differences in decision time became larger between the HFA group and the NC group, and between the HFA group and the HFA+TS group.

    “As difficulty increased, differences in decision time became larger between the HFA group in comparison to the NC ~p ϭ .003! and HFA ϩ TS ~p , .001! groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    The other contrasts on the circle drawing task were not significant.

    “The other contrasts were not significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Comorbidity predicted significantly over and above HFA, but HFA did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity for planning.

    “Comorbidity predicted significantly over and above HFA, but HFA did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The regression equation with TS for non-EF tasks was not significant, while the regression equation with the comorbidities ADHD and OCD was significant.

    “The regression equation with TS for non-EF tasks was not significant, while in contrast the regression equation with the comorbidities ADHD and OCD was significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a significant effect for the standard deviation of reaction times, F(3,138)=5.11, p=.002, eta squared=.10, and for the number of errors, F(3,138)=5.38, p=.001, eta squared=.11.

    “There was a significant effect for the standard deviation of reaction times ~response variability!, F ~3, 138! ϭ 5.11, p ϭ .002,h 2 ϭ .10,and for the number of errors, F ~3, 138! ϭ 5.38, p ϭ .001,h 2 ϭ .11.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Comorbidity predicted significantly over and above TS, but TS did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity for verbal fluency.

    “Comorbidity predicted significantly over and above TS, but TS did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The multiple regression with three predictors for TS visual working memory was significant.

    “The multiple regression with the three predictors was significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Comorbidity predicted significantly over and above HFA, but HFA did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity for inhibition.

    “Comorbidity predicted significantly over and above HFA, but HFA did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Although the regression with three predictors was not significant, the beta weight for ADHD reached significance for TS planning.

    “However, although the regression analysis with three predictors was not significant, the beta weight for ADHD did reach significance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Comorbidity did not predict significantly over and above HFA, but HFA did predict significantly over and above comorbidity for visual working memory.

    “Comorbidity did not predict significantly over and above HFA, but HFA did pre- dict significantly over and above comorbidity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The multiple regression with three predictors for non-EF was significant.

    “The multiple regression with the three predictors was significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The HFA group demonstrated greater variability in speed of responding and committed more errors than the NC group.

    “The HFA group demonstrated greater variability in speed of responding ~p , .001! and committed more errors ~p , .001! than the NC group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The HFA group had fewer correct responses for both semantic and letter categories than the NC group.

    “The HFA group had fewer correct responses for both categories than the NC group ~p , .001 for both categories!.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The HFA group had lower scores than the NC, TS, and HFA+TS groups on the Corsi and BVRT.

    “The HFA group had lower scores than the NC ~Corsi, p , .001;BVRT, p , .001!, TS ~Corsi, p , .001;BVRT, p ϭ .007!, and HFAϩ TS groups ~Corsi, p , .001;BVRT, p , .001!.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The regression equation with HFA for inhibition was not significant, while the regression equation with the comorbidities ADHD and OCD was significant.

    “The regression equation with HFA for inhibition was not significant, while the regression equation with the comorbidities ADHD and OCD was significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Comorbidity did not predict significantly over and above HFA, and HFA did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity for non-EF.

    “Comorbidity did not predict significantly over and above HFA, and HFA did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Comorbidity predicted significantly over and above TS, but TS did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity for cognitive flexibility.

    “Comorbidity predicted significantly over and above TS, but TS did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Comorbidity did not predict significantly over and above HFA, but HFA did predict significantly over and above comorbidity for verbal fluency.

    “Comorbidity did not predict significantly over and above HFA, but HFA did predict significantly over and above comorbidity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The multiple regression with three predictors for TS verbal fluency was significant.

    “The multiple regression with the three predictors was significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Comorbidity did predict significantly over and above TS, but TS did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity for non-EF.

    “Comorbidity did predict significantly over and above TS, but TS did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The multiple regression with three predictors for TS non-EF was significant.

    “The multiple regression with the three predictors was significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The groups differed significantly for the semantic category, F(3,143)=6.96, p<.001, eta squared=.13, and the letter category, F(3,143)=4.54, p=.004, eta squared=.09.

    “The groups differed significantly for the semantic category, F ~3, 143! ϭ 6.96, p , .001,h 2 ϭ .13,as well as the letter category, F ~3, 143! ϭ 4.54, p ϭ .004,h 2 ϭ .09.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The regression equation with comorbidity for non-EF was also significant.

    “The regression equation with comorbidity was also significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were significant group differences on both measures of visual short-term memory: the Corsi, F(3,143)=13.05, p<.001, eta squared=.22, and the BVRT, F(3,145)=12.29, p<.001, eta squared=.20.

    “There were significant group differences on both measures of visual short-term memory: the Corsi, F ~3, 143! ϭ 13.05, p , .001,h 2 ϭ .22,and the BVRT, F ~3, 145! ϭ 12.29, p , .001,h 2 ϭ .20.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The multiple regression with three predictors for TS inhibition was significant.

    “The multiple regression with the three predictors was significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When the contribution of comorbidity was specified, ADHD but not OCD was related to inhibition.

    “When the contribution of comorbidity was specified, ADHD, but not OCD, was related to inhibition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When the contribution of comorbidity was specified, ADHD but not OCD was related to inhibition in TS.

    “When the contribution of comorbidity was specified, ADHD, but not OCD was related to inhibition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The regression equation with HFA for planning was not significant, while the regression equation with comorbidity was significant.

    “The regression equation with HFA for planning was not significant, while the regression equation with comorbidity was significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Comorbidity did not predict significantly over and above HFA, but HFA did predict significantly over and above comorbidity for cognitive flexibility.

    “Comorbidity did not predict significantly over and above HFA, but HFA did predict significantly over and above comorbidity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Comorbidity predicted significantly over and above TS, and TS predicted significantly over and above comorbidity for inhibition.

    “Comorbidity predicted significantly over and above TS, and TS predicted significantly over and above comorbidity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Comorbidity did not predict significantly over and above TS, and TS did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity for planning.

    “Comorbidity did not predict significantly over and above TS, and TS did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingown data

    The regression equation with comorbidities for verbal fluency was also significant.

    “The regression equation with the comorbidities ADHD and OCD was also significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Comorbidity predicted significantly over and above TS, but TS did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity for visual working memory.

    “Comorbidity predicted significantly over and above TS, but TS did not predict significantly over and above comorbidity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The regression equation with TS for inhibition was not significant, while the regression equation with the comorbidities ADHD and OCD was significant.

    “The regression equation with TS for inhibition was not significant, while the regression equation with the comorbidities ADHD and OCD was significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The regression equation with TS for planning was not significant, while the regression equation with the comorbidities ADHD and OCD was significant.

    “The regression equation with TS with respect to planning was not significant, while the regression equation with the comorbidities ADHD and OCD was significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The mean correlation for parents between the 12 EF measures and the CCC pragmatic score was r=.30, with a range from .12 to .39.

    “The mean correlation for the parents was r ϭ .30~range r ϭ 6.126-6.396!”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    All correlations between EF measures and the CCC pragmatic score were significant, except the correlations between the parent pragmatic score and ToL decision and execution times, and Change task errors.

    “All the correlations were significant, with the exception of the correlations between the parent pragmatic score with ToL decision and execution times, and Change task errors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    The HFA+TS group had a slightly but not significantly higher IQ than the HFA group.

    “The HFA ϩ TS group had a slightly, but not significantly, higher IQ than the HFA group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Only three significant within-group correlations of IQ and EF measures, and only two significant interactions between diagnostic group and IQ on the EF measures, were found.

    “Only three significant within group correlations of IQ and EF measures, and only two significant interactions between diagnostic group and IQ on the EF measures were found”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The HFA group scored lower than the NC group on visual working memory, cognitive flexibility, planning, and verbal fluency.

    “The HFA group scored lower than the NC group on visual working memory, cognitive flexibility, planning, and verbal fluency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The HFA children showed more response variability and committed more errors than the NC group in the response execution domain.

    “These children showed more response variability and committed more errors than the NC group in the response execution domain.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Contrary to predictions, the HFA group had difficulties inhibiting a prepotent and ongoing response, as well as with interference control.

    “Contrary to predictions, the HFA group had difficulties in inhibiting a prepotent and ongoing response, as well as with interference control.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Children with HFA scored lower than children comorbid for HFA and TS on all functions, with the exception of inhibition of an ongoing response, interference control, and verbal fluency.

    “Children with HFA scored lower than children comorbid for HFA and TS on all functions, with the exception of inhibition of an ongoing response, interference control, and verbal fluency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Despite the clinical groups not differing in age and IQ, most significant differences between the HFA and HFA+TS groups disappeared while controlling for age and IQ, which was not the case for differences between HFA and NC or between HFA and TS.

    “Despite the fact that the clinical groups did not differ with respect to age and IQ, it was striking that most of the significant differences between the HFA and HFA ϩ TS groups disappeared, while controlling for age and IQ, which was not the case for the differences between the HFA and NC groups or between the HFA and TS groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The HFA children exhibited difficulties in short-term memory (Corsi and BVRT) and categorization.

    “Further, they exhibited difficulties in shortterm memory ~i.e., Corsi and BVRT!, and categorization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Several prior studies reported executive-function deficits among individuals with autism.

    “Multiple studies have identified executive functioning ~EF! deficits in autism ~Ozonoff, 1997; Russell, 1997; Sergeant, Geurts, & Oosterlaan, 2002!.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Ozonoff, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Russell, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sergeant, Geurts, & Oosterlaan, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    The ADI-R is regarded as the leading diagnostic tool for autism spectrum disorders.

    “The ADI-R is currently considered as the”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Filipek et al., 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    ADI-R administration served to confirm autism spectrum diagnosis in high-functioning autism groups and rule it out in the Tourette syndrome group.

    “The ADI-R was administered to confirm the autism spectrum diagnosis in the HFA groups and to exclude an autism spectrum disorder in the TS group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Methylphenidate was stopped at least 20 hours before testing to permit full washout.

    “Twelve children from the HFA group were on methylphenidate, but discontinued medication at least 20 hr before testing ~Barkley, Du-Paul, & Connor, 1999! allowing for a complete washout ~Greenhill, 1998!.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Barkley, Du-Paul, & Connor, 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Greenhill, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    High-functioning autism was diagnosed when all three ADI-R domain scores met their cutoffs.

    “A diagnosis of HFA was made if the scores on the ADI-R reached the cutoffs for all three domains.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Autism and Tourette syndrome are both neurodevelopmental disorders involving frontostriatal circuits.

    “Furthermore, according to Bradshaw ~2001!, both autism and TS are frontostriatal neurodevelopmental disorders.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bradshaw, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test depends on right dorsolateral frontal cortex function.

    “Several studies have found that WCST performance relies on the right dorsolateral frontal cortex ~e.g., Berman, Ostrem, Randolph, Gold, Goldberg, Coppola, Carson, Herscovitch, & Weinberger, 1995;Lombardi, Andreason, Sirocco, Rio, Gross, Umhau, & Hommer, 1999;Riehemann et al., 2001!.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Berman et al., 1995

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lombardi et al., 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Riehemann et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Full-scale IQ was included as a covariate because the groups differed significantly on it.

    “FSIQ was controlled for because there were significant group differences for FSIQ.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Children were included only if they were medication-free or could stop their medication.

    “children who did not use medication ~or used medication that could be discontinued, e.g., methylphenidate!participated in the study.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The TSSL verified DSM-IV-TR tic criteria in every Tourette syndrome participant: two or more motor tics and one or more vocal tics.

    “The TSSL was included to verify the presence of at least two motor tics and at least one vocal tic for all subjects with TS, as required by DSM-IV-TR criteria.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Executive-function comparisons adjusted for full-scale IQ and age.

    “Second, groups were compared on the EF measures, while controlling for FSIQ and age.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Tourette syndrome can co-occur with ADHD or OCD.

    “Furthermore, comorbidity of TS and ADHD or OCD is possible ~APA, 2000!.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites APA, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Participation required a clinical diagnosis established through multidisciplinary assessment.

    “Only children with a clinical diagnosis based on a multidisciplinary assessment”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    For the high-functioning autism group, ADHD and hyperactivity were distributed comparably to other groups, whereas inattention and OCD were not.

    “The distribution of HFA versus the other disorders was comparable for ADHD, x 2 ~1! ϭ .58,ns, and hyperactivity, x 2 ~1! ϭ .23,ns, but not for inattention, x 2 ~1! ϭ 6.53, p ϭ .01,and OCD, x 2 ~1! ϭ 5.90, p ϭ .02.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Some executive-function domains were assessed with multiple tasks so that coverage was adequate and deficits could not be attributed to a single task.

    “Because EF tasks are seldom pure measures of a single EF domain ~e.g., Ozonoff, 1997!, more than one task was included for some domains ~e.g., inhibition, cognitive flexibility, and verbal fluency! to ensure that the domain was adequately covered, and that possible deficits are not due to the task chosen.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    Left prefrontal function is generally linked to verbal fluency.

    “Several studies have shown that verbal fluency tends to be associated with left prefrontal functioning ~e.g., Frith, Friston, Liddle, & Frackowiak, 1991;Gaillard et al., 2000;Phelps, Hyder, Blamire, & Shulman, 1997;Schlosser, Aoyagi, Fulbright, Gore, & McCarthy, 1998!.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Frith et al., 1991

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gaillard et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Phelps et al., 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    For the Tourette syndrome group, ADHD, inattention, and hyperactivity were distributed comparably to other groups, whereas OCD was not.

    “The distribution of TS versus the other disorders was comparable for ADHD, x 2 ~1! ϭ .63,ns, inattention, x 2 ~1! ϭ 3.03, ns, and hyperactivity, x 2 ~1! ϭ .07,ns, but not for OCD, x 2 ~1! ϭ 9.29, p ϭ .002.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    On each comparison, the increase in decision time was least for the HFA group, indicating deficits in planning.

    “On each comparison, the increase in decision time was least for the HFA group, indicating deficits in planning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    ADHD and OCD traits were adjusted for because they often accompany high-functioning autism and Tourette syndrome and were unevenly distributed across groups.

    “Third, ADHD and OCD characteristics were controlled for because these characteristics are frequently associated with HFA and TS.Furthermore, in this study both characteristics were not always equally divided within the groups ~i.e., inattentivity and OCD!.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Many earlier developmental-psychopathology studies of executive functioning overlooked comorbidity.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Technical problems caused missing data for some children.

    “Data was missing for some children because of technical reasons.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Age was adjusted for because executive functions continue to develop across the studied age range and could affect results even though groups did not differ in age.

    “Age was controlled for because EFs are still developing in the age range in this study, and this might influence the outcome despite the fact that there were no group differences for age.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Executive-function deficits become more prominent with age.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Outlying scores were detected and excluded from analysis.

    “For each group and for each dependent measure, children with extreme scores were identified and removed from the analyses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    TS had additional predictive power beyond comorbidity, and vice versa, for inhibition.

    “TS had additional predictive power beyond that contributed by comorbidity, and vice versa.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    TS and comorbidity are poor predictors of cognitive flexibility.

    “TS as well as comorbidity are poor predictors of cognitive flexibility.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    TS and comorbidity are good predictors of visual working memory.

    “TS as well as comorbidity are good predictors of visual working memory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    HFA and comorbidity are good predictors of verbal fluency.

    “HFA as well as comorbidity are good predictors of verbal fluency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    TS and comorbidity are good predictors of verbal fluency.

    “TS as well as comorbidity are good predictors of verbal fluency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    HFA and comorbidity are good predictors of cognitive flexibility.

    “HFA as well as comorbidity are good predictors of cognitive flexibility.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    HFA and comorbidity are good predictors of non-EF.

    “HFA as well as comorbidity are good predictors of non-EF.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    HFA and comorbidity are good predictors of visual working memory.

    “HFAas well as comorbidity are good predictors of visual working memory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Autism and Tourette syndrome are both frontostriatal neurodevelopmental disorders.

    “According to Bradshaw ~2001!, both autism and TS are frontostriatal neurodevelopmental disorders.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bradshaw, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Autism appears to be linked to dysfunction in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, lateral orbitofrontal cortex, and cerebellum.

    “Autism seems to be associated with the dorsolateral prefrontal and lateral orbitofrontal cortex as well as with cerebellar dysfunction ~Bailey, Phillips, & Rutter, 1996;Bradshaw & Sheppard, 2000;Chugani, 2000;Eliez & Reiss, 2000!.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bailey, Phillips, & Rutter, 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bradshaw & Sheppard, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Chugani, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationown data

    A final explanation for the current results is that they are due to a smaller number of subjects in the comorbid group.

    “A final explanation for the current results is that they are due to a smaller number of subjects in the comorbid group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Hierarchical regression analyses suggest that HFA had greater predictive power for cognitive flexibility, visual working memory, and verbal fluency, while ADHD had the most predictive power for inhibition and planning.

    “These analyses suggest that HFA had greater predictive power for cognitive flexibility, visual working memory, and verbal fluency, while ADHD had the most predictive power for inhibition and planning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationcitation

    Because cognitive functions change rapidly in childhood, validating executive function tasks within a developmental framework is difficult.

    “Hence, it is difficult to validate tasks within a developmental framework.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    Some of the non-executive-function tasks used, specifically the Benton and Corsi tasks, also tap executive processes.

    “However, it may be argued that some of these tasks reflect EF processes as well ~i.e., the Benton and the Corsi; Baddeley, Della Sala, Gray, Papagno, & Spinnler, 1997!.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Baddeley, Della Sala, Gray, Papagno, & Spinnler, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Although the importance of comorbidity could not be confirmed in the variance analyses, the regression analyses clearly showed the importance of comorbid ADHD.

    “Although we could not confirm the importance of comorbidity in the variance analyses, the regression analyses clearly showed the importance of comorbid ADHD.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationnone given

    The off-medication selection criterion might have biased the sample somewhat toward less affected children with TS.

    “Overall, it should be noted that the”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Cognitive functions develop rapidly during childhood.

    “Anderson ~2002!argued that cognitive functions develop rapidly in childhood.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Anderson, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Information-processing tasks, unlike classical tasks, measure specific component processes and permit experimental manipulations.

    “Contrary to classical tasks, these kinds of tasks measure specific component processes and make experimental manipulations possible.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Considering the moderate correlation and the finding that EF deficits become more prominent with age, the possibility cannot be completely ruled out that EF problems in children with autism are a secondary outcome of another central process rather than a primary cause.

    “Considering this moderate correlation together with the finding that EF deficits become more prominent with age, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that EF problems in children with autism are a secondary outcome of another central process, rather than a primary cause ~e.g., Zelazo & Müller, 2002!.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zelazo & Müller, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study included tasks with overlapping executive function demands to ensure each domain was adequately covered and that any deficits found were not an artifact of the specific task used.

    “To deal with this measurement problem for some domains, tasks that overlap in their EF demands were included to ensure that the domain was adequately covered, and that possible deficits are not due to the task chosen.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Including tasks that overlap in their executive function demands ensures that each executive function domain is adequately covered.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Diagnoses for children in the clinical groups were verified with the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children for DSM-IV.

    “At the third stage, diagnoses of the children in the clinical groups were verified using the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised ~ADI-R; Lord, Rutter, & Le Couteur, 1994! and the Diagnostic Interview Scale for Children for DSM-IV ~DISC-IV; Shaffer, Fisher, Lucas, Dulcan, & Schwab-Stone, 2000; Dutch translation, Ferdinand, Van der Ende, & Mesman, 1998!.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lord, Rutter, & Le Couteur, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Shaffer, Fisher, Lucas, Dulcan, & Schwab-Stone, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The largest increases in executive function occur between ages 7 and 9 and again between ages 11 and 12.

    “It can be found in the literature that the greatest increments in EF are between the ages of 7 and 9 and again between 11 and 12 years”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Anderson, Anderson, & Lajoie, 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bradshaw, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    The Disruptive Behavior Disorder rating scale has adequate psychometric properties.

    “Adequate psychometric properties have been reported ~Oosterlaan et al., 2000!.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Oosterlaan et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    When comparing high-functioning autism and Tourette syndrome groups, comorbidity-especially attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder characteristics-should be taken into account.

    “The results also suggest that for the comparison between HFA and TS groups, it is important to take into account comorbidity, especially comorbidity with ADHD characteristics.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    The Children's Communication Checklist pragmatic composite score is considered a promising tool for identifying children with autism spectrum disorder.

    “Adequate psychometric properties have been reported and the pragmatic composite score is seen as a promising measure for the detection of children with an autism spectrum disorder ~Bishop, 1998; Bishop & Baird, 2001!.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bishop, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bishop & Baird, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Executive function deficits are not a central feature of the cognitive phenotype in Tourette syndrome, unlike in autism.

    “Because EF deficits are not a central part of the cognitive phenotype of TS as they are for autism, a reevaluation of the EF hypothesis in TS is warranted.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    Adequate reliability and validity have been reported for precursors of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children for DSM-IV.

    “Adequate reliability and validity have been reported for precursors of the DISC-IV ~Schwab-Stone et al., 1996!.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schwab-Stone et al., 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Performance on the stop signal task, a variant of the change task, is associated with functioning of the right prefrontal cortex.

    “Several studies have found that performance on the stop signal task ~Logan, 1994!, a variant of the change task, is associated with right prefrontal cortex functioning ~e.g., Rubia, Overmeyer, Taylor, Brammer, Williams, Simmons, & Bullmore, 1999!.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Logan, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rubia et al., 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    A larger inhibition time on the Circle Drawing Task indicates a better ability to inhibit the continuous tracing response.

    “The greater the inhibition time, the better a participant was able to inhibit ~slow down! the continuous tracing response.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The inhibition time measured by the Circle Drawing Task reflects the ability to inhibit an ongoing response.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The present study provides further support that autism, but not Tourette syndrome, is associated with impaired executive function.

    “In conclusion, this study adds further support to the view that autism, but not TS, is associated with impaired EF.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Children with high-functioning autism show executive function deficits relative to other groups, yet they improve with age without reaching normal levels of functioning.

    “This means that although children with HFA have EF deficits in comparison to the other groups, they also make progression in EF with increasing age, but they do not reach normal functioning levels.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    The child version of the Leyton Obsessional Inventory-Parent Version has sound psychometric properties.

    “Sound psychometric properties have been reported for the child version of this instrument ~Berg et al., 1988; Flament, Whitaker, Rapoport, Davies, Berg, Kalikow, Sceery, & Shaffer, 1988; King, Inglis, Jenkins, Myerson, & Ollendick, 1995!.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Berg et al., 1988

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Flament et al., 1988

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites King et al., 1995

      Not checked in the free run.

116 of 116

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Executive-function deficits become more prominent with age.

    “It should be noted that EF deficits become more prominent with age.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many earlier developmental-psychopathology studies of executive functioning overlooked comorbidity.

    “The issue of comorbidity is a neglected aspect in many previous studies of EF in developmental psychopathology.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Earlier work usually assessed just two or three executive-function domains.

    “while most studies covered only two or three domains.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Before this study, no direct comparison had been made among autism, Tourette syndrome, and a comorbid group with both conditions.

    “no study to date has made a direct comparison between children with autism, TS, and a comorbid group of children with both disorders.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The EF tasks measure the EF domains they are intended to measure.

    “which they assume the task measures”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The non-EF tasks measure the non-EF domains they are intended to measure.

    “the non-EF control measures”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The rating scales and interviews validly measure the constructs they are used to assess.

    “rating scale scores, and interview scores for each group”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The five EF domains are valid and distinct constructs.

    “five major domains of EF ~Pennington & Ozonoff, 1996!: inhibition, visual working memory, planning, cognitive flexibility, and verbal fluency”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The statistical models used are appropriate and their assumptions are met.

    “Group differences for the other measures were studied with ANOVAs, using an overall alpha level of .05.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The executive function tasks used in this study validly measure the specific executive function domains to which they are assigned.

    “although the tasks included in this study are assigned to a specific domain, we are aware that EF tasks cannot be considered pure measures of a single EF domain”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Including tasks that overlap in their executive function demands ensures that each executive function domain is adequately covered.

    “tasks that overlap in their EF demands were included to ensure that the domain was adequately covered”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The non-executive-function measures included in this study control for generalized cognitive impairment.

    “The current study improved previous studies by the inclusion of non-EF measures to control for generalized cognitive impairment.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The inhibition time measured by the Circle Drawing Task reflects the ability to inhibit an ongoing response.

    “The greater the inhibition time, the better a participant was able to inhibit ~slow down! the continuous tracing response.”
13 of 13

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?

  • Recent WCST studies demonstrate deficits in changing sorting strategy across autism subtypes, ages, and cognitive levels.

    “Recent studies using this measure in autism also demonstrate deficits in changing sorting strategy across populations of various autism subtypes, ages and cognitive levels ([9,13–22], but see Ref. [23]).”

    From The paradox of cognitive flexibility in autism (2009) · cites this paper as [21]

  • Elevated reaction time variability is not unique to ADHD; it has been observed in high functioning autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder with psychotic symptoms, traumatic brain injury, and early stage Alzheimer's dementia.

    “Elevated RTV has been observed in individuals with high functioning autism [20], schizophrenia [21], bipolar disorder with psychotic symptoms [22], traumatic brain injury [23][24][25][26], and early stage Alzheimer's dementia [27,28].”

    From Reaction Time Variability in ADHD: A Review (2012) · cites this paper as [20]

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.

  • Categorization test has more observations than the study enrolled

    Minor

    The reported ANOVA degrees of freedom imply 152 observations (3 + 148 + 1), but the four study groups contain only 149 children. Excluding missing data or outliers could not increase that total.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Lezak, M. D. (1995).Neuropsychological assessment(3rd ed.).New York:Oxford University Press.
  2. Cohen, D. J. , Leckman, J. F. , & Shaywitz, B. A. (1985).The Tourette syndrome and other tics. In D. Shaffer , A. A. Ehrhardt , & L. L. Greenhill (Eds.),The clinical guide to child psychiatry (pp.3–28).New York:Free Press.
  3. Rogers, S. (1999).An examination of the imitation deficits in autism. In J. Nadel & G. Butterworth (Eds.),Imitation in infancy: Cambridge studies in cognitive perceptualdevelopment (pp.254–283).New York:Cambridge University Press.
  4. Logan, G. D. (1994).On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A users' guideto the stop signal paradigm. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.),Inhibitory processes in attention, memory and language (pp.189–239).San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
  5. Hays, W. L. (1981).Statistics(3rd ed.).New York:Dryden Press.
  6. Tranel, D. , Anderson, S. W. , & Benton, A. (1994).Development of the concept of “executive function” andits relationship to the frontal lobes. In F. Boller & J. Grafmann (Eds.),Handbook of neuropsychology (pp.125–148).Amsterdam:Elsevier Science.
  7. Tellegen, P. , & Laros, J. (1993).The construction and validation of a nonverbal test of intelligence:The revision of the Snijders–Oomen Tests.European Journal of Psychological Assessment 9,147–157.
  8. Greenhill, L. L. (1998).Childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Pharmacologicaltreatments. In P. E. Nathan & J. M. Gorman (Eds.),A guide to treatments that work (pp.42–64).London:Oxford University Press.
  9. Rabbitt, P. (1997).Introduction: Methodologies and models in the study of executivefunction. In P. Rabbitt (Ed.),Methodology of frontal and executive function.Hove:Psychology Press.
  10. Beery, K. E. (1997).The Beery–Buktenica Developmental Test of visual–motorintegration(4th ed.).New York:Modern Curriculum Press.
  11. Baddeley, A. , Della Sala, S. , Gray, C. , Papagno, C. , & Spinnler, H. (1997).Testing central executive functioning with a pencil-and-papertest. In P. Rabbit (Ed.),Methodology of frontal and executive function (pp.61–80).Hove:Psychology Press.
  12. Brown, R. T. , & Ivers, C. E. (1999).Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. In S. Goldstein & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.),Handbook of neurodevelopmental and genetic disorders inchildren (pp.185–215).New York:Guilford Press.
  13. Zelazo, P. D. , Burack, J. A. , Boseovski, J. J. , Jacques, S. , & Frye, D. (2001).A cognitive complexity and control framework for the study ofautism. In J. A. Burack , T. Charman , N. Yirmiya , & P. R. Zelazo (Eds.),The development of autism: Perspectives from theory andresearch (pp.195–217).Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
  14. Groth–Marnat, G. (1997).Handbook of psychological assessment(3rd ed.).New York:Wiley.
  15. Bradshaw, J. L. (2001).Developmental disorders of the frontostriatal system:Neuropsychological, neuropsychiatric, and evolutionaryperspectives.Hove:Psychology Press Ltd.
  16. Lord, C. (1997).Diagnostic instruments in autism spectrum disorders. In D. J. Cohen & F. R. Volkmar (Eds.),Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders(2nd ed., pp.460–483).New York:Wiley.
  17. Rutter, M. , & Bailey, A. (1999).Thinking and relationships: Mind and brain (some reflections ontheory of mind and autism). In S. Baron–Cohen , H. Tager–Flusberg , & D. J. Cohen (Eds.),Understanding other minds (pp.481–504).Oxford:Oxford University Press.
  18. Snijders, J. T. , Tellegen, P. J. , & Laros, J. A. (1989).Snijders–Oomen Non-Verbal Intelligence Tests: SON-R 5,5-17.Manual and research report.Groningen:Wolters–Noordhoff.
  19. Leckman, J. F. , & Cohen, D. J. (1999).Tourette's syndrome: Tics, obsessions, compulsions:Developmental psychopathology and clinical care.New York:Wiley.
  20. Rogers, S. , & Bennetto, L. (2000).Intersubjectivity in autism: The roles of imitation and executivefunction. In A. M. Wetherby & B. M. Prizant (Eds.),Autism spectrum disorders: A transactional developmentalperspective (pp.79–107).Baltimore, MD:Paul H. Brookes.
  21. Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences(2nd ed.).Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
  22. Frith, U. (2003).Autism: Explaining the enigma(2nd ed.).London:Blackwell.
  23. Tabachnick, B. G. , & Fidell, L. S. (1996).Using multivariate statistics(3rd ed.).New York:Harper–Collins College Publishers.
  24. Pennington, B. F. , Bennetto, L. , McAleer, O. , & Roberts, R. J. (1996).Executive functions and working memory. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.),Attention, memory and executive function (pp.327–348).Baltimore, MD:Paul H. Brookes.
  25. Corsi, P. M. (1972).Human memory and the medial temporal region of the brain.Dissertation Abstracts International,34,819B.
  26. Ozonoff, S. (1997).Components of executive function in autism and otherdisorders. In J. Russell (Ed.),Autism as an executive disorder (pp.179–211).Oxford:Oxford University Press.
  27. Barkley, R. A. (1997b).ADHD and the nature of self-control.New York:Guilford Press.
  28. Denckla, M. B. , & Reiss, A. L. (1997).Prefrontal-subcortical circuits in developmental disorders.In N. A. Krasnegor & G. R. Lyon (Eds.),Development of the prefrontal cortex: Evolution, neurobiology, andbehavior (pp.283–293).Baltimore, MD:Paul H. Brookes.
  29. Denckla, M. B. (1996).A theory and model of executive function: A neuropsychologicalperspective. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.),Attention, memory, and executive function (pp.263–277).Baltimore, MD:Paul H. Brookes.
  30. Fombonne, E. (1998).Epidemiology of autism and related conditions. In F. R. Volkmar (Ed.),Autism and pervasive developmental disorders (pp.32–63).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
  31. Fuster, J. M. (1997).The prefrontal cortex: Anatomy, physiology, and neuropsychology ofthe frontal lobe(3rd ed.).Philadelphia, PA:Lippincott–Raven.
  32. Eslinger, P. J. (1996).Conceptualizing, describing, and measuring components of executivefunction. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.),Attention, memory, and executive function (pp.263–277).Baltimore, MD:Paul H. Brookes.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
VERTÉ, S., GEURTS, H. M., ROEYERS, H., OOSTERLAAN, J., & SERGEANT, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Development and Psychopathology
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2005-05-12
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
415-445
ISSN
  • 0954-5794 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-2198
DOI
10.1017/s0954579405050200
OpenAlex
W2158707544
Cited by
152
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Development and Psychopathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
executive function, high-functioning autism, Tourette syndrome, comorbidities, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, visual working memory, planning, verbal fluency, interference control, children
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Autistic Disorder, Child, Cognition, Tourette Syndrome, Humans, Memory, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Obsessive Behavior, Personality Inventory, Severity of Illness Index, Verbal Learning

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 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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