Cited by 306Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Impulsive behavior in adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Characterization of attentional, motor and cognitive impulsiveness

MALLOY-DINIZ, L., FUENTES, D., LEITE, W. BORGES, CORREA, H., BECHARA, A.·2007·Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society

Abstract

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by inattention and/or hyperactivity/impulsivity. Impulsivity persists in adults with ADHD and might be the basis of much of the impairment observed in the daily lives of such individuals. The objective of this study was to address the presence, and more importantly, the three dimensions of impulsivity: attentional, non-planning and motor, in how they may relate to neuropsychological mechanisms of impulse control. We studied a sample of 50 adults with ADHD and 51 healthy comparison controls using the Barratt Impulsivity Scale Version 11 (BIS), and neuropsychological tasks, namely the Continuous Performance Task (CPT-II) and the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). The ADHD group showed more signs of impulsivity on the three dimensions of BIS, committed more errors of omission and commission on the CPT-II, and made more disadvantageous choices on the IGT. These results support the existence of deficits related to three components of impulsivity: motor, cognitive, and attentional among adults with ADHD. Most importantly, this study also highlights the complementary nature of self-report questionnaires and neuropsychological tasks in the assessment of impulsivity in ADHD adults. ( JINS , 2007, 13 , 693–698.)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1355617707070889

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Of six studies investigating adults with ADHD on the IGT, two reported that adults with ADHD clearly performed in a more risky manner than NCs.

    “Of the six studies investigating the performance of adults with ADHD on the IGT [59]–[64], two studies reported that adults with ADHD clearly performed in a more risky manner than the NCs [62], [63].”
  • Eight studies used implicit gambling tasks, of which two (25%) provided clear evidence that adults with ADHD performed in a more risky fashion than NCs.

    “Eight studies used implicit gambling tasks, of which two studies (2/8 = 25%) provided clear evidence that adults with ADHD performed in a more risky fashion than NCs [62], [63].”
  • Malloy-Diniz et al. examined two different samples of adults with ADHD and found that in comparison to NCs, adults with ADHD obtained a lower net score on the standard IGT (Cohen's d = 0.79 and 0.70).

    “Specifically, Malloy-Diniz et al. [62], [63] examined two different samples of adults with ADHD and found that in comparison to NCs, adults with ADHD obtained a lower net score on the standard IGT (Cohen’s d respectively = 0.79 and 0.70).”
  • Higher levels of risky performance were found in mixed samples of individuals with ADHD compared to NCs, which included studies that examined participants of all three ADHD subtypes or participants with ADHD-C and ADHD-I.

    “If findings are compared across studies, higher levels of risky performance were found in mixed samples of individuals with ADHD compared to NCs, which included studies that examined participants of all three ADHD subtypes [40], [58] (2/10 = 20% of studies with positive findings) or participants with ADHD-C and ADHD-I [62] (1/10 = 10% of studies with positive findings).”
  • Group differences between ADHD participants and NCs were present in 2/10 (20%) of studies with positive findings in which participants were MPH-naïve.

    “in which participants were MPH-naïve [62], [63] (2/10 = 20% of studies with positive findings)”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MALLOY-DINIZ, L., FUENTES, D., LEITE, W. B., CORREA, H., & BECHARA, A.
Affiliations
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • Universidade Fundação Mineira de Educação e Cultura (BR)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Venue
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
Published
2007-05-18
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
693-698
ISSN
  • 1355-6177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7661
OpenAlex
W2069536808
Cited by
306
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 16
FWCI
8.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
adult ADHD, impulsivity, attentional impulsivity, motor impulsivity, cognitive impulsivity, impulse control, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, continuous performance test, Iowa Gambling Task, decision-making, neuropsychological assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attention, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Cognition Disorders, Female, Gambling, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Activity, Neuropsychological Tests, Reaction Time

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