Cited by 44Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyCognitive Abilities and Testing

A randomized controlled trial of central executive training (CET) versus inhibitory control training (ICT) for ADHD.

Open access
Kofler, Michael J., Wells, Erica L., Singh, Leah J., Soto, Elia F., Irwin, Lauren N., Groves, Nicole B., Chan, Elizabeth S. M., Miller, Caroline E. +3 more·2020·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Executive function deficits are well-established in ADHD. Unfortunately, replicated evidence indicates that executive function training for ADHD has been largely unsuccessful. We hypothesized that this may reflect insufficient targeting, such that extant protocols do not sufficiently and specifically target the neurocognitive systems associated with phenotypic ADHD behaviors/impairments. METHOD: Children with ADHD ages 8-12 (M = 10.41, SD = 1.46; 12 girls; 74% Caucasian/Non-Hispanic) were randomized with allocation concealment to either central executive training (CET; n = 25) or newly developed inhibitory control training (ICT; n = 29). Detailed data analytic plans were preregistered. RESULTS: Both treatments were feasible/acceptable based on training duration, child-reported ease of use, and parent-reported high satisfaction. CET was superior to ICT for improving its primary intervention targets: phonological and visuospatial working memory (d = 0.70-0.84). CET was also superior to ICT for improving go/no-go (d = 0.84) but not stop-signal inhibition. Mechanisms of change analyses indicated that CET-related working memory improvements produced significant reductions in the primary clinical endpoints (objectively assessed hyperactivity) during working memory and inhibition testing (indirect effects: β ≥ -.11; 95% CIs exclude 0.0). CET was also superior to ICT on 3 of 4 secondary clinical endpoints (blinded teacher-rated ADHD symptoms; d = 0.46-0.70 vs. 0.16-0.42) and 2 of 4 feasibility/acceptability clinical endpoints (parent-reported ADHD symptoms; d = 0.96-1.42 vs. 0.45-0.65). CET-related gains were maintained at 2-4 month follow-up; ICT-related gains were maintained for attention problems but not hyperactivity/impulsivity per parent report. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the use of CET for treating executive function deficits and targeting ADHD behavioral symptoms in children with ADHD. Findings for ICT were mixed at best and indicate the need for continued development/study. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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 · 10.1037/ccp0000550

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • Targeted training of inhibitory control did not produce improvements in working memory for children with ADHD, whereas targeted training of working memory produced superior improvements in inhibitory control relative to active control training, albeit only on one of two inhibition tests.

    “Similarly, a recent randomized control trial (RCT) found that targeted training of inhibitory control did not produce improvements in working memory for children with ADHD, whereas targeted training of working memory produced superior improvements in inhibitory control relative to the active, credible neurocognitive control training – albeit only on one of two inhibition tests (55).”

    From Working memory and inhibitory control deficits in children with ADHD: an experimental evaluation of competing model predictions (2024) · cites this paper as [55]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Conclusions from ADHD cognitive training studies have been highly limited because most protocols have not shown large enough improvements in the trained/targeted cognitive abilities to realistically expect detectable downstream behavior changes, even if the causal models are correct.

    “In contrast, conclusions from ADHD cognitive training studies have been highly limited because most protocols have not shown large enough improvements in the trained/targeted cognitive abilities to realistically expect detectable downstream behavior changes, even if the causal models are correct (for review see 119) – although newer neurocognitive training protocols appear to be showing more”
  • Working memory appears to affect response speeds more similarly for children with ADHD and/or anxiety.

    “In contrast, working memory appears to affect response speeds more similarly for children with ADHD and/or anxiety, which is broadly consistent with prior experimental and RCT findings (55, 85, 115).”

    From Working memory and inhibitory control deficits in children with ADHD: an experimental evaluation of competing model predictions (2024) · cites this paper as [55]

    The Method > Measures section describes working-memory tasks and reaction-time measures, while Method > Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria notes that some participants had comorbid anxiety. Neither section reports whether working memory affects response speed similarly in children with ADHD and/or anxiety. Searches for response speed, reaction time, and anxiety found no passage addressing that comparison. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    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: 35

  1. Alderson RM, Rapport MD, & Kofler MJ (2007) ADHD and behavioral inhibition: A meta-analytic review of the stop signal paradigm. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 35, 745– 758. 17668315
  2. Alderson RM, Rapport MD, Kasper LJ, Sarver DE, & Kofler MJ (2012). Hyperactivity in boys with ADHD: The association between deficient behavioral inhibition, attentional processes, and objectively measured activity. Child Neuropsychology, 18, 487– 505. 22117760
  3. Aron AR (2011). From reactive to proactive and selective control: Developing a richer model for stopping inappropriate responses. Biological Psychiatry, 69, 55– 68. 20932513 PMC3039712
  4. Azami S, Moghadas A, Sohrabi-Esmrood F, Nazifi M, Mirmohamad M,... Lakes K (2016). A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation, stimulant medication, and an active control in the treatment of ADHD. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 21, 217– 224. 32680341
  5. Baddeley A (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford, UK: Oxford Press.
  6. Chacko A, Bedard AC, Marks D, & Zwilling A (2017). Sequenced neurocognitive and behavioral parent training for the treatment of ADHD in school-age children. Child Neuropsychology, 24, 427– 50. 28277151 PMC6224162
  7. Chacko A, Kofler M, & Jarrett M (2014). Improving outcomes for youth with ADHD: A conceptual framework for combined neurocognitive and skill-based treatment approaches. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 17, 368– 384. 25120200 PMC4335705
  8. Chronis AM, Pelham WE, Gnagy EM, Roberts JE, Aronoff HR (2003). Impact of late-afternoon stimulant dosing for children with ADHD on parent and parent–child domains. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 121– 129. 12573937
  9. Cortese S, Ferrin M, Brandeis D, Buitelaar J, Daley D (2015). Cognitive training for ADHD: Meta-analysis of clinical and neuropsychological outcomes from randomized controlled trials. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 54, 164– 174. 25721181 PMC4382075
  10. DuPaul GJ, Power TJ, Anastopoulos AD, & Reid R (2016). ADHD rating scale—5 for children and adolescents: Checklists, norms, and clinical interpretation. New York: Guilford Press.
  11. Halperin JM, & Healey DM (2011). The influences of environmental enrichment, cognitive enhancement, and physical exercise on brain development: Can we alter the developmental trajectory of ADHD?, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 621– 634. 20691725 PMC3008505
  12. Hawk LW Jr, Fosco WD, Colder CR, Waxmonsky JG, Pelham WE Jr, & Rosch KS (2018). How do stimulant treatments for ADHD work? Evidence for mediation by improved cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(12), 1271– 1281. 29733106 PMC10043810
  13. Hoekzema E, Carmona S, Tremols V, … Vilaroya O (2010). Enhanced neural activity in frontal and cerebellar circuits after cognitive training in children with ADHD. Hum Brain Mapp, 31, 1942– 50. 20336653 PMC6871170
  14. Johnstone SJ, Roodenrys S, Blackman R, Johnston E, Loveday K, Mantz S, & Barratt MF (2012). Neurocognitive training for children with and without ADHD. ADHD, 4, 11– 23. 22179720
  15. Johnstone SJ, Roodenrys S, Phillips E, Watt AJ, & Mantz S (2010). A pilot study of combined working memory and inhibition training for children with ADHD. ADHD, 2, 31– 42. 21432588
  16. Karalunas S, Gustafsson H, Dieckmann N … Nigg J (2017). Heterogeneity in development of aspects of working memory predicts longitudinal ADHD symptom change. J Abnorm Psychol, 126, 774. 28782975 PMC5657320
  17. Karr J, Areshenkoff C, Rast P, Hofer S.. Garcia-Barrera M (2018). The unity and diversity of executive functions: A systematic review and re-analysis of latent variable studies. Psychol Bull, 144, 1147. 30080055 PMC6197939
  18. Kofler MJ, Sarver DE, Austin KE, Schaefer H, Holland E, … Lonigan CJ (2018). Can working memory training work for ADHD? Development of central executive training and comparison with behavioral parent training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86, 964– 979. 30507223 PMC6287280
  19. Nigg JT, Willcutt EG, Doyle AE, & Sonuga-Barke EJ (2005). Causal heterogeneity in ADHD: Do we need neuropsychologically impaired subtypes? Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1224– 1230. 15949992
  20. Rabiner D, Murray D, Skinner A, & Malone P (2010). A randomized trial of two promising computer-based interventions for students with attention difficulties. J Abnormal Child Psychol, 38, 131. 19697119
  21. Rabipour S, & Davidson PS (2015). Do you believe in brain training? A questionnaire about expectations of computerised cognitive training. Behavioural brain research, 295, 64– 70. 25591472
  22. Raiker J, Rapport MD, Kofler MJ, & Sarver DE (2012). Objectively measured impulsivity and ADHD: Testing competing predictions from the working memory and behavioral inhibition models of ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40, 699– 713. 22271141
  23. Rapport MD, Chung KM, Shore G, & Isaacs P (2001). A conceptual model of child psycho-pathology: Implications for understanding ADHD and treatment efficacy. J Clin Child Psychol, 30, 48. 11294077
  24. Roberts G, Quach J, Spencer-Smith M, & Wake M (2016). Academic outcomes 2 years after WM training for children with low WM: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 170, 1– 10. 26954779
  25. Rouder JN, & Morey RD (2012). Default Bayes factors for model selection in regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 877– 903. 26735007
  26. Shalev L, Tsal Y, & Mevorach C (2007). Computerized progressive attentional training (CPAT) program: Effective direct intervention for children with ADHD. Child Neuropsychology, 13, 382– 388. 17564853
  27. Shaw P, Eckstrand K, Sharp W, Blumenthal J, Lerch JP, Greenstein DE, … & Rapoport JL (2007). ADHD is characterized by a delay in cortical maturation. PNAS, 104, 19649– 19654. 18024590 PMC2148343
  28. Shipstead Z, Redick TS, & Engle RW (2012). Is working memory training effective? Psychological Bulletin, 138, 628– 654. 22409508
  29. Shrout PE, & Bolger N (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological methods, 7, 422. 12530702
  30. Sonuga-Barke E, Bitsakou P, & Thompson M (2010). Beyond the dual pathway model: Evidence for dissociation of timing, inhibitory, and delay-related impairments in ADHD. JAACAP, 49, 345– 355. 20410727
  31. Tamm L, Epstein JN, Loren RE, Becker SP, Brenner SB, Bamberger ME, … & Halperin JM (2019). Generating attention, inhibition, and memory: A pilot randomized trial for preschoolers with executive functioning deficits. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 48, S131– S145. 28107027 PMC5519457
  32. Tarle S, Alderson R, Patros C, Arrington E, & Roberts D (2019). Working memory and behavioral inhibition in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): An examination of varied central executive demands, construct overlap, and task impurity. Child Neuropsychology, 25, 664– 687. 30226410
  33. Tarle SJ, Alderson RM, Patros C, Lea S, Hudec K, & Arrington E (2017). ADHD and phonological working memory: Methodological variability. Neuropsychology, 31, 383. 28277685
  34. Wager TD, & Smith EE (2003). Neuroimaging studies of working memory. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 255– 274. 15040547
  35. Wagenmakers EJ, Marsman M, Jamil T.. Morey RD (2016). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological science. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonom Bull Rev. PMC5862936 28779455

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kofler, M. J., Wells, E. L., Singh, L. J., Soto, E. F., Irwin, L. N., Groves, N. B., Chan, E. S. M., Miller, C. E., Richmond, K. P., Schatschneider, C., & Lonigan, C. J.
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2020-08
Volume
88
Issue
8
Pages
738-756
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W3044283726
Cited by
44
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3
FWCI
4.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (NIH R01 MH115048)
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, inhibitory control training, executive function training, working memory, phonological working memory, visuospatial working memory, hyperactivity, impulsivity, children, therapeutic mechanisms, maintenance of treatment effects, feasibility and acceptability
MeSH terms
Cognitive Remediation, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Executive Function

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