CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderBehavioral and Psychological StudiesDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

The effect of stimulant medication on the learning of academic curricula in children with ADHD: A randomized crossover study.

Open access
Pelham, William E., Altszuler, Amy R., Merrill, Brittany M., Raiker, Joseph S., Macphee, Fiona L., Ramos, Marcela, Gnagy, Elizabeth M., Greiner, Andrew R. +9 more·2022·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
DOI 10.1037/ccp0000725PMC PMC9443328
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate whether stimulant medication improves acquisition of academic material in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) receiving small-group, content-area instruction in a classroom setting. METHOD: Participants were 173 children between the ages of 7 and 12 years old (77% male, 86% Hispanic) who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for ADHD and were participating in a therapeutic summer camp. The design was a triple-masked, within-subject, AB/BA crossover trial. Children completed two consecutive phases of daily, 25-min instruction in both (a) subject-area content (science, social studies) and (b) vocabulary. Each phase was a standard instructional unit lasting for 3 weeks. Teachers and aides taught the material to small groups in a summer classroom setting. Each child was randomized to be medicated with daily osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) during either the first or second of the instructional phases, receiving placebo during the other. RESULTS: Medication had large, salutary, statistically significant effects on children's academic seatwork productivity and classroom behavior on every single day of the instructional period. However, there was no detectable effect of medication on learning the material taught during instruction: Children learned the same amount of subject-area and vocabulary content whether they were taking OROS-MPH or placebo during the instructional period. CONCLUSIONS: Acute effects of OROS-MPH on daily academic seatwork productivity and classroom behavior did not translate into improved learning of new academic material taught via small-group, evidence-based instruction. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a triple-masked, randomized AB/BA crossover trial with 173 children with ADHD, OROS-methylphenidate improved daily academic seatwork productivity and classroom behavior but did not improve learning of taught subject-area or vocabulary curriculum units. Children learned comparable amounts whether medicated or on placebo during instruction.

Key findings

  • Medication had no detectable effect on learning: the time × medication interaction was nonsignificant for subject-area content (p = .73) and vocabulary (p = .75).
  • Children learned the material overall: subject-area scores rose from pre-test marginal mean 4.8 to post-test 6.6, d = 0.80; vocabulary scores rose from 8.4 to 14.7, d = 2.00.
  • Medication had a small acute effect on vocabulary test scores (OROS-MPH marginal mean 11.9 vs placebo 11.3, d = 0.19, p = .007) and a nonsignificant effect on subject-area scores (d = 0.09, p = .15).
  • As expected, medication produced large daily effects: children completed 37% more arithmetic problems per minute (6.7 vs 5.0) and committed 53% fewer rule violations per hour (1.9 vs 3.9), p < .001 on every instructional day.

Methods

  • Participants were 173 children ages 7–12 (mean = 9.2, SD = 1.4; 77% male, 86% Hispanic) meeting DSM-5 ADHD criteria, attending a therapeutic summer camp in 2014–2016.
  • Design: triple-masked, within-subject AB/BA crossover; children received daily OROS-MPH or placebo during one of two consecutive 3-week instructional phases, each with daily 25-minute subject-area and vocabulary instruction in small groups.
  • Primary outcomes were pre/post tests of taught subject-area content (12 multiple-choice items) and vocabulary (20 multiple-choice items); manipulation-check outcomes were arithmetic seatwork productivity and classroom rule violations, analyzed with multilevel models.

Limitations

  • The paper states the mean OROS-MPH dose (0.64 mg/kg/day; 80% assigned 18 mg) may be small relative to current prescribing practices, though it was sufficient to produce large behavioral and productivity effects.
  • The paper states instruction occurred in small groups with behavior management in a specialized summer classroom; effects might differ with whole-class instruction or minimal behavioral supports, and replication is needed in natural classrooms and other samples.
  • The paper notes the sample was children with ADHD in a summer research program, mostly Hispanic, and results may not apply to teens with ADHD; the text also makes evident that the study measured short 3-week curriculum units rather than full-year achievement.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/ccp0000725

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

17 of 52 cited sources checked · 8 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisenone given

    Only two randomized studies have induced variability in medication use and measured subsequent acquisition of academic skills and knowledge taught in classroom settings.

    “We are aware of only two such studies (Molina et al., 2009; Tamm et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Molina et al., 2009 source
    • cites Tamm et al., 2017 source
  • Premisecitation

    The subject-area content curricula developed by Connor et al. (2017) yielded significant improvements in knowledge of the taught content in a randomized trial with children in kindergarten through 4th grade.

    “In a randomized trial with children in kindergarten through the 4th grade, these curricula yielded significant improvements in knowledge of the taught content (Connor et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Connor et al., 2017 source
  • Premisecitation

    In Tamm et al. (2017), children randomized to combined medication and reading instruction performed no better than those randomized to reading instruction alone on tests of word reading and phonemic decoding at end of treatment or follow-up.

    “Children randomized to the condition that combined medication and reading instruction performed no better than those randomized to receive only reading instruction on tests of word reading and phonemic decoding at the end of treatment or at follow-up 3 to 5 months later.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tamm et al., 2017 source
  • Premisecitation

    Stimulant medication improves academic seatwork productivity in analogue classrooms in children with ADHD.

    “Many studies have shown that stimulants improve cognitive functioning on laboratory tasks (Coghill et al., 2014; Pietrzak et al., 2006; Rapport & Kelly, 1991; Swanson et al., 2011; Vertessen et al., 2021) and academic seatwork productivity in analogue classrooms (Fabiano et al., 2007; Kortekaas-Rijlaarsdam et al., 2019; Pelham et al., 1985; Prasad et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Fabiano et al., 2007 source
    • cites Kortekaas-Rijlaarsdam et al., 2019 source

      The Introduction reports that stimulant medication improved seatwork productivity compared with placebo, and the paper’s meta-analysis reports improved math productivity in children with ADHD. The cited passages do not establish that the productivity finding specifically applies to analogue classrooms; the review covers academic tasks across studies rather than identifying that setting for the pooled result. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Pelham et al., 1985

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation

    In the MTA Study, despite large differences in medication use, there were no appreciable between-group differences in long-term academic achievement in reading or mathematics.

    “Despite this large difference in medication use, there were no appreciable between-group differences in long-term academic achievement in reading or mathematics (Molina et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Molina et al., 2009 source

      The Results section on 6- and 8-year outcomes reports no significant differences between the originally randomized treatment groups on the outcomes tested, supporting the claim about long-term reading and mathematics achievement. But the Results section on medication use says the large differences between those groups occurred earlier and were no longer significant at 6 or 8 years. The paper also reports a positive association between continued medication use and math achievement, distinct from the randomized-group comparison. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims. 22
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Uncontrolled longitudinal studies of stimulant use and standardized tests of academic achievement have yielded mixed findings, with some positive associations and others no association.

    “Several uncontrolled, longitudinal studies have examined the association of stimulant use with standardized tests of academic achievement, with some finding a positive association (Langberg et al., 2011; Powers et al., 2008; Scheffler et al., 2009) and others finding no association (Barbaresi et al., 2007; Barnard et al., 2010; Massetti et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Langberg et al., 2011 source

      The Methods describe stimulant use measured from baseline to eight years and standardized achievement tests assessed at follow-up. The Results (Correlations Between Predictor Variables and Outcome Variables; page unavailable) report a significant association between medication use and WIAT Math and Spelling scores, but the passage does not state its direction. The multivariate results do not identify medication use as a significant predictor, so our copy does not establish the positive association attributed to this study. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Powers et al., 2008 source
    • cites Scheffler et al., 2009 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The dosage of OROS-MPH was sufficient to produce large effects on academic seatwork productivity and classroom behavior and detectable effects on test scores.

    “However, this dosage was sufficient to produce large effects on academic seatwork productivity and classroom behavior and detectable effects on test scores and has been similarly efficacious in numerous prior studies (Fabiano et al., 2007; Pelham Jr. et al., 2016; Pelham, Burrows-MacLean, et al., 2005; Pelham et al., 2001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Fabiano et al., 2007 source
    • cites Pelham Jr. et al., 2016 source

      The Methods (Treatment Descriptions; page unavailable) describe a low dose of extended-release methylphenidate selected because prior studies found significant effects over placebo. The Discussion (page unavailable) says that dose was sufficient in the school setting for 53% of children. The paper does not identify the preparation as OROS-MPH or report large effects on seatwork productivity and classroom behavior or detectable effects on test scores. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Pelham, Burrows-MacLean, et al., 2005 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Many parents and pediatricians believe that medication will improve academic achievement.

    “This is important given that many parents and pediatricians believe that medication will improve academic achievement; parents are more likely to pursue medication (vs. other treatment options) when they identify academic achievement as a primary goal for treatment (Fiks et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fiks et al., 2013 source

      The Discussion (page not available in our copy) reports that parents’ goals of improved academic performance were associated with medication initiation, supporting the treatment-choice part of the citing sentence. It suggests medication may be perceived as compatible with addressing academic difficulties, but does not establish that many parents—and pediatricians—believe medication will improve academic achievement. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The interaction of time and medication on subject-area content knowledge was not statistically significant (p=.73) and negligible in magnitude; children's increases in subject-area content knowledge from pre-test to post-test did not differ when taking placebo vs. OROS-MPH during the instructional phase.

    “Finally, the interaction of time (i.e., pre/post) and medication (i.e., placebo/OROS-MPH) was not statistically significant (p=.73) and negligible in magnitude. Children’s increases in subject-area content knowledge from pre-test to post-test did not differ when taking placebo vs. OROS-MPH during the instructional phase (Figure 3, Panel A).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The pre/post tests of vocabulary and subject-area knowledge validly measure learning of the taught academic material.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The interaction of time and medication on vocabulary knowledge was not statistically significant (p=.75) and negligible in magnitude; children's increases in vocabulary content knowledge from pre-test to post-test did not differ when taking placebo vs. OROS-MPH during the instructional phase.

    “Finally, the interaction of time (i.e., pre/post) and medication (i.e., placebo/OROS-MPH) was not statistically significant (p=.75) and negligible in magnitude. Children’s increases in vocabulary content knowledge from pre-test to post-test did not differ when taking placebo vs. OROS-MPH during the instructional phase (Figure 3, Panel B).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The pre/post tests of vocabulary and subject-area knowledge validly measure learning of the taught academic material.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The acute medication effects on test scores correspond to 1.7 percentage points on a test of subject-area content and 3.0 percentage points on a test of vocabulary.

    “When formulated as a grade from 0% to 100%, these effects amount to 1.7 percentage points on a test of subject-area content and 3.0 percentage points on a test of vocabulary.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The effect of OROS-MPH vs placebo on vocabulary scores was statistically significant (d=0.19, p=.007), while the effect on subject-area content was not (d=0.09, p=.15).

    “Both effects were small in magnitude, and only the effect on vocabulary scores was statistically significant (d=0.19, p=.007 for vocabulary; d=0.09, p=.15 for subject-area content).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Sensitivity analyses found no evidence that the effect of medication on learning varied as a function of dosage of OROS-MPH, size of instructional small group, or classroom-wide rate of disruptive behavior.

    “For now, we found no evidence in sensitivity analyses that the effect of medication on learning varied as a function of (a) dosage of OROS-MPH, (b) the size of instructional small group, or (c) the classroom-wide rate of disruptive behavior (see supplement).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    In children with ADHD, OROS-MPH vs placebo had an acute positive effect on test scores at both pre-test and post-test.

    “As in previous work (Evans et al., 2001; Lu et al., 2017), medication had an acute positive effect on test scores at both pre-test and post-test in the current study.”
    • Also stated in: § Clinical Implications · hedged
      “Second, results suggest that stimulant medication has a small, positive, acute impact on test scores.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Evans et al., 2001 source
    • cites Lu et al., 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Children who are unmedicated vs. medicated may differ in many ways besides medication use, so observed differences in academic achievement may not be attributable to differences in medication use.

    “Children who are unmedicated vs. medicated may differ in many ways besides their medication use (e.g., socioeconomic status, pre-existing academic achievement, ADHD-related impairment), so observed differences in academic achievement may not be attributable to differences in medication use (Imbens & Rubin, 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Imbens & Rubin, 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Randomization to medication was triple-masked: assignment was hidden from children and families, teachers and teaching assistants, and research assistants who scored or tabulated outcomes.

    “The randomization to medication was triple-masked: assignment was hidden from the children and their families, the teachers and teaching assistant who delivered the academic instruction, and the research assistants who scored or tabulated the outcome measures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Adherence to the lesson plans was excellent (94%).

    “Adherence was excellent (94%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Children were administered the prescribed pill capsule (placebo or OROS-MPH) on 99% of days.

    “Across the days of pre-test, instruction, and post-test, children were administered the prescribed pill capsule (i.e., placebo or OROS-MPH) on 99% of days.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The analogue classroom studies have high internal validity but have typically measured constructs like on-task behavior and seatwork productivity rather than the acquisition of novel academic material.

    “The analogue classroom studies have high internal validity (i.e., allow conclusions about the causal impact of medication) but have typically measured constructs like on-task behavior and seatwork productivity rather than the acquisition of novel academic material—that is, learning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Tests for carryover effects of OROS-MPH in the crossover data were not statistically significant, and the same pattern of findings was obtained when analyses were restricted to Phase 1 data analyzed as a parallel groups design.

    “Moreover, tests for carryover effects of OROS-MPH in the crossover data were not statistically significant, and we obtained the same pattern of findings when analyses were restricted to Phase 1 data and the study was analyzed as a parallel groups design (see supplement for details).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study used a triple-masked, AB/BA crossover design.

    “We used a triple-masked, AB/BA crossover design to evaluate whether children learned more academic material while taking OROS-MPH vs. placebo.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Children were randomized to take OROS-MPH during either the first or second phase of instruction, receiving placebo during the other phase.

    “Children were randomized to take OROS-MPH each morning (including weekends) during either the first or second phase of instruction, taking placebo each morning during the opposite phase.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    The uncontrolled, long-term follow-up studies have directly measured academic achievement but have low internal validity, with many confounding factors.

    “The uncontrolled, long-term follow-up studies have directly measured academic achievement but have low internal validity, with the presence of many confounding factors making it difficult to attribute any observed differences to medication.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Prior reports have documented a small positive acute effect of stimulant medication on test scores in adolescents with ADHD.

    “This effect has been documented in prior reports on adolescents with ADHD (Evans et al., 2001; Lu et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Evans et al., 2001 source
    • cites Lu et al., 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Test questions were read aloud to the class by the teacher to reduce the potential impact of poor reading fluency on performance.

    “Test questions were read aloud to the class by the teacher to reduce the potential impact of poor reading fluency on performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    For occasions such as a psychoeducational evaluation or high-stakes academic testing, being medicated would improve scores, though the effect size is small.

    “Nonetheless, this finding has relevance for parents deciding whether to medicate their child for occasions such as a psychoeducational evaluation or high-stakes academic testing—while the effect size was small, findings suggest being medicated would improves scores.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In children with ADHD, the effect of medication on test scores is present immediately on the first day of administration, rather than reflecting an increase in knowledge of the underlying academic material.

    “Our data extend this finding to children with ADHD and show that the effect of medication on test scores is present immediately on the first day of administration, rather than reflecting an increase in knowledge of the underlying academic material.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study improved beyond existing uncontrolled, longitudinal follow-up studies by ruling out confounding variables (pre-existing differences between those who take vs. do not take medication) and inconsistent adherence to medication as factors compromising the evaluation of medication effects.

    “This study improved beyond the existing uncontrolled, longitudinal follow-up studies (Langberg & Becker, 2012) by ruling out confounding variables (i.e., pre-existing differences between those who take vs. do not take medication) and inconsistent adherence to medication as factors compromising the evaluation of medication effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Langberg & Becker, 2012 source

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

    Study design and conductown data

    There were no missing data on test scores; missing data on other outcomes was infrequent (≤12% across days) and arose due to absences from the summer program.

    “There were no missing data on test scores; missing data on the other outcomes was infrequent (≤12% across days) and arose due to absences from the summer program (e.g., family vacation, illness).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Three Ph.D./M.D.-level clinicians reviewed data on behavioral and academic functioning and selected the largest tolerable dose for each child that exhibited clear improvement beyond the immediately lower dose.

    “Three Ph.D./M.D.-level clinicians reviewed data on behavioral and academic functioning and selected the largest tolerable dose for each child that exhibited clear improvement beyond the immediately lower dose (see supplement).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationown data

    Our findings support recently issued treatment guidelines from the AAP and SDBP that emphasize multimodal treatment including appropriate educational interventions and accommodations as the preferred first-line approach for children with ADHD.

    “Our findings support recently issued treatment guidelines from the American Academic of Pediatrics (AAP) and Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics (SDBP) (Barbaresi et al., 2020; Subcommittee on Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder, 2019), both of which emphasize the importance of multimodal treatment that includes appropriate educational interventions”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Barbaresi et al., 2020 source
    • cites Subcommittee on Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder, 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

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

    Premisecitation

    The mean dosage of OROS-MPH may be small relative to current prescribing practices.

    “First, the mean dosage of OROS-MPH may be small relative to current prescribing practices (Olfson et al., 2009), and perhaps higher dosages are necessary to improve learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Olfson et al., 2009 source

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Children were not provided any feedback on the pre-test.

    “Children were not provided any feedback on the pre-test.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Small-group instruction and behavior management are common practices, but not all schools/classrooms implement them to the same extent.

    “While small-group instruction and behavior management are common practices (Balu et al., 2015; Connor et al., 2014, 2017; Hart et al., 2017), not all schools/classrooms implement them to the same extent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Balu et al., 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Connor et al., 2014, 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Hart et al., 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    The failure to find an effect of stimulant medication on the learning of individual academic curriculum units raises questions about how stimulant medication would lead to improved academic achievement over time.

    “First, our failure to find an effect of stimulant medication on the learning of individual academic curriculum units raises questions about how stimulant medication would lead to improved academic achievement over time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The multilevel models included all children (N = 173).

    “As the restricted maximum likelihood estimator can accommodate missing values at one or more occasion, the multilevel models included all children (N = 173).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    The current findings suggest that the emphasis on medication to improve academic achievement may be misguided.

    “The current findings suggest this emphasis may be misguided: Efforts to improve learning in children with ADHD should focus on obtaining effective academic instruction and supports (e.g., Individualized Educational Plans) rather than the use of stimulant medication (Tamm et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Dose was determined via a 10-day, triple-masked titration trial immediately prior to the current protocol.

    “Dose was determined via a 10-day, triple-masked titration trial that occurred immediately prior to the start of the current protocol.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    The vocabulary lesson plans modeled on Clark et al. (2010) yielded significant improvements in knowledge of the taught vocabulary words in a randomized trial of children ages 8-9 years old with reading difficulties.

    “In a randomized trial of children ages 8–9 years old with reading difficulties, these lesson plans yielded significant improvements in knowledge of the taught vocabulary words (Clarke et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Clarke et al., 2010 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study had a large sample size and highly-powered crossover design.

    “Strengths include the experimental (vs. correlational) design; strong ecological validity (e.g., evidence-based academic units taught on a typical schedule and in a typical elementary-school format); large sample size and highly-powered crossover design; near perfect fidelity to medication regimen; and concurrent measurement of three domains of academic functioning (academic learning in key”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Medication on the day of testing may improve test scores via improved attention, but this does not reflect an effect on true academic achievement; the child's underlying academic skills remain unchanged.

    “Test scores may be improved by taking medication on the day(s) on which academic achievement testing is completed (e.g., via improved attention to answering the questions), but this clearly does not reflect an effect on true academic achievement—the child’s underlying academic skills (and thus, prognosis) remain unchanged (Barkley & Cunningham, 1978).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Barkley & Cunningham, 1978 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The classroom behavior tracking system exhibits interrater reliability and presented validity data for its use as a measure of classroom behavior.

    “many studies have shown the system exhibits interrater reliability and presented validity data for its use as a measure of classroom behavior (e.g., Fabiano et al., 2007; Pelham et al., 2001; Pelham, Fabiano, et al., 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Fabiano et al., 2007 source
    • cites Pelham et al., 2001 source
    • cites Pelham, Fabiano, et al., 2005 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Test questions covered the content that was taught in the lesson plans delivered between pre-test and post-test.

    “Test questions covered the content that was taught in the lesson plans delivered in between the pre-test and post-test.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    A year-long curriculum is simply the concatenation of individual academic units.

    “It seems unlikely that there would be no effect of medication on the learning of each individual academic unit over the course of the elementary-age school year but a positive effect of medication on end-of-year academic achievement (a year-long curriculum is simply the concatenation of individual academic units; Phillips et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Phillips et al., 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

39 of 39

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The pre/post tests of vocabulary and subject-area knowledge validly measure learning of the taught academic material.

    “The primary dependent measure was children’s scores on tests of the vocabulary and subject-area knowledge that was being taught in the curricula.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Pre-to-post test score increases reflect learning rather than test practice or exposure.

    “Test form was identical at pre-test and post-test for each child. Children were not provided any feedback on the pre-test.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The study was the first to evaluate stimulant effects on the learning of standard units of academic material in a controlled classroom setting.

    “This was the first study to evaluate stimulant effects on the learning of standard units of academic material in a controlled classroom setting.”
    “This was the first controlled study to evaluate the effect of stimulant medication on the learning of academic material.”
3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Barkley RA, Murphy KR, & Fischer M (2008). ADHD in Adults: What the Science Says. Guilford Press.
  2. Brodhagen EM, & Gettinger M (2012). Academic learning time. In Seel NM (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 33– 36). Springer US.
  3. Imbens GW, & Rubin DB (2015). Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences. Cambridge University Press.
  4. National Guideline Centre. (2018). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Diagnosis and Management. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493361/ 29634174
  5. Ormrod JE (2019). Human Learning. Pearson.
  6. Pelham WE, Gnagy EM, Greiner AR, Fabiano GA, Waschbusch Daniel A., & Coles EK (2017). Summer treatment programs for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. In Weisz JR & Kazdin AE (Eds.), Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for Children and Adolescents (3rd ed., pp. 215– 234). The Guilford Press.
  7. Wechsler D (2011). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence—Second Edition: Administration and Scoring Manual. Pearson.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pelham, W. E., Altszuler, A. R., Merrill, B. M., Raiker, J. S., Macphee, F. L., Ramos, M., Gnagy, E. M., Greiner, A. R., Coles, E. K., Connor, C. M., Lonigan, C. J., Burger, L., Morrow, A. S., Zhao, X., Swanson, J. M., Waxmonsky, J. G., & Pelham, W. E.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2022-05
Volume
90
Issue
5
Pages
367-380
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
DOI
10.1037/ccp0000725
PMC
PMC9443328
OpenAlex
W4281297224
Cited by
19
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Mental Health (MH099030; MH083692)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (AA026768)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA034731)
  • Institute of Education Sciences (R324A190239; R305A170523)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, stimulant medication, methylphenidate, academic learning, content area instruction, vocabulary acquisition, classroom behavior, children, summer camps
MeSH terms
Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Curriculum, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Methylphenidate, Treatment Outcome, Cross-Over Studies

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 2026-10-16.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-16.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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