Cited by 95Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Heterogeneity in ADHD: Neurocognitive predictors of peer, family, and academic functioning

Open access
Kofler, Michael J., Sarver, Dustin E., Spiegel, Jamie A., Day, Taylor N., Harmon, Sherelle L., Wells, Erica L.·2017·Child Neuropsychology

Abstract

Childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with impairments in peer, family, and academic functioning. Although impairment is required for diagnosis, children with ADHD vary significantly in the areas in which they demonstrate clinically significant impairment. However, relatively little is known about the mechanisms and processes underlying these individual differences. The current study examined neurocognitive predictors of heterogeneity in peer, family, and academic functioning in a well-defined sample of 44 children with ADHD aged 8-13 years (M = 10.31, SD = 1.42; 31 boys, 13 girls; 81% Caucasian). Reliable change analysis indicated that 98% of the sample demonstrated objectively-defined impairment on at least one assessed outcome measure; 65% were impaired in two or all three areas of functioning. ADHD children with quantifiable deficits in academic success and family functioning performed worse on tests of working memory (d = 0.68 to 1.09), whereas children with impaired parent-reported social functioning demonstrated slower processing speed (d = 0.53). Dimensional analyses identified additional predictors of peer, family, and academic functioning. Working memory abilities were associated with individual differences in all three functional domains, processing speed predicted social functioning, and inhibitory control predicted family functioning. These results add to a growing literature implicating neurocognitive abilities not only in explaining behavioral differences between ADHD and non-ADHD groups, but also in the substantial heterogeneity in ecologically-valid functional outcomes associated with the disorder.

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 · 10.1080/09297049.2016.1205010

Cites

124 of 124 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?

  • Recent critiques question the accuracy of these estimates because knowledge of executive functioning in ADHD relies largely on single tasks that may not optimally measure their intended construct.

    “recent critiques of the clinical literature’s executive function task selection (e.g., Snyder et al., 2015) question the veracity of these estimates, such that our understanding of executive functioning in ADHD is based, in large part, on data from single tasks that may suboptimally assess their intended construct (Kofler et al., 2016; Coghill et al., 2014; Sonuga-Barke et al., 2008).”

    From Executive Functioning Heterogeneity in Pediatric ADHD (2019) · cites this paper as Kofler et al., 2016

    The Method section (‘Control for the task impurity problem’; page not provided) says no neurocognitive task is process-pure and that multiple measures are needed to isolate the intended construct. It does not establish that ADHD executive-function estimates rely largely on single tasks or assess the accuracy of those estimates. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Formative indicators of working memory, inhibitory control, and set shifting were derived, and participant-level component scores were analyzed with reliable change analyses that explicitly account for measurement error to objectively define impairment.

    “Formative indicators of working memory, inhibitory control, and set shifting were derived, and these participant-level component scores were subjected to reliable change analyses (Jacobson & Truax, 1991) that explicitly account for measurement error to objectively define impairment (Kofler et al., 2016; Sarver et al., 2015).”

    From Executive Functioning Heterogeneity in Pediatric ADHD (2019) · cites this paper as Kofler et al., 2016

    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
  • Reliability and validity evidence for the working memory reordering tasks includes internal consistency, one- to three-week test-retest reliability, and expected magnitude relations with criterion working memory complex span and updating tasks.

    “Reliability and validity evidence includes internal consistency (α=.82–.97; Kofler et al., 2017), 1- to 3-week test-retest reliability (.76–.90; Sarver et al., 2015), and expected magnitude relations with criterion working memory complex span (r=.69) and updating tasks (r=.61) (Wells et al., 2018).”

    From Executive Functioning Heterogeneity in Pediatric ADHD (2019) · cites this paper as Kofler et al., 2017

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

4 of the 128 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Barry TD, Lyman RD, & Klinger LG (2002). Academic underachievement and ADHD: The negative impact of symptom severity on school performance. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 259– 283.
  2. DuPaul GJ, & Weyandt LL (2006). School‐based intervention for children with ADHD. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 53, 161– 176.
  3. Kamphaus RW, & Reynolds CR (2006). PRQ: Parenting relationship questionnaire manual. NCS Pearson.
  4. Kaufman AS, & Kaufman NL (2004). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson.
  5. Kaufman AS, & Kaufman NL (2014). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kofler, M. J., Sarver, D. E., Spiegel, J. A., Day, T. N., Harmon, S. L., & Wells, E. L.
Affiliations
  • Florida State University (US)
  • University of Mississippi Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Kofler, Michael J.
Venue
Child Neuropsychology
Published
2016-07-29
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
733-759
ISSN
  • 0929-7049 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-4136
OpenAlex
W2489995785
Cited by
94
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
6.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Child Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R34 MH102499-01)
  • Curry School of Education Foundation
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 › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD heterogeneity, individual differences, working memory, processing speed, inhibitory control, peer functioning, family functioning, academic functioning, social functioning, neurocognitive predictors, children
MeSH terms
Academic Performance, Adolescent, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Family, Female, Humans, Male, Peer Group, Genetic Heterogeneity

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