CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Assessment of executive function in ADHD adolescents: contribution of performance tests and rating scales

Open access
Krieger, Virginia, Amador-Campos, Juan Antonio·2018·Child Neuropsychology
DOI 10.1080/09297049.2017.1386781
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze performance on measures of neuropsychological and behavioral executive functions (EF) in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and to evaluate the utility of performance-based tests for predicting scores on behavioral EF ratings. One hundred eighteen adolescents (75 ADHD and 43 controls) aged 12-16 years performed neuropsychological tests and completed a behavior rating scale of EF. The ADHD group presented significantly lower scores than controls on Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) and all indexes of the WISC-IV, except the verbal comprehension index (VCI). The ADHD group had significantly lower scores on performance-based tests of working memory, planning and inhibition, and on EF rating scales. Scores on the cognitive EF working memory, planning and flexibility modestly predicted performance on behavioral EF. The results suggest that the combined use of performance-based tests and rating scales provides valuable complementary information that can improve the assessment of executive domains in ADHD.

Verified 2026-10-05 · 1 reference not checked yet

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study compared 75 adolescents with ADHD and 43 controls on performance-based executive function (EF) tests and self-rated behavioral EF. It found ADHD-related weaknesses on several cognitive and behavioral EF domains, but performance tests explained only a small amount of variance in behavioral EF ratings, supporting complementary use of both assessment types.

Key findings

  • Controls had higher Full Scale IQ than both ADHD groups (ADHD-I M = 99.63, ADHD-C M = 103.41, controls M = 109.12), and the ADHD groups also scored lower on WISC-IV working memory and processing speed indexes; verbal comprehension did not differ significantly.
  • On performance-based EF factors, ADHD groups scored below controls on working memory, planning, and inhibition, but not flexibility. Reported effect sizes were η² = .127 for working memory, .097 for planning, .265 for inhibition, and .020 for flexibility.
  • On the CEFI self-report, ADHD groups reported more difficulty than controls on attention, emotion regulation, inhibitory control, organization, planning, self-monitoring, working memory, flexibility, and initiation, with large effects (e.g., organization η² = .476; attention η² = .437). Only emotion regulation significantly separated ADHD-I from ADHD-C, with ADHD-C reporting greater difficulty.
  • Cognitive EF factors weakly predicted behavioral EF ratings. In the ADHD group, working memory predicted emotion regulation (R² = .090) and self-monitoring, flexibility predicted flexibility (R² = .127), and planning predicted self-monitoring; in controls, flexibility predicted attention (R² = .266) and flexibility (R² = .225).

Methods

  • Cross-sectional comparison of 118 adolescents aged 12–16 years: 75 with ADHD (48 ADHD-I, 27 ADHD-C) and 43 controls. ADHD diagnoses followed DSM-5 criteria using a clinical interview, ADHD questionnaire, Conners-3 ratings, and expert panel agreement; controls had low symptom levels.
  • Participants completed the WISC-IV, performance-based EF tasks (including WNV spatial memory, ROCF, Porteus Maze, WCST, TMT, and d2), the CEFI self-report, and Conners-3 DSM scales across three sessions. Medication was suspended for 24 hours before assessment.
  • Analyses included chi-square/ANOVA, MANOVA with Bonferroni or Games-Howell adjustments, Pearson correlations, and hierarchical regression predicting CEFI scales from EF factor scores.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the ADHD group did not include the hyperactive-impulsive presentation, and that the ADHD-C subgroup was smaller than the ADHD-I subgroup, which may have limited detection of small between-group differences.
  • Evident from the text: behavioral EF was assessed only through adolescent self-report on the CEFI, with no parent or teacher CEFI informant ratings, so shared-method variance and self-perception may influence those findings.
  • Evident from the text: the design was cross-sectional, and the ADHD sample had high comorbidity; the authors intentionally did not covary FSIQ or comorbidity, which limits causal and adjusted interpretations.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09297049.2017.1386781

Cites

96 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

46 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

3 of 23 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    There is substantial evidence of a significant relationship between general intelligence and performance-based EF measures.

    “There is substantial evidence of a significant relationship between general intelligence and performance-based EF measures (Brydges, Reid, Fox, & Anderson, 2012;Dennis et al., 2009;Duggan & Garcia-Barrera, 2015;Engelhardt et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Brydges et al., 2012 source
    • cites Dennis et al., 2009 source

      In “IQ and ADHD” (page unavailable), the paper says correlations between IQ and executive function were not significant in the ADHD-family evidence it discusses. That is contrary to citing it as evidence of a significant relationship, although the paper’s statement is specific to that setting rather than all performance-based EF measures. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Duggan & Garcia-Barrera, 2015 source
  • Findingown data

    In the ADHD group, CEFI self-monitoring scores were predicted by the working memory factor and the planning factor, with an R-squared of .156.

    “scores on the selfmonitoring scale by the working memory factor [β = .397,t(69) = 2.909, p = .005]and by the planning factor [β = -.348,t(69) = 2.643, p = .010]with an R 2 of .156[F(4, 69) = 3.198, p < .05].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales validly measure behavioral executive functioning and ADHD symptoms, respectively.
    • Rests on an assumption: Performance-based tests validly measure cognitive executive functioning.
  • Findingown data

    The ADHD groups had lower full-scale IQ scores than the control group.

    “With regard to cognitive ability, there were significant differences between ADHD-I, ADHD-C and control groups in full-scale IQ (FSIQ).The ADHD groups had lower FSIQ scores than the control group”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Frazier, Demaree, & Youngstrom, 2004 source
  • Findingown data

    On the cognitive executive function factors of working memory, planning, and inhibition, the ADHD groups scored lower than the control group.

    “ADHD groups scored significantly lower than controls, but there were no significant differences between ADHD-I and ADHD-C groups.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “In support of this hypothesis we found that the controls performed better than the ADHD participants on working memory, planning and inhibition cognitive EF factors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The ADHD groups had significantly lower WISC-IV Working Memory and Processing Speed index scores than the control group.

    “Taking into account the four main indexes of the WISC-IV, the ADHD groups exhibited significantly lower Working memory and Processing speed index scores than the control group”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mayes and Calhoun (2006) source
  • May combine two claims. 28
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 6

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Pure ADHD is rare, and comorbidity is the rule in ADHD clinical samples.

    “since 'pure' ADHD is rare, and comorbidity is the rule in ADHD clinical samples, with very few exceptions (Owens & Hinshaw, 2016;Yoshimasu et al., 2012)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Owens & Hinshaw, 2016 source
    • cites Yoshimasu et al., 2012 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    ADHD has been significantly associated with both EF and IQ deficits.

    “ADHD has been significantly associated with both EF and IQ deficits (Dennis et al., 2009;Duggan & Garcia-Barrera, 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Dennis et al., 2009 source
    • cites Duggan & Garcia-Barrera, 2015 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    After Bonferroni adjustment, ADHD-I and ADHD-C did not differ significantly on parent-, teacher-, and self-rated DSM inattentive scores, but both groups scored higher than controls.

    “After Bonferroni post hoc adjustment, no statistically significant differences were found between ADHD-I and ADHD-C groups in DSM inattentive scale according to parent, teacher and self-rating scores, but both these groups presented higher scores than controls.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Adolescents with ADHD scored significantly lower than controls on Full Scale IQ and on all WISC-IV indexes except verbal comprehension.

    “The ADHD group presented significantly lower scores than controls on Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) and all indexes of the WISC-IV, except the verbal comprehension index (VCI).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Controls had higher working memory and processing speed scores than the ADHD groups, with no significant differences between ADHD-I and ADHD-C.

    “In working memory and processing speed, there were significant differences between controls and ADHD groups: controls had higher scores on these two indices and there were no significant differences between ADHD-I and ADHD-C.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On the CEFI attention, inhibitory control, organization, planning, self-monitoring, and working memory scales, controls differed significantly from the ADHD groups, and the ADHD-I and ADHD-C groups did not differ significantly.

    “After Bonferroni post hoc adjustment, there were significant differences between controls and ADHD groups on attention, inhibitory control, organization, planning, self-monitoring and working memory scales although there were no significant differences between ADHD-I and ADHD-C groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Univariate analyses showed significant group differences on FSIQ, working memory, and processing speed indices.

    “Univariate analysis revealed significant differences between the three groups on the FSIQ of the WISC-IV, F(2, 115) = 17.863, p = .001,η 2 = .237;working memory, F(2, 115) = 5.968, p = .003,η 2 = .094,and processing speed indices, F(2, 115) = 9.614, p = .001,η 2 = .143.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the ADHD group, correlations between cognitive and behavioral executive function measures ranged from a negative association between the flexibility factor and CEFI attention to a positive association between the working memory factor and CEFI emotion regulation.

    “In particular, correlations ranged from [r (73) = -.23,p < .05 between the flexibility factor and the attention scale of the CEFI to r (73) = .28,p < .05 between working memory factor and the emotion regulation scale of the CEFI].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales validly measure behavioral executive functioning and ADHD symptoms, respectively.
    • Rests on an assumption: Performance-based tests validly measure cognitive executive functioning.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The three groups differed significantly on DSM-inattentive, DSM-hyperactive-impulsive, and Conners-3 ADHD index scores.

    “There were significant differences between the three groups (ADHD-I, ADHD-C and controls) in the DSM-inattentive, DSM-hyperactive-impulsive and the Conners-3 ADHD index”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On the CEFI flexibility and initiation scales, the ADHD groups scored lower than controls, and the ADHD-I and ADHD-C groups did not differ significantly.

    “The Games-Howell post hoc test showed that ADHD groups scored significantly lower than controls, although there were no significant differences between ADHD-I and ADHD-C groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the control group, correlations between cognitive and behavioral executive function measures were low or moderate and not significant, including flexibility with self-monitoring and attention.

    “For the control group, correlations between measures of cognitive and behavioral EF were low or moderate and not significant: the flexibility factor with selfmonitoring (r (41) = .31,p < .05),and attention scales on the CEFI (r (41) = .44,p <”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales validly measure behavioral executive functioning and ADHD symptoms, respectively.
    • Rests on an assumption: Performance-based tests validly measure cognitive executive functioning.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the ADHD group, correlations between cognitive and behavioral executive function measures were low and not significant.

    “Considering the ADHD group, correlations between cognitive and behavioral EF were low and not significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales validly measure behavioral executive functioning and ADHD symptoms, respectively.
    • Rests on an assumption: Performance-based tests validly measure cognitive executive functioning.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the control group, the flexibility and planning executive function factors predicted scores on the attention and flexibility scales, respectively.

    “In the control group, flexibility and planning EF factors predicted scores on attention and flexibility scales respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales validly measure behavioral executive functioning and ADHD symptoms, respectively.
    • Rests on an assumption: Performance-based tests validly measure cognitive executive functioning.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the ADHD group, the working memory executive function factor significantly predicted emotion regulation and self-monitoring behavioral executive function, and the flexibility and planning factors significantly predicted flexibility and self-monitoring behavioral executive function.

    “Specifically, in the ADHD group, the working memory EF factor significantly predicted emotion regulation and self-monitoring behavioral EF, and flexibility and planning EF factors significantly predicted flexibility and self-monitoring behavioral EF.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales validly measure behavioral executive functioning and ADHD symptoms, respectively.
    • Rests on an assumption: Performance-based tests validly measure cognitive executive functioning.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    The ADHD and control groups did not differ significantly in parents' educational level.

    “ADHD groups and controls did not differ significantly in terms of parents' educational level χ 2 (12, N = 118) = 12.01, p = .44.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants taking ADHD medication discontinued it for 24 hours before each assessment session.

    “Participants taking stimulant and non-stimulant medication for ADHD symptoms (eight ADHD-C and two ADHD-I) received prior approval from their referring physician to temporarily discontinue the medication for 24 hours prior to each assessment session.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The groups were equivalent in age and gender.

    “The groups were equivalent in age F(1, 115) = 2.33 p = .10and gender χ 2 (2, N = 118) = 2.21, p = .33.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    ADHD diagnoses were made by a trained clinical psychologist using DSM-5 criteria and multiple instruments.

    “Diagnoses were made by a trained master's level clinical psychologist, on the basis of age of onset, duration, impairment and cross-situational manifestation of symptoms, through the Clinical Interview-Parent Report Form (Barkley & Murphy, 2006), the results of the ADHD questionnaire (Amador Campos, Forns Santacana, Guàrdia-Olmos, & Peró Cebollero, 2006) and the revised Conners-3 scales (Conners,”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Barkley & Murphy, 2006

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

    • cites Amador Campos et al., 2006

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

    • cites Conners, 2008

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

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    All potentially eligible cases were reviewed by a panel of three ADHD experts, and unanimous agreement was required for group assignment.

    “All potentially eligible cases were reviewed by a panel of three ADHD experts (i.e., two psychologists and one psychiatrist certified in clinical child and adolescent psychology).The unanimous agreement of the panel was required for the assignment of the participants to the ADHD or control groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The CEFI scales are sensitive to ADHD symptoms and useful for characterizing the performance profile of executive behavioral functioning.

    “In addition, the CEFI scales are sensitive to ADHD symptoms and are useful to characterize the performance profile of executive behavioral functioning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales validly measure behavioral executive functioning and ADHD symptoms, respectively.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Compared with controls, the ADHD group had a different correlation pattern with few significant correlations between the two rating scales, which may indicate that ADHD adolescents respond less consistently.

    “Compared to the control group, the ADHD group had a different correlation pattern, with few significant correlations between the two rating scales, which may indicate the tendency of ADHD adolescents to respond less consistently.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales validly measure behavioral executive functioning and ADHD symptoms, respectively.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Cognitive performance-based tests and behavioral executive function rating measures provide valuable, different, and complementary information about behaviors related to ADHD.

    “The results extend previous findings by showing that cognitive performance-based tests and behavioral EF rating measures provide valuable, different and complementary information about behaviors related to ADHD.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales validly measure behavioral executive functioning and ADHD symptoms, respectively.
    • Rests on an assumption: Performance-based tests validly measure cognitive executive functioning.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Cognitive executive function predicted little variance associated with behavioral executive function, which may suggest that both measures tap different components of executive functioning.

    “In addition, cognitive EF predicted little variance associated with behavioral EF, which may suggest that both measures tap different components of executive functioning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales validly measure behavioral executive functioning and ADHD symptoms, respectively.
    • Rests on an assumption: Performance-based tests validly measure cognitive executive functioning.

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The ADHD group did not include participants with the hyperactive-impulsive presentation.

    “For example, the ADHD group did not include participants with the hyperactive-impulsive presentation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The findings corroborate the view that executive function weaknesses are neither necessary nor sufficient to cause all cases of ADHD.

    “Our findings corroborate the view of Willcutt et al. (2005) that 'EF weaknesses are neither necessary nor sufficient to cause all cases of ADHD' (p.1343).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Willcutt et al. (2005) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The ADHD-C group was smaller than the ADHD-I group, which may have prevented detection of small differences between ADHD groups.

    “Furthermore, the ADHD-C group was smaller than the ADHD-I group, a circumstance which may have prevented us from detecting small differences between ADHD groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The two types of measures tap different executive processes, which can be accomplished more or less effectively depending on the demands of the setting.

    “Thus, the two types of measures tap different executive processes which can be accomplished more or less effectively depending on the demands of the settings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales validly measure behavioral executive functioning and ADHD symptoms, respectively.
    • Rests on an assumption: Performance-based tests validly measure cognitive executive functioning.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In the control group, the pattern of fairly high and negative correlations between CEFI and Conners-3 suggests that adolescents respond consistently to both questionnaires and that there is some overlap in item content.

    “In particular, the pattern of fairly high and negative correlations between the CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales observed in the control group suggests that adolescents respond consistently to both questionnaires and that there is also some overlap in the item content.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales validly measure behavioral executive functioning and ADHD symptoms, respectively.

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    The data have implications for the combined use of performance-based tests and rating scales in the comprehensive assessment of executive functioning and behavioral characterization of adolescents with ADHD.

    “More widely, the data have implications for the combined use of performancebased tests and rating scales in the comprehensive assessment of executive functioning and behavioral characterization of adolescents with ADHD.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales validly measure behavioral executive functioning and ADHD symptoms, respectively.
    • Rests on an assumption: Performance-based tests validly measure cognitive executive functioning.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    A performance-based test in a structured setting can provide information about optimal performance and predict performance in similar settings, but it cannot accurately predict real-world goal-directed behavior.

    “A performance-based test, applied in a structured setting, can provide valuable information about optimal performance and can therefore predict performance in similar settings, such as school tasks in the classroom.However, tests of this kind cannot accurately predict performance in goaldirected behavior in real-world settings, for instance in complex social situations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Performance-based tests validly measure cognitive executive functioning.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Executive difficulties coupled with low environmental demands may not be reflected in everyday life, and vice versa.

    “Thus, executive difficulties coupled with low environmental demands may not be reflected in executive problems in everyday life, and vice versa.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chaytor, Schmitter-Edgecombe, & Burr, 2006 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Large effect sizes in almost all CEFI scales suggest that these rating scales may be useful for identifying behavioral executive function deficits in ADHD adolescents but less useful for differentiating ADHD presentations, except for emotion regulation.

    “In particular, the large effect size (partial eta squared, Cohen, 1988) in almost all CEFI scales suggests that these rating scales may be useful for identifying behavioral EF deficits in adolescents with ADHD, but less useful for differentiating between presentations of ADHD, except for the emotion regulation scale.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cohen, 1988

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

    • Rests on an assumption: The CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales validly measure behavioral executive functioning and ADHD symptoms, respectively.
32 of 32

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The CEFI and Conners-3 rating scales validly measure behavioral executive functioning and ADHD symptoms, respectively.

    “Table 4 shows the Pearson correlations between scores of performance-based tests and self-rated scores of the CEFI and Conners-3 DSM scales for the ADHD and control groups.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Performance-based tests validly measure cognitive executive functioning.

    “performance-based tests of inhibition, working memory and planning”
2 of 2

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?

  • The present results are in line with earlier findings of no significant correlations between same variables of rating scales and cognitive tests and only weak correlations between all variables.

    “The results from the pairwise correlation analysis, when comparing the test and rating scale measuring EF, are in line with earlier findings (6, 13,14,15). There are no significant correlations between the same variables of rating scales and cognitive tests, and only weak correlations between all variables are found.”

    From Executive functioning in children with ADHD: Investigating the cross-method correlations between performance tests and rating scales (2024) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Discussion reports few, generally low or moderate correlations between performance-based tests and EF rating scales, supporting the claim of generally weak relationships. It also describes some of those correlations as significant, so this source does not support an unqualified claim that there were no significant correlations between the measures. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Individuals with ADHD score significantly lower than control groups on measures of EF.

    “Even though EF play a central role in ADHD, and individuals with ADHD score significantly lower than control groups on measures of EF (6, 7), research also shows that the relationship between ADHD and EF is not well understood.”

    From Executive functioning in children with ADHD: Investigating the cross-method correlations between performance tests and rating scales (2024) · cites this paper as [6]

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(4, 69) = 2.503, p < .05

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .05 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .050. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .050

1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(4, 69) = 2.503reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .050

    “F(4, 69) = 2.503, p < .05”

  • Consistentχ²(12) = 12.01reported p = .44 · recomputed p = .445

    “χ 2 (12, N = 118) = 12.01, p = .44”

  • Consistentχ²(10) = 12.36reported p = .26 · recomputed p = .262

    “χ 2 (10, N = 75) = 12.36, p = .26”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 2.21reported p = .33 · recomputed p = .331

    “χ 2 (2, N = 118) = 2.21, p = .33”

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 97.56reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 115) = 97.56,p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 118.33reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 115) = 118.33,p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 88.32reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 115) = 88.32,p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 46.46reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 115) = 46.46,p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 56.78reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 115) = 56.78,p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 40.97reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 115) = 40.97,p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 63.45reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 115) = 63.45,p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 82.15reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 115) = 82.15,p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(10, 222) = 3.84reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(10,222) = 3.840, p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 17.863reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 115) = 17.863, p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 5.968reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “F(2, 115) = 5.968, p = .003”

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 9.614reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 115) = 9.614, p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(8, 224) = 5.209reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F (8, 224) = 5.209, p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 8.372reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,115) = 8.372, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 6.172reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “F(2,115) = 6.172, p = .003”

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 20.694reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,115) = 20.694,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(18, 214) = 6.432reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(18, 214) = 6.432, p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 44.608reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,115) = 44.608,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 17.193reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,115) = 17.193, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 26.734reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,115) = 26.734,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 52.185reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,115) = 52.185,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 37.388reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,115) = 37.388, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 31.431reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,115) = 31.431,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 115) = 26.944reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,115) = 26.944,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 89.05) = 32.92reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,89.05)= 32.920,p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • Consistentr(73) = -0.23reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .047

    “r (73) = -.23,p < .05”

  • Consistentr(73) = 0.28reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .015

    “r (73) = .28,p < .05”

  • Consistentr(41) = 0.31reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .043

    “r (41) = .31,p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(2, 71) = 3.148reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .049

    “F(2, 71) = 3.148, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(71) = 2.43reported p = .018 · recomputed p = .018

    “t(71) = 2.430, p = .018”

  • Consistentt(69) = 2.162reported p = .034 · recomputed p = .034

    “t(69) = 2.162, p = .034”

  • Consistentt(69) = 2.909reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .005

    “t(69) = 2.909, p = .005”

  • Consistentt(69) = 2.643reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .010

    “t(69) = 2.643, p = .010”

  • ConsistentF(4, 69) = 3.198reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .018

    “F(4, 69) = 3.198, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(4, 38) = 3.44reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .017

    “F (4, 38) = 3.440, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(38) = 3.143reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “t(38) = 3.143, p = .003”

  • Consistentt(38) = 2.088reported p = .044 · recomputed p = .044

    “t(38) = 2.088, p = .044”

  • Consistentt(38) = 2.14reported p = .039 · recomputed p = .039

    “t(38) = 2.140, p = .039”

  • ConsistentF(4, 38) = 2.752reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .042

    “F(4, 38) = 2.752, p < .05”

  • Consistentr(73) = -0.41reported p < .01 · recomputed p < .001

    “r (73) = -.41,p < .01”

  • Consistentr(41) = -0.32reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .036

    “r (41) = -.32,p < .05”

  • Consistentr(41) = -0.79reported p < .01 · recomputed p < .001

    “r (41) = -.79,p < .01”

46 of 46

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.

  • ADHD correlations are called nonsignificant despite reported p-values

    Minor

    The text describes the cognitive-behavioral EF correlations in the ADHD group as nonsignificant, then gives examples marked p < .05.

  • Control correlations are called nonsignificant despite reported p-values

    Minor

    The statement that control-group cognitive-behavioral EF correlations were nonsignificant conflicts with its examples marked p < .05.

  • Discussion omits the reported difference between ADHD presentations

    Minor

    The discussion concludes that the two ADHD presentations did not differ significantly, although it separately reports a significant difference on the CEFI emotion regulation scale.

  • Comorbidity percentages reverse a subset relationship

    Minor

    Adolescents with at least two other disorders must also have at least one. In both ADHD groups, however, the reported percentage with at least two exceeds the percentage with at least one.

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Amador Campos J. A., 2006, Psicothema, 18, 696
  2. Cambridge Cognition. (2010).Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTABeclipse) manual. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Cognition.
  3. Conners C. K., 2000, Conners’ continuous performance test user’s manual
  4. Conners C. K., 2008, Conners 3rd edition manual
  5. Delis D. C., 2012, Delis rating of executive function (D-REF)
  6. Greenberg L. M., 1991, TOVA manual
  7. Naglieri J. A., 2013, Comprehensive Executive Function Inventory (CEFI)
  8. Osterrieth P. A., 1944, Archives De Psychologie, 30, 206
  9. Reitan R. M., 1992, Trail making test: Manual for administration and scoring
  10. Wechsler D., 2005, WISC-IV. Escala de inteligencia de Wechsler para niños IV
  11. Wechsler D., 2011, Escala no verbal de aptitud intelectual de Wechsler

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Krieger, V., & Amador-Campos, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
  • Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
ORCID
Venue
Child Neuropsychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2017-10-18
Volume
24
Issue
8
Pages
1063-1087
ISSN
  • 0929-7049 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-4136
DOI
10.1080/09297049.2017.1386781
OpenAlex
W2765681252
Semantic Scholar
f698192cb88e0a89b11eaa48ba857345b7775076
Cited by
61
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
3.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Child Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (acceptedVersion)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Alicia Koplowitz Foundation (grant number FAKO-2009)
  • Agency for the Management of University and Research Grants from the Government of Catalonia (grant number 2014SGR1139)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
executive function, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, adolescents, performance-based tests, rating scales, working memory, planning, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, WISC-IV, Full Scale IQ, neuropsychological assessment
MeSH terms
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Adolescent, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

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