CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyAutism Spectrum Disorder Research

Neurocognition in children with cognitive disengagement syndrome: accurate but slow

Open access
Tamm, Leanne, Epstein, Jeffery N., Orban, Sarah A., Kofler, Michael J., Peugh, James L., Becker, Stephen P.·2024·Child Neuropsychology
DOI 10.1080/09297049.2023.2185215PMC PMC10474248
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS), previously termed sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT), is characterized by excessive daydreaming, mental confusion, and slowed behavior or thinking. Prior research has found inconsistent relations between CDS and neurocognition, though most studies have used small or ADHD-defined samples, non-optimal measures of CDS, and/or examined limited neurocognitive domains. Accordingly, this study examined the association of parent- and teacher-reported CDS symptoms using a comprehensive neurocognitive battery in a sample of 263 children (aged 8-12) selected with a range of CDS symptomatology. Parents and teachers provided ratings of CDS and ADHD inattentive (ADHD-IN) symptoms. Path analyses were conducted to examine CDS and ADHD-IN as unique predictors of neurocognitive functioning after covarying for age, sex, and family income. CDS symptoms were uniquely associated with slower performance across a range of cognitive domains, including verbal inhibition, rapid naming/reading, planning, divided attention, and set shifting. In contrast, ADHD-IN symptoms were uniquely associated with poorer performance on a Go/NoGo task (inhibition/distractibility), visual scanning and discrimination, and interference control. Findings from the current study, amongst the first to recruit children based on levels of CDS symptomatology, provide the strongest evidence to date that the neurocognitive phenotype of CDS is characterized by slowed cognitive processing, and add to its validity as a separate syndrome from ADHD. If replicated, these findings have implications for assessment, treatment, and school accommodations for CDS. Neuroimaging studies exploring the neurobiological basis of CDS are also needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09297049.2023.2185215

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 71 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    CDS and ADHD-IN composites correlated .807 (p<.001) after covarying age, sex, and income.

    “The CDS and ADHD-IN composite scores were significantly correlated (r=.807, p<.001) when covarying age, sex, and income.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    After covarying sex, age, and income, both ADHD-IN and CDS were independently linked to WISC-IV Coding and working memory.

    “After covarying sex, age, and income, both ADHD-IN and CDS were independently associated with WISC-IV Coding and WM.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    CDS showed no association with response inhibition.

    “CDS was not associated with planning accuracy, cognitive interference accuracy, or response inhibition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    CDS showed no association with planning accuracy.

    “CDS was not associated with planning accuracy, cognitive interference accuracy, or response inhibition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The study found no association between CDS and Grooved Pegboard.

    “It should also be noted that we did not find an association between CDS and Grooved Pegboard, which we expected given previous work reporting such an association in adolescents with ADHD [12].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 31
  • May combine two claims. 45

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

    Findingown data

    Parent and teacher CDS ratings correlated .470, and parent and teacher ADHD-IN ratings correlated .452.

    “For analyses, computed composite scores (mean of parent and teacher ratings) for CDS (parent/teacher correlation r = .470)and ADHD-IN (parent/teacher correlation r = .452)were used.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    ADHD-IN did not correlate significantly with TEA-Ch DT, TMT-C Part A, DKEFS-Tower Mean First Move Time and Time per Move Ratio, or Grooved Pegboard.

    “ADHD-IN was not significantly correlated with TEA-Ch DT, TMT-C Part A, DKEFS-Tower Mean First Move Time and Time per Move Ratio, or Grooved Pegboard.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    ADHD-IN correlated significantly with GNG accuracy, omissions, and commissions, TEA-Ch Time per Target and Attention, WISC-IV Coding and Symbol Search, TMT-C Part B, all four DKEFS-CWI conditions and Inhibition errors, DKEFS-Tower achievement, and working memory.

    “ADHD-IN was significantly correlated with GNG accuracy, omissions, and commissions, TEA-Ch Time per Target and Attention, WISC-IV Coding and Symbol Search, TMT-C Part B, all four DKEFS-CWI conditions and Inhibition errors, DKEFS-Tower achievement, and WM (Table 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    After covarying sex, age, and income, CDS was uniquely linked to slower performance on all three TEA-Ch scores, TMT-C Part B, all four DKEFS-CWI conditions (marginal for Inhibition/Switching), and DKEFS-Tower Mean First Move Time and Time per Move.

    “After covarying sex, age, and income, CDS was uniquely associated with slower performance on all three TEACH scores, TMT-C Part B, all four DKEFS-CWI condition scores (marginal significance for DKEFS-CWI Inhibition/ Switching), DKEFS-Tower Mean First Move Times and Time per Move (see Table 4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Neither CDS nor ADHD-IN was significantly linked to Grooved Pegboard dominant hand times.

    “Neither CDS nor ADHD-IN were significantly associated with Grooved Pegboard dominant hand times.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    CDS correlated significantly with most neurocognitive measures, including GNG accuracy and omissions, TEA-Ch scores, WISC-IV Coding and Symbol Search, TMT-C Parts A and B, DKEFS-CWI conditions and Inhibition errors, DKEFS-Tower timing scores, Grooved Pegboard time, and working memory.

    “CDS was significantly correlated with GNG accuracy, GNG omission errors, all three TEA-Ch scores, WISC-IV Coding and Symbol Search, TMT-C Parts A and B, all four DKEFS-CWI conditions and Inhibition errors, DKEFS-Tower Mean First Move Time and Time Per Move Ratio scores, Grooved Pegboard time, and WM (Table 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Neither CDS nor ADHD-IN was significantly linked to DKEFS-Tower Achievement or GNG commissions.

    “Neither CDS nor ADHD-IN were significantly associated with DKEFS-Tower Achievement or GNG commissions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    ADHD-IN was uniquely linked to WISC-IV Symbol Search, DKEFS-CWI Inhibition errors, GNG accuracy, and GNG omission errors.

    “ADHD-IN was uniquely associated with WISC-IV Symbol Search, DKEFS-CWI Inhibition errors, GNG accuracy, and GNG omission errors (see Table 4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    CDS did not correlate significantly with GNG commission errors or DKEFS-Tower achievement.

    “CDS was not significantly correlated with GNG commission errors or DKEFS-Tower achievement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both CDS and ADHD-IN were independently linked to TMT-C Part A, with CDS linked to slower times and ADHD-IN to faster times.

    “Both CDS and ADHD-IN were independently associated with TMT-C Part A, although in different directions (i.e., CDS symptoms were associated with slower TMT-Part A times, while ADHD-IN symptoms were associated with faster TMT-C Part A times).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Children with higher CDS were slower on both simple and complex tasks.

    “Specifically, children with higher CDS were slower on both simple (e.g., TMT-C Part A) and more complex (e.g., Tower) tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The study found no evidence linking CDS to deficits in signal detection or in engaging/disengaging with stimuli.

    “We did not find any evidence that CDS was associated with signal detection and stimulus engagement/disengagement deficits [3].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    ADHD-IN was uniquely linked to Symbol Search, while both CDS and ADHD were linked to Coding.

    “Our results show that ADHD-IN is uniquely associated with Symbol Search, and that both CDS and ADHD are associated with Coding.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    CDS is marked by excessive daydreaming, mental confusion, and slowed behavior or thinking.

    “Cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS), previously termed sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT) [1], is characterized by excessive daydreaming, mental confusion, and slowed behavior/thinking.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    CDS is uniquely linked to functional impairment such as anxiety, depression, academic problems, emotion dysregulation, and social impairment when ADHD is covaried.

    “CDS is also uniquely associated with functional impairment, including anxiety, depression, academic problems, emotion dysregulation, and social impairment when covarying ADHD [2].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    CDS symptoms cover both cognitive disengagement and motor hypoactivity/underactivity.

    “CDS symptoms include both cognitive (disengagement of attention or effortful mental processing from external events/context/requirements) and motor (hypoactivity/underactivity, or high periods of sedentary movement) domains [1].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Findings differ by parent versus teacher informant, and CDS measurement varies.

    “Other challenges include that there are discrepancies in findings based on the informant reporting on CDS (i.e., parent versus teacher) and variability in the measurement of CDS [2].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Grooved Pegboard measures motor speed and dexterity.

    “This task measures motor speed and dexterity [39].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [39] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Both WISC-IV subtests load on the Processing Speed factor above .5.

    “Both subtests load on the Processing Speed factor at >.5.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The eight working memory variables were reduced to one composite, explaining 61.04% of variance with loadings .52-.89.

    “Thus, the 8 WM performance variables (4 blocks for each task) were reduced to a single WM indicator (i.e., composite score; 61.04% of variance explained; loadings = .52-.89).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    Grooved Pegboard test-retest reliability is good (.91 right hand, .85 left hand).

    “Test-retest reliability is good (.91 for the right hand and .85 for the left hand) [38].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [38] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Barkley et al. found initial evidence that higher CDS is associated with impaired selective attention, with some but not all studies reporting this.

    “they concluded that there was initial evidence for those with higher CDS to have impaired selective attention (i.e., challenges orienting and coupling attention to external events central to task performance, reflected by omission errors) as reported in several [2,[4][5][6][7], but not all [8] studies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    TMT-C Part A depends on processing speed, motor speed, visual scanning, and perceptual abilities; Part B also depends on working memory, inhibition, and executive functions.

    “Part A relies on processing speed, motor speed, visual scanning, and perceptual abilities; Part B additionally relies on WM, inhibition, and other executive functions [32].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [32]

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Sensitivity analyses were run separately for teacher and parent ratings and with anxiety and IQ covaried.

    “Sensitivity analyses were also computed following this same approach (3 path analyses) separately for teacher and parent ratings and also covarying comorbid anxiety disorder and IQ (see Supplemental Tables S1, S2, S3, S4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    TEA-Ch subtests reliably load on three factors: sustained, selective, and executive control.

    “Consistent with the theoretical model informing test development, the TEA-Ch subtests reliably load onto three separate factors (sustained, selective, and executive control) [26].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The review found no consistent impairments among CDS youth in planning, cognitive flexibility, naming speed, processing speed, interference control, or working memory.

    “Youth with CDS did not demonstrate consistent deficits in processing speed, interference control, working memory (WM), planning, cognitive flexibility, or naming speed [3].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    D-KEFS Tower Test internal consistency is .56-.84 (average .67) in 8-12 year olds.

    “Internal consistency coefficients for the Tower Test range from .56 to .84 (average of .67) in 8-12 year olds [33,35].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [33] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [35] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    ADHD-IN was uniquely linked to poorer sustained attention, greater distractibility, more cognitive interference errors, and worse Symbol Search.

    “In contrast, and consistent with the ADHD literature, ADHD-IN was uniquely associated with poorer sustained attention, increased distractibility, and more errors related to cognitive interference [4,43], and worse Symbol Search performance [44], the latter likely related to poor focused attention and inhibition [45].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [4] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [43] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [44] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [45]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Existing neurocognitive studies have mainly used school samples with low psychopathology or ADHD clinic samples.

    “Notably, extant neurocognitive studies have primarily been conducted in school-based samples which generally have low levels of psychopathology (including CDS) or clinic samples of children diagnosed with ADHD.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    WISC-IV Coding and Symbol Search mainly assess processing speed, with working memory and motor skills also involved.

    “The Coding and Symbol Search subtests [27] primarily measure children's processing speed, although WM and motor skills are also involved.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In this sample, internal consistency was good for parent CDS (.95), parent ADHD-IN (.96), teacher CDS (.94), and teacher ADHD-IN (.96).

    “In the current sample reliability was good for parent-rated CDS (Cronbach's α = .95),parent-rated ADHD-IN (Cronbach's α = .96),teacher-rated CDS (Cronbach's α = .94),and teacher-rated ADHD-IN (Cronbach's α = .96).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The CADBI has strong psychometric properties, including reliability, structural validity, caregiver-teacher invariance, and concurrent and longitudinal external validity.

    “The CADBI has been used in multiple studies in five countries with children spanning ages 4-16 years and has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including reliability (internal consistency, test-retest, and interrater), structural validity (distinction from ADHD and other psychopathology dimensions), invariance across caregiver and teacher ratings, and concurrent and longitudinal external”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [23] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    WISC-IV Coding and Symbol Search have strong psychometrics: internal consistency .85 and .79, and test-retest .84 and .80.

    “The two subtests have strong psychometric properties [28] with internal consistency values of .85 for Coding and .79 for Symbol Search, and test-retest correlations of .84 for Coding and .80 for Symbol Search [29].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [28] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [29] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    D-KEFS CWI has high internal consistency (.62-.86) and high reliability.

    “The CWI has high internal consistency (ranging from .62 to .86) and high reliability [34].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [34] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Results were highly consistent across parent and teacher informants and when IQ and anxiety were included.

    “Results were remarkably consistent when comparing parent (Table S1) and teacher (Table S2) informants as well as when including IQ (Table S3) and anxiety (Table S4) in the models.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Most child and adolescent studies report slower processing speed with CDS after controlling ADHD, but some child and emerging adult studies do not.

    “Most studies with children and adolescents report slower processing speed associated with CDS after covarying ADHD [4,5,[10][11][12][13] whereas associations have not been found in some studies of children or in studies of emerging adults) [14][15][16].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [4,5,[10][11][12][13]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [14][15][16]

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    TMT-C has good psychometrics, with excellent interrater reliability and alternate forms reliability .78-.92.

    “Psychometric properties of the TMT-C are good with excellent interrater reliability and alternate forms of reliability ranging from .78 to .92 [31].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [31] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    A substantial body of research supports CDS's external and internal validity.

    “a large and growing body of research supports the external and internal validity of CDS [2].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    CDS was uniquely linked to slower performance on tasks with graphomotor or visual-motor coordination demands (TMT-C Parts A and B, Sky Search time per target, DKEFS-Tower), poorer TEA-Ch DT, and slower mental processing on Color Naming and Word Reading, which together contributed to slower DKEFS-CWI Inhibition.

    “As summarized in Table 5, CDS was uniquely associated with slower performance on tasks with a graphomotor or visual-motor coordination component (TMT-C Parts A and B, Sky Search time per target, DKEFS-Tower), poorer performance on TEA-Ch DT (greater decrement when having to perform two simultaneous tasks), and slower speed of mental processing on fundamental cognitive skills (Color Naming and Word”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [33] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Wu et al. found no clear CDS-neurocognition associations, while ADHD was linked to sustained attention, response inhibition, and working memory deficits.

    “A more recent study by Wu et al. similarly reported no clear associations between CDS and neurocognitive deficits, whereas ADHD was associated with deficits in sustained attention, response inhibition, and WM [9].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    D-KEFS Tower Test test-retest reliability is moderate.

    “Test-retest reliability is moderate for the Tower test [33,35,36].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [33] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [35] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [36] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Working memory involves active top-down manipulation of short-term memory through updating, dual-processing, and temporal/serial reordering.

    “WMinvolves the active, top-down manipulation of information held in short-term memory through updating, dual-processing, and temporal/ serial reordering [40].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [40]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The sample was mostly White, of higher socioeconomic status, had a narrow age range, and high ADHD rates, which may reduce generalizability.

    “The sample was predominantly White, of higher socioeconomic status, included a limited age range, and high rates of ADHD which may limit generalizability.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationcitation

    The study's findings may be stronger in more disadvantaged samples.

    “making it possible that our findings may be stronger in more disadvantaged samples.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    It has been concluded that performance-based and rating measures assess different mental constructs, with performance-based measures reflecting processing efficiency and ratings reflecting success in rational goal pursuit.

    “It has been concluded that performance-based measures and rating measures assess different underlying mental constructs with the former providing information regarding efficiency of processing, and the latter capturing success in rational goal pursuit [62].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [62]

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Children had a stimulant washout for the assessment, while parents and especially teachers likely rated them as usually observed, that is, while taking ADHD medication.

    “Relatedly, children had a washout from stimulant medications for the assessment, whereas parents and particularly teachers likely completed ratings based on how they typically observed the child (i.e., while taking medications to manage their ADHD).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The sample contained 13 children with parent-reported dyslexia/reading disorder, which may have affected Coding subtest performance because of its orthographic demands compared with Symbol Search.

    “For example, the sample included 13 children whose parents reported a learning disability of Dyslexia/ Reading Disorder, which may have impacted performance on the Coding subtest due to orthographic demands relative to the Symbol Search task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Low concordance is generally reported between executive functioning ratings and performance-based tasks that claim to measure the same neurocognitive domain.

    “Generally low concordance between executive functioning ratings and performance-based tasks measuring the same purported neurocognitive domain is reported (e.g., performance on a working memory task is not necessarily associated with daily life ratings of working memory) [67].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [67] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study did not include academic achievement measures because it focused on neurocognitive functioning.

    “We also did not include any academic achievement measures given our focus on neurocognitive functioning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Wåhlstedt and Bohlin used a composite of omissions, reaction times, and performance differences from a Go/NoGo task.

    “Specifically, Wåhlstedt and Bohlin combined omissions, reaction times, and performance differences on a GNG task [61]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [61] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The cross-sectional design rules out causal or temporal associations.

    “Additionally, the study is cross-sectional precluding causal or temporal associations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    These null results for CDS with planning, cognitive interference accuracy, and response inhibition match prior child studies that found no CDS link to planning tasks, Stroop accuracy, or response inhibition.

    “These findings are consistent with previous work in children which reported no association of CDS and planning tasks (Tower of Hanoi [19] and CANTAB Stockings Task [9]), Stroop accuracy [19], or response inhibition [5,8,61].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [19] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [5] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [8] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [61] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Of the three remaining studies on CDS and Go/NoGo omissions in children and adolescents, results were mixed: two found CDS linked to more Gordan Diagnostic System Go/NoGo omission errors, and one found no link to Test of Variables of Attention omissions.

    “The three remaining studies which reported on CDS and GNG omissions in children and teens reported mixed findings; two reported CDS was associated with more Gordan Diagnostic System GNG omission errors [4,5] and one reported no association between CDS and Test of Variables of Attention omissions [8].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [4] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [5] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [8] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    CDS symptoms may be linked to lower family income and socioeconomic indicators.

    “CDS symptoms may be associated with lower family income and socioeconomic indicators [63,64]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [63] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [64] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    With evidence that CDS is linked to poorer academic and social functioning and more internalizing symptoms, CDS appears to be an important clinical construct.

    “Taken together with evidence that CDS is associated with poorer academic and social functioning as well as increased internalizing symptomatology [1,2], it appears CDS is an important clinical construct.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [2] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    With other validity evidence, these findings further support CDS as an important clinical construct with significant negative sequelae.

    “Taken together with other evidence of internal and external validity [2], these findings provide further support for CDS as an important clinical construct with significant negative sequelae.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Most studies find no significant race-CDS association, though one recent study found African American race linked to higher teacher-rated ADHD-IN and lower CDS symptoms.

    “In addition, most studies have not found a significant association between race and CDS [2], though a recent study found African American race to be associated with higher teacher-rated ADHD-IN symptoms but lower CDS symptoms [64].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [2] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [64] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Earlier research has linked CDS to poorer Go/NoGo accuracy and more omissions among children with ADHD and among typically developing children selected for high ADHD and CDS symptoms.

    “This was somewhat surprising given work reporting an association of CDS with lower GNG accuracy [60] and more omissions in samples of children with ADHD [4,61] and typically developing children oversampled for ADHD and CDS symptoms [5].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [60] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [61] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [5] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Baseline under-arousal may contribute to slower psychomotor speed and lower alertness, affecting neurocognitive task performance.

    “which may contribute to slower psychomotor speed and lower levels of alertness impacting neurocognitive task performance [13,68].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [13]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [68] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    The data suggest cognitive slowing as a possible intervention target for children with high CDS symptoms.

    “These data also point to cognitive slowing as a possible intervention target for intervention in children with high CDS symptoms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The findings strongly suggest that the CDS neurocognitive phenotype involves slowed cognitive processing, though replication is needed.

    “Although replication is warranted, findings provide strong evidence that the neurocognitive phenotype of CDS is characterized by slowed cognitive processing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The neurocognitive tasks used in the study measure the intended neurocognitive constructs.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Prior work suggests that youth self-report of CDS may add to a more comprehensive understanding of the ADHD neurocognitive phenotype.

    “previous work has suggested that youth self-report of CDS may contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the neurocognitive phenotype of ADHD [12].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The Tower Test Achievement score has lower-than-desirable psychometric properties, with internal consistencies as low as .56 for ages 8-12, though one study reported that the Tower Test Time Per Move Ratio is sufficiently reliable for clinical and research use.

    “Additionally, the psychometric properties of the Tower Test Achievement score (e.g., internal consistencies as low as .56 for the 8-12 year old age range) are lower than desirable, although one study reported that the Tower Test Time Per Move Ratio is sufficiently reliable for clinical and research use [36].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [36] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study could not examine baseline under-arousal.

    “Finally, were not able to examine the role of baseline under-arousal”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
64 of 64

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The neurocognitive tasks used in the study measure the intended neurocognitive constructs.

    “Although we associated specific neurocognitive constructs with each task, cognitive factors other than those intended to be measured likely affect performance [62].”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The parent and teacher ratings of CDS and ADHD-IN are valid measures of the respective symptom dimensions.

    “There are also limitations related to using parent and teacher ratings to predict neurocognitive performance.”
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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

  • Go/NoGo trial total does not match the block count

    Minor

    Six blocks of 20 trials contain 120 trials, not the reported 360.

    Reported 360 · recomputed 120

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Burns, G. L., Lee, S., Becker, S. P., Servera, M., & McBurnett, K. (2014). Child and adolescent disruptive behavior inventory—Parent and teacher versions 5.0.
  2. Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2001). Delis Kaplan Executive Function System: Examiner’s manual. In Psychological corporation.
  3. Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological Assessment. Oxford University Press.
  4. Matthews, C. G., & Klove, H. (1964). Neuropsychological test battery manual. University of Wisconsin Laboratory Laboratory.
  5. McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). The intelligence test desk reference (ITDR). Allyn & Bacon.
  6. Sattler, J. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tamm, L., Epstein, J. N., Orban, S. A., Kofler, M. J., Peugh, J. L., & Becker, S. P.
Affiliations
  • Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
  • University of Tampa (US)
  • Florida State University (US)
Corresponding author
Tamm, Leanne
ORCID
Venue
Child Neuropsychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2023-03-02
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
221-240
ISSN
  • 0929-7049 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-4136
DOI
10.1080/09297049.2023.2185215
PMC
PMC10474248
OpenAlex
W4323036290
Semantic Scholar
dcc8bcc99740df89bea4f96f60c0722217434766
Cited by
25
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6
FWCI
5.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Child Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (Trustee Award)
  • Cincinnati Children’s Research Foundation
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 › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
Keywords
cognitive disengagement syndrome, sluggish cognitive tempo, neurocognitive function, processing speed, children, verbal inhibition, rapid automatized naming, planning, divided attention, set-shifting, go/no-go task, visual exploration, interference control, parent and teacher ratings
MeSH terms
Attention, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Schools

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 2026-10-07.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-07.

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