Cited by 34Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Reaction time performance in adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Evidence of inconsistency in the fast and slow portions of the RT distribution

Williams, Benjamin R., Strauss, Esther H., Hultsch, David F., Hunter, Michael A., Tannock, Rosemary·2007·Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

Abstract

Inconsistency across trials of 2-choice reaction time (RT) data was analyzed in 72 adolescents (age 12-17 years) within 4 groups differentiated by the presence or absence of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and reading difficulties (RD). ADHD participants were more inconsistent (across all trials, and in the slow portion of the RT distribution) than controls, but only when RD was present. Within the fast portion of the RT distribution, ADHD participants were more inconsistent than controls regardless of RD. The results highlight the importance of fluctuations in cognitive performance in ADHD and suggest that there may be independent sources of variation in inconsistency affecting the fast and slow portions of the RT distribution.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13803390600678020

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • One study using ex-Gaussian parameters reported significant but small differences between ADHD and control groups in the fast portion of the reaction time distribution, interpreted as different causal mechanisms for a potentially multidimensional reaction time variability construct.

    “It should also be noted that 1 study, using ex-Gaussian parameters, reported significant differences, albeit with a small effect size (0.08) between ADHD and control groups in the fast portion of the RT distribution, which was interpreted as reflecting different causal mechanisms for the potentially multidimensional construct of RTV [44].”

    From Reaction Time Variability in ADHD: A Review (2012) · cites this paper as [44]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Williams, B. R., Strauss, E. H., Hultsch, D. F., Hunter, M. A., & Tannock, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Victoria (CA)
  • Hospital for Sick Children (CA)
Corresponding author
Williams, Benjamin R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology
Published
2007-03-12
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
277-289
ISSN
  • 0165-0475 (ISSN-L)
  • 1380-3395
  • 1744-411X
OpenAlex
W2004420885
Cited by
34
References
37
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, reaction time, response time distribution, reading difficulties, adolescents
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Attention, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Linear Models

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