Cited by 64Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyReading and Literacy Development

Working memory, response inhibition, and within-subject variability in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or reading disorder

Open access
Van De Voorde, Séverine, Roeyers, Herbert, Verté, Sylvie, Wiersema, Jan Roelf·2010·Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

Abstract

This study compared children with ADHD (n = 19), reading disorder (RD; n = 17), ADHD+RD (n = 21), and control children (n = 19) on linguistic and executive function measures. We found no evidence of response inhibition problems in ADHD or RD when a baseline measure of functioning was taken into account. General working memory problems were only found in children with RD or ADHD+RD. Both children with ADHD and RD showed a highly inaccurate (more commission errors) and variable (higher within-subject standard deviation of reaction time) response style. The comorbid group made most errors, suggesting that different factors underlie the high error rate in both disorders.

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 · 10.1080/13803390903066865

Cites

92 of 92 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?

  • Van De Voorde et al. (2010) found no differences in inhibition and working memory tasks between cases with single deficits and those with a comorbid condition.

    “Some authors (Van De Voorde et al., 2010) found no differences in inhibition and WM tasks between cases with single deficits and those with a comorbid condition.”

    From Executive Functions in Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Comorbidity Overlaps Between Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and Specific Learning Disorders (2021) · cites this paper as Van De Voorde et al., 2010

    The Working Memory section reports no difference between the comorbid and RD-only groups. The Response inhibition variable: commission errors section reports no group difference on the inhibition difference score, but significantly more errors in the comorbid group than in the single-disorder groups in both inhibition conditions. The claim overgeneralizes those findings to all inhibition and working-memory task results. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. In H.C. Quay, & A.E. Hogan (Eds.), Handbook of disruptive behavior disorders (pp. 105-138). New York: Kluwer Academic.
  2. Purvis, K.L., & Tannock, R. (1997). Language abilities in children with ADHD, reading disabilities, and normal controls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 133-144.
  3. Willcutt, E.G., Doyle, A.E., Nigg, J.T., Faraone, S.V., & Pennington, B.F. (2005). Validity of the executive function theory of ADHD: A meta-analytic review. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1336-1346.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van De Voorde, S., Roeyers, H., Verté, S., & Wiersema, J. R.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University
  • Ghent University (BE)
Venue
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology
Published
2009-10-07
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
366-379
ISSN
  • 0165-0475 (ISSN-L)
  • 1380-3395
  • 1744-411X
OpenAlex
W2065124986
Cited by
64
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Universiteit Gent
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 › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, reading disorders, dyslexia, working memory, response inhibition, executive function, within-person variability, reaction time, commission errors, comorbidities, children
MeSH terms
Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Cognition Disorders, Dyslexia, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Language Development Disorders, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Phonetics, Photic Stimulation, 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.

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