Cited by 413Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyAutism Spectrum Disorder Research

Predicting Impairment in Major Life Activities and Occupational Functioning in Hyperactive Children as Adults: Self-Reported Executive Function (EF) Deficits Versus EF Tests

Barkley, Russell A., Fischer, Mariellen·2011·Developmental Neuropsychology

Abstract

Hyperactivity in children, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is associated with impairments in various major life activities by adulthood, particularly occupational functioning. ADHD appears to involve deficits in executive functioning (EF). Prior studies have not examined the contribution of these deficits to adult impairment generally and occupational adjustment specifically in longitudinal studies of hyperactive/ADHD children. We did so assessing EF by both self-report and tests and using self and other-rated impairment in 10 domains of major life activities and 12 measures of occupational impairment. We studied hyperactive (H; N = 135) and community control children (C; N = 75) followed to adulthood (mean age 27 years). The H cases were subdivided into those whose ADHD did (ADHD-P) and did not persist (ADHD-NP) using modified DSM-IV criteria. Self-reported EF deficits were more severe on all five EF scales in the ADHD-P than both the ADHD-NP and C groups and on three scales in the ADHD-NP compared to C groups. Most ADHD-P cases fell in the clinically impaired range on self-reported EF as did a substantial minority of ADHD-NP cases but few were so classified on the EF tests. Impairments in occupational functioning were predicted by the EF ratings to a greater degree than by the EF tests. Most EF tests were unrelated to work history with the exception of the Five-Points Test. We conclude that EF ratings are better predictors of impairment in major life act…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/87565641.2010.549877

Cites

45 of 45 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barkley, R. A., & Fischer, M.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
Corresponding author
Barkley, Russell A.
Venue
Developmental Neuropsychology
Published
2011-01-31
Volume
36
Issue
2
Pages
137-161
ISSN
  • 1532-6942 (ISSN-L)
  • 8756-5641
OpenAlex
W2116091704
Cited by
413
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 14
FWCI
18.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Developmental Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH042181, MH42181)
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
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, executive dysfunction, major life activities, occupational functioning, hyperactive children, longitudinal follow-up, work history
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Cognition Disorders, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Interview, Psychological, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Occupations, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Severity of Illness Index, Statistics as Topic, Executive Function, Self Report

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