The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 7 of the 59 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests
Open accessAbstract
Adult ADHD study finding EF ratings predicted occupational impairment more consistently than EF tests, illustrating the ecological validity gap between performance tests and daily functioning ratings.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In adults ranging from diagnosed ADHD to clinical and community controls, self-rated executive function deficits predicted occupational impairment across all 11 outcomes, whereas EF tests predicted fewer outcomes and usually less variance. The authors argue that EF ratings and EF tests may assess different levels of a hierarchical EF construct, with ratings better capturing daily-life occupational adjustment.
Key findings
- Across the combined sample (ADHD n = 146; clinical controls n = 97; community controls n = 109), self-ratings on the Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale (DEFS) significantly predicted all 11 occupational measures. Explained variance was 5%–22% for most outcomes, but 63% for the clinician-rated SOFAS; Self-Management to Time, Inhibition/Self-Discipline, and Self-Motivation each predicted five measures.
- When EF tests were examined alone, only three test scores from two tests made significant contributions. CPT Commission Errors was the most frequent predictor, contributing 1.6%–12.9% of variance; Five-Point Test unique designs contributed 7% to employer-rated impairment, 7.5% to employer-rated work performance, and 3.7% to SOFAS; CPT reaction time contributed 1.7% and 2.8% to two outcomes. No EF test significantly predicted the percentage of jobs from which participants had been fired.
- In joint analyses, DEFS entered first predicted 10 of 11 occupational measures, while EF tests added unique variance to only 1 of 11. With reversed entry, EF tests predicted 3 measures and DEFS predicted 9. For SOFAS, DEFS explained 45%–67% of variance depending on entry order, while EF tests added only 2% after DEFS. Employer-rated impairment and work performance together reached 40% and 46% explained variance, but neither battery’s contribution was significant because of small employer-rated samples.
Methods
- Three groups were combined: 146 adults clinically diagnosed with ADHD, 97 clinic-referred adults not diagnosed with ADHD, and 109 community volunteers. Eligibility required IQ ≥ 80 on the Shipley Institute of Living Scale and excluded significant sensory, neurological, language, medical, or psychiatric conditions specified in the paper; community controls also scored below the 84th percentile on current Adult ADHD Rating Scale self-report.
- Occupational outcomes came from a structured impairment interview (job number, work quality, being fired, interpersonal and behavioral job problems, quitting due to boredom or hostility, discipline for substandard work), employer ratings (available for 39 ADHD, 25 clinical control, and 50 community control participants), and clinician SOFAS ratings. Predictors were DEFS self-ratings (88 items, five subscales) and EF tests including CPT, Stroop, Wisconsin Card Sort, Five-Point Test, and Digit Span.
- Linear multiple regression was used: IQ was forced in at Step 1, then DEFS subscales or EF tests entered stepwise at Step 2. Joint models entered all DEFS and all EF tests battery-wise in both possible orders.
Limitations
- The paper states that the DEFS item pool may not have captured every possible EF dimension, the EF test battery was relatively circumscribed, occupational history relied partly on self-report subject to recall bias, employer ratings were available only for a subset and were a crude index, and combining clinical and community groups may have inflated relationships and limits generalizability.
- The paper also notes that employer-rated analyses were underpowered because of small samples, so some nonsignificant joint contributions may reflect limited power rather than true absence of effect.
- Evident from the text: the design is cross-sectional and correlational, so causal direction between EF deficits and occupational impairment cannot be established; medication status was not fully controlled, although the authors report no significant severity differences between medicated and unmedicated clinical participants.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
7 of 59 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 2 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“These studies typically find that the variance shared between any single EF test and EF ratings ranges from just 0% to 10%.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Introduction
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Burgess et al., 1998 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the section “Correlations Between Overall Severity of Dysexecutive Disorder and the Neuropsychological Test Measures” (Table 2; page unavailable), eight of ten executive-test measures correlate with carers’ DEX ratings at r = .35–.40. Squaring those correlations gives approximately 12%–16% shared variance, contrary to the claimed typical range of 0%–10%. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chaytor et al., 2006 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wood & Liossi, 2006 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Disputed
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Most troubling from a clinical perspective is that EF tests have low or no ecological validity when judged against ratings of EF in daily life or direct observations of EF performance in natural settings.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Introduction
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Burgess et al., 1998 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) says executive-test performance consistently correlated with observers’ ratings of patients’ everyday dysexecutive problems. The Results section, “Correlations Between Overall Severity of Dysexecutive Disorder and the Neuropsychological Test Measures” (page unavailable), calls the relationships nontrivial. The study used questionnaires rather than direct observations in natural settings. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chaytor et al., 2006 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wood & Liossi, 2006 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Moreover, such deficits on EF tests are usually only weakly related to severity of ADHD symptoms, if at all”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barkley et al., 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Jonsdottir et al., 2006 source
The Discussion reports no significant relationship between EF-task performance and parent- or teacher-rated ADHD symptoms after controlling for intelligence. It also cites two studies finding no association, while acknowledging one contrary study. This supports the qualified claim that the relationship is usually weak or absent. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The constructs evaluated by EF tests are apparently not those assessed by EF ratings or by direct evaluations of EF in daily life”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Alderman et al., 2003 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In ‘Relation between MET-SV and other executive function tests in patients’ (p. 9), many patients passed traditional EF tests but failed the shopping task, and their shopping-task errors correlated with observer ratings of everyday executive symptoms. This supports a distinction between the traditional tests studied and everyday functioning, but not the broader claim that EF tests generally assess different constructs from ratings or direct daily-life evaluations: the paper’s own MET-SV is an EF test that aligns with those ratings. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shallice & Burgess, 1991 source
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Past studies found EF tests to have low-order correlations that are often nonsignificant with patient self-ratings and those of significant others of the dysexecutive symptoms they observe in patients with frontal lobe injuries”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Burgess et al., 1998 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In 'Correlations Between Overall Severity of Dysexecutive Disorder and the Neuropsychological Test Measures' (page not available), the paper reports that test scores generally did not correlate significantly with patients’ self-ratings. But that section reports significant correlations with carers’ ratings, and the Discussion says executive tests consistently correlated significantly with observers’ ratings. The study also examined mixed-etiology neurological patients, not specifically patients with frontal lobe injuries. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chaytor et al., 2006 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wood & Liossi, 2006 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Meta-analyses of EF tests in ADHD also find significant deficits on most of the tests used to assess traditional EF constructs at the group level of analysis (comparisons of means), particularly in tasks involving response inhibition and working memory, especially in manipulative rather than merely storage and recall aspects of working memory”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Introduction
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Boonstra et al., 2005 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available passages are bibliographic metadata (labeled Abstract, no page number), not findings from the review. Searches for group-level EF deficits, response inhibition, and working-memory performance returned no passage that addresses the claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Frazier et al., 2004 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hervey et al., 2004 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Combinations of EF tests do not fair much better, sharing just 12% -20% of the variance with EF ratings.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Burgess et al., 1998 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section on correlations between overall dysexecutive severity and neuropsychological tests (page unavailable) reports associations between individual executive tests and DEX ratings. It does not report that combinations of tests share 12%–20% of the variance with those ratings, or compare combinations with individual tests. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chaytor et al., 2006 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wood & Liossi, 2006 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Groups were combined and regression analyses revealed that self-ratings of EF were significantly predictive of impairments in all 11 measures of occupational adjustment.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the order of entry was reversed, with EF tests being entered first followed by EF ratings, the EF tests now contributed to just three occupational measures (self-rated work quality, percent jobs quit due to problems with own behavior, clinician SOFAS rating); but this is two more than that was found above for the opposite order of entry.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Prediction of Occupational Impairments Using Both DEFS Subscales and EF Tests
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the remaining occupational measures, the amount of variance accounted for by the DEFS that contributed to any particular measure ranged from 5% to 22% in total.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Predicting Occupational Impairment from DEFS
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 42
- Probably not a substantial claim. 31
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although several tests of EF also did so, they contributed substantially less than did the EF ratings, particularly when analyzed jointly with the ratings.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“Ratings of EF in daily life contribute more to such impairments than do EF tests”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 5-Point Test score for number of unique designs contributed significantly to three measures, these being, employer rated impairment (7%), employer rated work performance (7.5%), and the clinician SOFAS rating (3.7%).”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Prediction of Occupational Impairments Using EF Tests
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In comparison, when examined individually and apart from the EF ratings, just three EF test scores (two tests) made significant contributions to the occupational measures, the two most frequent being CPT Commission Errors and the 5-Point Test Unique Designs score.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Four of the five scales were not significantly correlated with IQ in this study (rs ranging from .03 to .10) but IQ was correlated with a small but significant degree with the Self-Organization/Problem-Solving scale (r ¼ .15,p ¼ .007,n ¼ 342).”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Measures Used to Predict Impairment: EF Rating Scale
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, problems with Self-Management to Time, Inhibition, and Self-Motivation were predictive of five measures each, though not necessarily the same occupational measures.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Predicting Occupational Impairment from DEFS
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The DEFS contributed 8% -27% of the variance to these measures of workplace adjustment and 67% of the variance in the clinician SOFAS rating.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Prediction of Occupational Impairments Using Both DEFS Subscales and EF Tests
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although not significant in their contributions to most impairment measures, the EF tests contributed 2% -27% additional variance but just 2% to the clinician SOFAS rating.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Prediction of Occupational Impairments Using Both DEFS Subscales and EF Tests
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the EF ratings and tests were examined jointly to evaluate their unique contributions to the occupational measures, the EF ratings contributed significantly to 10 of the 11 occupational measures when entered first and to 9 of them when entered second in the regression analyses.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Three DEFS were especially useful in these predictions, these being Self-Discipline (Inhibition), Self-Management to Time, and Self-Motivation with each contributing to five different occupational measures.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Entering the DEFS subscales first and then the EF tests, the findings indicated that the DEFS subscales made a significant contribution to 10 of the 11 occupational measures while the EF tests contributed significant and additional unique variance to just 1 of those 11 occupational measures.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Prediction of Occupational Impairments Using Both DEFS Subscales and EF Tests
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“IQ was not significantly related to 10 of the 11 occupational measures but was significantly associated with the percentage of jobs participants had quit due to hostility with their employer.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Predicting Occupational Impairment from DEFS
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first is typically interpreted as a measure of inhibition and contributed to various occupational impairments related to behavior, interactions with others, boredom, and hostility as well as to the number of jobs held since high school.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relationship of the self-to other ratings was established based on all participants collapsed across groups.They were: Self-Management to Time ¼ .79(p , .001),Self-Organization ¼ .66(p , .001),Inhibition Problems ¼ .74(p , .001),Self-Motivation ¼ .69(p , .001), and Self-Activation/Concentration ¼ .75(p , .001).”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Measures Used to Predict Impairment: EF Rating Scale
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the EF tests were entered first, they contributed to just two additional occupational measures, whereas the EF ratings continued to contribute unique variance to the majority of those measures.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, both the EF ratings and the EF tests contributed substantially to employer rated impairment (40% of the variance) and work performance (46% of the variance) but neither contribution reached significance due to the small samples on which we had employer ratings.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Prediction of Occupational Impairments Using Both DEFS Subscales and EF Tests
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of all the domains of major life activities expected to be influenced by EF, adult occupational functioning would be expected to be one of those given its heavy emphasis on the need for the cross-temporal organization and maintenance of behavior and problem-solving toward goals across days, weeks, or even months.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · hedged
“Effective performance at work requires the capacity for self-management relative to time (time management), self-organization planning and problem-solving, selfactivation, and self-motivation to sustain the pursuit of larger delayed consequences over smaller more immediate ones (deferred gratification), among other activities, that are presumed to be facilitated by the EFs.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Introduction
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · hedged
In the paper
“This presumption is problematic for various reasons, not the least of which is that the definition of EF is quite ambiguous with little or no consensus among researchers”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Castellanos et al., 2006 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“But research examining these deficits at the individual level of analysis (such as percent impaired or abnormal on the test) reports that EF deficits exist in just a minority (30% -50%) of cases”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Introduction
What the sources say
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Increasing evidence indicates that adult ADHD is associated with various problems in occupational functioning.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barkley et al., 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites De Quiros & Kinsbourne, 2001 source
- Not matchedcites Halmoy et al., 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Compared with either control group of adults, the adults with ADHD were rated as being more impaired by their symptoms in performing assigned work, pursuing educational activities at work, being punctual, using good time management, and managing their daily responsibilities.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Predicting Occupational Impairment from DEFS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barkley et al., 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If predicting occupational impairment is an important aspect of the validity of EF measures, then EF ratings were superior to EF tests in doing so.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These relationships are substantial implying sizeable shared variance between the ADHD and EF constructs if not colinearity (essentially assessing the same constructs).”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Measures Used to Predict Impairment: EF Rating Scale
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We previously reported the group differences on this test (reference withheld for blind review) where we found the ADHD group to be significantly worse than the community control group on all scores and worse than the clinical control group on Omission errors and RT variability.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Measures Used to Predict Impairment: EF Tests
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites reference withheld for blind review
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With this one exception, it appears that the subsets of each group on whom we obtained employer ratings are representative of their larger group in demographic factors and ADHD severity.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Employer Rating Scale.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Recall that this was the only occupational measure related to IQ and so it may be the involvement of IQ in the EF tests that led to this contribution.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We previously reported significant differences among these three groups on all five scales of both versions (Barkley & Murphy, 2009).The ADHD group was rated as having more severe executive dysfunction mean scores on all five scales compared with both the clinical and community control groups, with the clinical group also being rated worse than the community group.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Measures Used to Predict Impairment: EF Rating Scale
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barkley & Murphy, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Nonverbal working memory may be more impaired in ADHD than verbal working memory (Martinussen et al., 2005) and thus may contribute more to inattention in ADHD which may explain the utility here of a nonverbal working memory test to predict workplace problems possibly associated with inattention.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Martinussen et al., 2005 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We found significant group differences for most of the memory retention scores from this test and have reported the group differences for this entire test battery elsewhere (Barkley et al., 2008).”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Measures Used to Predict Impairment: EF Tests
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barkley et al., 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“These findings also agree with the study by Mitchell and Miller (2008) that found that EF tests were only modestly related to both ratings and observations of daily functional activities.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mitchell and Miller, 2008 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We have previously reported significant group differences on this test score among these three groups (Barkley et al., 2008).”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Measures Used to Predict Impairment: EF Tests
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barkley et al., 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This battery does not provide a comprehensive or exhaustive coverage of all constructs that have been attributed to EF, such as planning and problem-solving and emotional-motivational self-regulation.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Introduction
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Employers were kept blinded to the diagnosis of the participants.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Employer Rating Scale.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“These results are consistent with current views that working memory may contribute to some of the inattention symptoms seen in ADHD (Barkley, 1997(Barkley, /2001) and thus to workplace problems related to inattention.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barkley, 1997/2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In our earlier comparisons of these groups on this specific subtest, we found the ADHD group to perform worse than both the clinical and community groups who did not differ from each other.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Measures Used to Predict Impairment: EF Tests
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barkley et al., 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results suggest that a few EF tests add some unique variance to the prediction of occupational adjustment beyond that contribution predicted by EF ratings, but the contribution is relatively small.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“About 89% -94% of the ADHD group fell in the clinically impaired range (þ1.5 SD above the mean of the community group) across these five scales as did 84% -98% of the clinical control group and just 7% -11% of the community group.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Measures Used to Predict Impairment: EF Rating Scale
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barkley & Murphy, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Patients with frontal lobe dysfunction have a significantly higher percentage of perseverative errors than do neurological patients without frontal involvement and psychiatric patients (Lee et al., 1997).”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Measures Used to Predict Impairment: EF Tests
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lee et al., 1997 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, although it does appear that EF tests do contribute to a few of the occupational impairment measures, the EF ratings capture most of that contribution as well, contribute to the majority of such measures, and usually contribute more unique variance to them than do the EF tests.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Prediction of Occupational Impairments Using Both DEFS Subscales and EF Tests
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“EF ratings, in contrast, predict significant variance in the majority of occupational adjustment measures and often do so beyond that variance captured by EF tests.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Using a modified version of this same task, Ruff, Allen, Farrow, Nieman, and Wylie (1994) also found the task to be sensitive to frontal lobe injuries and perhaps is more sensitive to right than left lobe involvement.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Measures Used to Predict Impairment: EF Tests
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ruff et al., 1994 source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Adults with ADHD reported having trouble with others, behavior problems at work, being fired or dismissed from a job, quitting a job out of boredom, and being disciplined by their supervisor on the job in a higher percentage of the jobs they had held than did participants in both the clinical and the community control groups.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Predicting Occupational Impairment from DEFS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barkley et al., 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“We previously reported the group comparisons on this test (Barkley et al., 2008) where we found just the ADHD group to differ from the community group.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Measures Used to Predict Impairment: EF Tests
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barkley et al., 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The eventual set of 88 items was found to form five-dimensions of executive dysfunctions using factor analysis: Self-Management to Time (23 items), Self-Organization and Problem-Solving (21 items), Self-Discipline (inhibition-23 items), Self-Motivation (11 items), and Self-Activation and Concentration (10 items).”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Measures Used to Predict Impairment: EF Rating Scale
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barkley & Murphy, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“More members of both the ADHD and clinical control groups had problems getting along with others at work (30%, 18%, and 7%, respectively) and had difficulties with their behavior or work performance on the job (53%, 50%, and 5%, respectively).”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Predicting Occupational Impairment from DEFS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barkley et al., 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Those measures were collected at the adult follow-up of children with ADHD followed to adulthood and the study found very similar results to those discussed earlier-that being little or no relationship between EF ratings and those EF tests (Barkley & Fischer, 2010).”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barkley & Fischer, 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But such measures can be highly intrusive into the occupations of research participants and cannot be undertaken easily or lightly in conducting research with psychiatric patients.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is possible that had other items of EF been generated besides the 91 we tested additional dimensions of EF deficits might have been unearthed.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, although neither method alone should serve as the gold standard for determining the presence of EF deficits, EF ratings may be taken to have greater validity at predicting impairment in daily life activities, and particularly occupational adjustment.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Earlier findings (Barkley & Murphy, 2009) also suggest that no matter what narrowband subscales of particular EF deficit studies may identify, such dimensions are highly inter-correlated and imply the possibility that there is a single over-arching meta-construct of EF shared across all these dimensions.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barkley & Murphy, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our employer rating scale can only be considered a relatively crude index of actual workplace problems that might have been revealed by more thorough or detailed workplace measures or direct observations of working.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, our study is limited by the method used to create the EF scale.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Had other tests of these constructs been used or had additional constructs, such as planning and problem-solving, been assessed, some differences in these results might have been evident.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such a heterogeneous grouping would not be expected to resemble the distributions of these measures in a general population sample of adults, and the greater range of scores and over-representation of extreme (clinical) cases may have inflated the size of the relationships obtained.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second limitation was the relatively circumscribed battery of EF tests used here to assess the various constructs believed to characterize EF.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This does not completely eliminate the problems with the historical nature of the self-reported information.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A further limitation may have occurred in the procedure of collapsing the ADHD and clinical control groups in with the community group to study the relationships among the EF measures and impairment measures.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also did not measure other problems in the workplace, such as actual productivity, use of sick leave, and workplace accidents that have been found to be associated with ADHD in adults in earlier studies (de Graaf et al., 2008).”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We tried to overcome this by also obtaining the reports of employers about current workplace problems and performance but could only get consent to do so for a subset of participants.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even so, we concede that these findings may not be readily extrapolated to the general population or even to other clinical disorders not represented in the clinical samples used here.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It was certainly more comprehensive, theory-based, and empirically constructed than the brief 20-item EF scale created in the study by Burgess and colleagues (1998).”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Burgess and colleagues (1998)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This would be expected to do as much for the EF tests as for the EF ratings and so would not necessarily account for the differences we found between those measures in their predictive utility of impairments.”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We also did not measure other problems in the workplace, such as actual productivity, use of sick leave, and workplace accidents that have been found to be associated with ADHD in adults in earlier studies (de Graaf et al., 2008).”
§ Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites de Graaf et al., 2008 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
No research to date has examined the degree to which EF deficits associated with ADHD in adults contribute to their occupational problems.
“Yet, no research to date to our knowledge has examined the degree to which the EF deficits associated with ADHD in adults might contribute to their occupational problems.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Clinical diagnosis of ADHD without corroboration from others is sufficiently valid for group assignment.
“Typically, we require corroboration of ADHD symptoms and impairment from someone else who knows the person well, such as parents, siblings, or spouses/partners, as part of making a clinical diagnosis of ADHD.We did not do so here though we did collect such information for most participants.”
The paper relies on this without support.
EF is organized in a hierarchy of levels, with higher levels involving additional abilities and skills not represented in lower levels, and these higher levels contribute to mastering and effectively performing executively at that and higher levels of EF.
“At each new level of this hierarchy additional abilities and skills come into play that are not represented in lower levels and yet contribute to mastering and effectively performing executively at that and higher levels of EF.”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“neuropsychological tests have not been shown to reliably predict functional impairment in adult ADHD, while clinical ratings such as the BRIEF have been successful in this regard [25], [26].”
From Atomoxetine Effects on Executive Function as Measured by the BRIEF-A in Young Adults with ADHD: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study (2014) · cites this paper as [25]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“the few studies that have pitted these two measurement methods head-to-head have generally found that executive function rating scales predict functional outcomes better than performance-based tests (Barkley & Murphy, 2010; Toplak, 2008)”
From Executive functioning rating scales: Ecologically valid or construct invalid? (2020) · cites this paper as Barkley & Murphy, 2010
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In contrast, the current study’s findings of superior predictive validity for executive function performance tests vs. ratings appears inconsistent with several studies finding that executive function ratings predicted functional outcomes better than executive function performance tests (Barkley & Murphy, 2010; Gioia et al., 2000; Gross et al., 2015; Kamradt et al., 2014; Mahone & Hoffman, 2007;”
From Executive functioning rating scales: Ecologically valid or construct invalid? (2020) · cites this paper as Barkley & Murphy, 2010
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Barkley and Murphy (2010) [68] proved that neuropsychological tests of EF were not very predictive of the occupational impairment experienced every day by people with ADHD, as they showed weak relationships with measures of occupational impairment, while EF-questionnaires were strongly predictive of the occupational-impairment measures mentioned above”
From Comparing Executive Functions in Children and Adolescents with Autism and ADHD—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [68]
In the citing paper
“self-reported EF is associated with important functional outcomes as measured by both self-report and independent measures (e.g., driving records of DUI citations, informant reports), including criminal activity (Barkley and Murphy 2011), occupational impairment (Barkley and Murphy 2010), academic procrastination (Rabin et al. 2011), and psychopathology (Knouse et al. 2013).”
From Executive Function Deficits in Daily Life Prospectively Predict Increases in Depressive Symptoms (2014) · cites this paper as Barkley and Murphy 2010
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.
Employer work-performance contribution is called nonsignificant despite Table 3
MajorThe discussion says neither approach made a significant contribution to employer-rated work performance. Table 3 reports a significant DEFS contribution when entered first (p = .001).
“both the EF ratings and the EF tests contributed substantially to employer rated impairment (40% of the variance) and work performance (46% of the variance) but neither contribution reached significance due to the small samples on which we had employer ratings.”
“(1) DEFS | .522 | .272 | .272 | 4.79 | .001”
The outcome identified as related to IQ changes
MinorThe discussion identifies trouble with one's own behavior or work performance as the only occupational outcome related to IQ. The results instead identify jobs quit because of hostility toward an employer.
“Recall that this was the only occupational measure related to IQ”
“IQ was not significantly related to 10 of the 11 occupational measures but was significantly associated with the percentage of jobs participants had quit due to hostility with their employer.”
Incorrect R2 for the first outcome in Table 3
MinorFor the EF-tests step predicting the number of jobs held, the reported R of .406 implies an R2 of about .165, not .087. The next row also reports .165 for the same final model.
Reported 0.087 · recomputed 0.164836
“(2) EF Tests | .406 | .087 | .066 | 1.20 | NS”
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Williams, J. B. W., & First, M. B. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104 · Cited by 109,845
Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions
Stroop, J. R. (1935) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0054651 · Cited by 18,622
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Handbook for Diagnosis and Treatment
Barkley, R. A., & Poillion, M. J. (1994) · Behavioral Disorders · doi:10.1177/019874299401900205 · Cited by 4,635
Self-citationKessler, R. C., Adler, L., Barkley, R., Biederman, J., Conners, C. K., Demler, O., Faraone, S. V., Greenhill, L. L., Howes, M. J., Secnik, K., et al. (2006) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.2006.163.4.716 · Cited by 3,886
Two Factor Index of Social Position
Hollingshead, A. B. (1957) · Cited by 3,757
Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., Nigg, J. T., Faraone, S. V., & Pennington, B. F. (2005) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.02.006 · Cited by 3,568
Assessment and Development of Executive Function (EF) During Childhood
Anderson, P. (2002) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1076/chin.8.2.71.8724 · Cited by 2,218
Fuster, J. M. (1997) · Cited by 2,095
DEFICITS IN STRATEGY APPLICATION FOLLOWING FRONTAL LOBE DAMAGE IN MAN
SHALLICE, T., & BURGESS, P. W. (1991) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/114.2.727 · Cited by 2,017
ADHD and The Nature of Self-Control
Barkley, R. A., & Wasserstein, J. (2000) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.14.1.111 · Cited by 1,640
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 2004, 18, 495
- 1982, Perceptual and motor skills, 123, 17
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 466
Clinical Application of Mindfulness-Oriented Meditation: A Preliminary Study in Children with ADHD
Santonastaso, O., Zaccari, V., Crescentini, C., Fabbro, F., Capurso, V., Vicari, S., & Menghini, D. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17186916 · Cited by 51
The Efficacy of Computerized Cognitive Training in Adults With ADHD
Stern, A., Malik, E., Pollak, Y., Bonne, O. B., & Maeir, A. (2014) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054714529815 · Cited by 50
Intimate Partner Violence PTSD and Neural Correlates of Inhibition
Aupperle, R. L., Clausen, A. N., Simmons, A. N., Flagan, T., Allard, C. B., Thorp, S. R., Norman, S. B., Paulus, M. P., & Stein, M. B. (2016) · Journal of Traumatic Stress · doi:10.1002/jts.22068 · Cited by 51
Song, X., Long, J., Wang, C., Zhang, R., & Lee, T. M. C. (2022) · Psychoradiology · doi:10.1093/psyrad/kkac002 · Cited by 43
Silverstein, M. J., Faraone, S. V., Alperin, S., Leon, T. L., Biederman, J., Spencer, T. J., & Adler, L. A. (2018) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054718756198 · Cited by 43
Teicher, M. H., Polcari, A. M., Fourligas, N., Vitaliano, G. D., & Navalta, C. P. (2012) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/1471-244x-12-190 · Cited by 43
Fatseas, M., Debrabant, R., & Auriacombe, M. (2012) · Current Opinion in Psychiatry · doi:10.1097/yco.0b013e3283523d7c · Cited by 52
The Assessment of Executive Functioning Using the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scales
Barkley, R. A. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8106-5_15 · Cited by 52
Self-citationLangberg, J. M., Dvorsky, M. R., Kipperman, K. L., Molitor, S. J., & Eddy, L. D. (2014) · Psychology of Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1037/adb0000039 · Cited by 44
Leading and Managing the Workplace: The Role of Executive Functions
Chan, T., Wang, I., & Ybarra, O. (2018) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2017.0215 · Cited by 51
Dossi, G., Delvecchio, G., Prunas, C., Soares, J. C., & Brambilla, P. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00176 · Cited by 41
Simone, A. N., Marks, D. J., Bedard, A., & Halperin, J. M. (2017) · Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology · doi:10.1007/s10802-017-0288-3 · Cited by 50
Assessment and identification of executive dysfunction
Sparrow, E. P. (2012) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511977954.006 · Cited by 40
Gunia, B. C. (2018) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2016.0159 · Cited by 37
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
Antshel, K. M., & Barkley, R. A. (2020) · Handbook of clinical neurology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-64148-9.00003-x · Cited by 50
Self-citationADHD symptoms in non-treatment seeking young adults: relationship with other forms of impulsivity
Chamberlain, S. R., Ioannidis, K., Leppink, E. W., Niaz, F., Redden, S. A., & Grant, J. E. (2016) · CNS Spectrums · doi:10.1017/s1092852915000875 · Cited by 47
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Earnings in Later-Life Self-Employment
Patel, P. C., Rietveld, C. A., & Verheul, I. (2019) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1177/1042258719888641 · Cited by 46
Drakopoulos, J., Sparding, T., Clements, C. C., Pålsson, E., & Landén, M. (2020) · International Journal of Bipolar Disorders · doi:10.1186/s40345-019-0168-6 · Cited by 35
Varrasi, S., Boccaccio, F. M., Guerrera, C. S., Platania, G. A., Pirrone, C., & Castellano, S. (2022) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13010037 · Cited by 52
Posttraumatic Stress and Substance Use Disorders
Vujanovic, A. A., & Back, S. E. (2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315442648 · Cited by 38
Sjöwall, D., & Thorell, L. B. (2019) · Applied Neuropsychology Adult · doi:10.1080/23279095.2019.1704287 · Cited by 38
Irwin, L. N., Soto, E. F., Chan, E. S. M., Miller, C. E., Carrington-Forde, S., Groves, N. B., & Kofler, M. J. (2021) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2020.1866521 · Cited by 39
“…with ADHD have working memory deficits (Fosco et al., 2020; Kasper et al., 2012); (2) adults with ADHD exhibit difficulties performing ADLs (Barkley & Murphy, 2010; Stavro et al., 2007), with these difficulties linked with their deficits in executive functions such as working memory…”
BackgroundInfluentialNeuropsychological functioning of individuals at clinical evaluation of adult ADHD
Guo, N., Fuermaier, A. B. M., Koerts, J., Mueller, B. W., Diers, K., Mroß, A., Mette, C., Tucha, L., & Tucha, O. (2021) · Journal of Neural Transmission · doi:10.1007/s00702-020-02281-0 · Cited by 37
A critical appraisal of the role of neuropsychological deficits in preschool ADHD
Sjöwall, D., & Thorell, L. B. (2018) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2018.1447096 · Cited by 43
Neuroscience, free will, and criminal responsibility
Morse, S. J. (2015) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139565820.014 · Cited by 37
Isfandnia, F., El Masri, S., Radua, J., & Rubia, K. (2024) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105703 · Cited by 36
Friedman, L. M., Dvorsky, M. R., McBurnett, K., & Pfiffner, L. J. (2020) · Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology · doi:10.1007/s10802-020-00672-1 · Cited by 38
Vulnerability to the Irrelevant Sound Effect in Adult ADHD
Pelletier, M., Hodgetts, H. M., Lafleur, M. F., Vincent, A., & Tremblay, S. (2013) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054713492563 · Cited by 37
Saffer, B. Y., & Klonsky, E. D. (2016) · Archives of Suicide Research · doi:10.1080/13811118.2016.1211042 · Cited by 35
The Effects of ADHD in Adult Substance Abusers
Moura, H. F., Faller, S., Benzano, D., Szobot, C., von Diemen, L., Stolf, A. R., Souza-Formigoni, M. L., Cruz, M. S., Brasiliano, S., Pechansky, F., et al. (2013) · Journal of Addictive Diseases · doi:10.1080/10550887.2013.824359 · Cited by 33
Sluggish Cognitive Tempo, Internalizing Symptoms, and Executive Function in Adults With ADHD
Leikauf, J. E., & Solanto, M. V. (2016) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054716682337 · Cited by 35
Adler, L. A., Clemow, D. B., Williams, D. W., & Durell, T. M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104175 · Cited by 32
Ceruti, C., Mingozzi, A., Scionti, N., & Marzocchi, G. M. (2024) · Children · doi:10.3390/children11040473 · Cited by 35
Vergunst, F., Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D. S., Algan, Y., Beasley, E., Park, J., Galéra, C., Vitaro, F., & Côté, S. M. (2019) · Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5375 · Cited by 32
ADHD Symptoms Are Differentially Related to Specific Aspects of Quality of Life
Gjervan, B., Torgersen, T., Rasmussen, K., & Nordahl, H. M. (2014) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054712445183 · Cited by 31
Gray, W. N., Kavookjian, J., Shapiro, S. K., Wagoner, S. T., Schaefer, M. R., Rawlinson, A. R., & Hinnant, J. B. (2017) · Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics · doi:10.1097/dbp.0000000000000511 · Cited by 30
Garic, D., Broce, I., Graziano, P. A., Mattfeld, A. T., & Dick, A. S. (2018) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.12744 · Cited by 30
Executive Function in Pediatric Sleep-Disordered Breathing: A Meta-analysis
Mietchen, J. J., Bennett, D. P., Huff, T. J., Hedges, D. W., & Gale, S. D. (2016) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617716000643 · Cited by 30
Williamson, D., & Johnston, C. (2017) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054717693373 · Cited by 28
Mapping neurodevelopmental diversity in executive function
Mareva, S., Lead Investigators, Astle, D. E., Baker, K., Gathercole, S. E., Holmes, J., Kievit, R., Manly, T., Team of Researchers and PhD Students, Akarca, D., et al. (2024) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2023.11.021 · Cited by 40
When self-report diverges from performance: The usage of BIS-11 along with neuropsychological tests
Vasconcelos, A. G., Sergeant, J. A., Corrêa, H., Mattos, P., & Malloy‐Diniz, L. F. (2014) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2014.03.002 · Cited by 34
Adler, L. A., Tanaka, Y., Williams, D. W., Trzepacz, P. T., Goto, T., Allen, A. J., Escobar, R., & Upadhyaya, H. P. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1097/jcp.0000000000000138 · Cited by 30
Targeting the Endocannabinoid System in Psychiatric Illness
Katzman, M. A., Furtado, M., & Anand, L. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1097/jcp.0000000000000581 · Cited by 30
Poly‐victimization and executive functions in junior college students
Li, Y., Dong, F., Cao, F., Cui, N., Li, J., & Long, Z. (2013) · Scandinavian Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/sjop.12083 · Cited by 33
Doan, X. H., Le, T. T., Duong, C. D., Nguyễn, T. P. L., Tran, D. D., & Tran, T. P. H. (2021) · Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration · doi:10.1108/apjba-05-2021-0200 · Cited by 31
Silverstein, M. J., Faraone, S. V., Alperin, S., Biederman, J., Spencer, T. J., & Adler, L. A. (2017) · Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1089/cap.2017.0082 · Cited by 33
Clinical Correlates of Health-Related Quality of Life in Adults With Chronic Tic Disorder
Isaacs, D. A., Riordan, H., & Claassen, D. O. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.619854 · Cited by 30
Cognitive Complaints of Adults With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Fuermaier, A. B. M., Tucha, L., Koerts, J., Aschenbrenner, S., Weisbrod, M., Lange, K. W., & Tucha, O. M. (2014) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2014.964325 · Cited by 28
Vannucchi, G., Medda, P., Pallucchini, A., Bertelli, M. O., Angst, J., Azorin, J., Bowden, C. L., Vieta, E., Young, A. H., Mosolov, S. N., et al. (2018) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2018.12.089 · Cited by 27
Halleland, H. B., Bliksrud, Y. T., Elgen, I. B., Szigetvari, P. D., Kleppe, R., Ghorbani, S., Hansen, E. V., & Haavik, J. (2019) · American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B Neuropsychiatric Genetics · doi:10.1002/ajmg.b.32764 · Cited by 28
Nylander, C., Tindberg, Y., Haas, J., Swenne, I., Torbjörnsdotter, T., Åkesson, K., Örtqvist, E., Gustafsson, J., & Fernell, E. (2017) · Pediatric Diabetes · doi:10.1111/pedi.12520 · Cited by 29
Arble, E. P., Kuentzel, J. G., & Barnett, D. (2014) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acu006 · Cited by 28
Rosa, V. D. O., Schmitz, M. D., Maia, C. R. M., Wagner, F., Londero, I., Bassotto, C. D. F., MORITZ, G., de Souza, C. D. S., & Rohde, L. A. (2017) · Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy · doi:10.1590/2237-6089-2016-0039 · Cited by 31
Zhou, B., Zhang, W., Li, Y., Xue, J., & Zhang‐James, Y. (2020) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112814 · Cited by 29
Tan, A., Delgaty, L., Steward, K., & Bunner, M. (2018) · ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders · doi:10.1007/s12402-018-0256-y · Cited by 32
Szuromi, B., Bitter, I., & Czobor, P. (2013) · Comprehensive Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.04.002 · Cited by 28
Schwörer, M. C., Reinelt, T., Petermann, F., & Petermann, U. (2020) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-019-02394-4 · Cited by 34
Vélez‐Pastrana, M. C., González, R. A., Cardona, J. R., Baerga, P. P., Rodríguez, Á. A., & LEVIN, F. R. (2015) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000171 · Cited by 28
Executive Functioning Among College Students With and Without History of Childhood Maltreatment
Daly, B., Hildenbrand, A., Turner, E., Berkowitz, S., & Tarazi, R. A. (2017) · Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma · doi:10.1080/10926771.2017.1317685 · Cited by 21
Dehili, V. M., Prevatt, F. F., & Coffman, T. P. (2013) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054713498932 · Cited by 31
Ginsberg, L., Katic, A., Adeyi, B., Dirks, B., Babcock, T., Lasser, R., Scheckner, B., & Adler, L. A. (2011) · Current Medical Research and Opinion · doi:10.1185/03007995.2011.567256 · Cited by 26
Cumulative Childhood Maltreatment and Executive Functioning in Adulthood
Letkiewicz, A. M., Weldon, A. L., Tengshe, C., Niznikiewicz, M. A., & Heller, W. (2020) · Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma · doi:10.1080/10926771.2020.1832171 · Cited by 29
Stern, A., & Maeir, A. (2014) · American Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.5014/ajot.2014.012419 · Cited by 26
Time Perception in Adult ADHD: Findings from a Decade—A Review
Mette, C. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20043098 · Cited by 31
Whole-body vibration improves cognitive functions of an adult with ADHD
Fuermaier, A. B. M., Tucha, L., Koerts, J., van den Bos, M., Regterschot, G. R. H., Zeinstra, E. B., van Heuvelen, M. J. G., van der Zee, E. A., Lange, K. W., & Tucha, O. M. (2014) · ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders · doi:10.1007/s12402-014-0149-7 · Cited by 30
Callahan, B. L., Ramakrishnan, N., Shammi, P., Bierstone, D., Taylor, R., Ozzoude, M., Goubran, M., Stuss, D. T., & Black, S. E. (2021) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/10870547211060546 · Cited by 27
He, J. A., Antshel, K. M., Biederman, J., & Faraone, S. V. (2015) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054715613440 · Cited by 26
Validity of the Korean Version of DIVA-5: A Semi-Structured Diagnostic Interview for Adult ADHD
Hong, M., Kooij, J. S., Kim, B., Joung, Y.-S., Yoo, H. K., Kim, E.-J., Lee, S. I., Bhang, S.-Y., Lee, S. Y., Han, D. H., et al. (2020) · Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment · doi:10.2147/ndt.s262995 · Cited by 25
Schachar, R. J. (2023) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105461 · Cited by 28
Leontyev, A., Sun, S., Wolfe, M., & Yamauchi, T. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00496 · Cited by 25
A transdiagnostic data-driven study of children’s behaviour and the functional connectome
Jones, J. S., the CALM Team, & Astle, D. E. (2021) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2021.101027 · Cited by 21
Brown, T. E., Brams, M., Gasior, M., Adeyi, B., Babcock, T., Dirks, B., Scheckner, B., & Wigal, T. (2011) · Current Medical Research and Opinion · doi:10.1185/03007995.2011.605441 · Cited by 24
Ahlström, B. H., & Wentz, E. (2014) · International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being · doi:10.3402/qhw.v9.23376 · Cited by 23
Comparable emotional dynamics in women with ADHD and borderline personality disorder
Moukhtarian, T. R., Reinhard, I., Moran, P., Ryckaert, C., Skirrow, C., Ebner‐Priemer, U., & Asherson, P. J. (2021) · Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation · doi:10.1186/s40479-021-00144-y · Cited by 21
ADHD symptoms and entrepreneurial intention among Vietnamese college students: an empirical study
Duong, C. D., & Le, T. L. (2021) · Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies · doi:10.1108/jeee-02-2021-0049 · Cited by 27
Niermeyer, M. A., Ziemnik, R. E., Franchow, E. I., Barron, C. A., & Suchy, Y. (2018) · Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/13803395.2018.1502257 · Cited by 24
Harty, S. C., Gnagy, E. M., Pelham, W. E., & Molina, B. S. G. (2016) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.12668 · Cited by 23
Lan, Y.-T., Liu, X., & Fang, H.-S. (2018) · Applied Neuropsychology Child · doi:10.1080/21622965.2018.1509003 · Cited by 22
Occupational identity of adolescents with ADHD: A mixed methods study
Levanon-Erez, N., Cohen, M. B.-D., Bar-Ilan, R. T., & Maeir, A. (2016) · Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.1080/11038128.2016.1217927 · Cited by 21
Is Executive Functioning Deficient in ADHD? It Depends on Your Definitions and Your Measures
Barkley, R. A. (2011) · The ADHD Report · doi:10.1521/adhd.2011.19.4.1 · Cited by 27
Self-citationAdolfsson, P., Lindstedt, H., Pettersson, I., Hermansson, L., & Janeslätt, G. (2014) · Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology · doi:10.3109/17483107.2014.989418 · Cited by 20
Fantozzi, P., Sesso, G., Muratori, P., Milone, A., & Masi, G. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci11111399 · Cited by 25
Godoy, P. B. G., Simionato, N. M., de Mello, C. B., & Suchecki, D. (2020) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-020-09446-4 · Cited by 23
Woolard, A. J., Stratton, E., Demetriou, E. A., Boulton, K., Pellicano, E., Glozier, N., Gibbs, V., Rogerson, N., Quinn, P., Hickie, I. B., et al. (2021) · Autism · doi:10.1177/13623613211013664 · Cited by 26
Sluggish Cognitive Tempo: A (Misnamed) Second Attention Disorder?
Barkley, R. A. (2016) · Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2015.12.007 · Cited by 27
Self-citationMetacognition, psychopathology and daily functioning in adult ADHD
Butzbach, M., Fuermaier, A. B. M., Aschenbrenner, S., Weisbrod, M., Tucha, L., & Tucha, O. M. (2021) · Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/13803395.2021.1940104 · Cited by 22
Areces, D., García, T., Cueli, M., & Rodríguez, C. (2019) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci9100274 · Cited by 19
Gjervan, B., Hjemdal, O., & Nordahl, H. M. (2013) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054712474689 · Cited by 22
‘It’s like it is designed to keep me stressed’—Working sustainably with ADHD or autism
Högstedt, E., Igelström, K. M., Korhonen, L., Käcker, P., Marteinsdóttir, Í., & Björk, M. (2022) · Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.1080/11038128.2022.2143420 · Cited by 41
Egan, T. E., Wymbs, F. A., Owens, J. S., Evans, S. W., Hustus, C. L., & Allan, D. M. (2019) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.22294 · Cited by 26
Multitasking in adults with ADHD
Gawrilow, C., Merkt, J., Goossens–Merkt, H., Bodenburg, S., & Wendt, M. (2011) · ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders · doi:10.1007/s12402-011-0056-0 · Cited by 20
Nylander, C., Lindström, K., Khalifa, N., & Fernell, E. (2018) · Pediatric Diabetes · doi:10.1111/pedi.12651 · Cited by 19
Mismatch negativity and P3a in drug-naive adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
Hsieh, M. H., Chien, Y.-L., & Gau, S. S.-F. (2022) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291720005516 · Cited by 19
Bioulac, S., Sagaspe, P., Micoulaud‐Franchi, J., Altena, E., Taillard, J., Schroder, C. M., Bouvard, M. P., Fabrigoule, C., & Philip, P. (2016) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054716633751 · Cited by 20
Betancourt, J. L., Alderson, R. M., Roberts, D. K., & Bullard, C. C. (2024) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102394 · Cited by 26
Hotte‐Meunier, A., Sarraf, L., Bougeard, A., Bernier, F., Voyer, C., Deng, J., Asmar, S. E., Σταμάτη, Α., Corbière, M., Villotti, P., et al. (2024) · Neurodiversity · doi:10.1177/27546330241287655 · Cited by 39
Jennum, P., Hastrup, L. H., Ibsen, R., Kjellberg, J., & Simonsen, E. (2020) · European Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.04.010 · Cited by 20
Probabilities of ADD/ADHD and Related Substance Use Among Canadian Adults
Connolly, R. D., Speed, D., & Hesson, J. (2016) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054716647474 · Cited by 20
Sibley, M. H., & Yegüez, C. E. (2018) · School Mental Health · doi:10.1007/s12310-018-9273-4 · Cited by 25
Zhang, H., Shuai, L., Zhang, J., Wang, Y., Lu, T.-F., Tan, X., Pan, J.-X., & Shen, L. (2018) · Chinese Medical Journal · doi:10.4103/0366-6999.226893 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Barkley, R. A., & Murphy, K. R.
- Affiliations
- Medical University of South Carolina (US)
- Corresponding author
- Barkley, R. A.
- ORCID
- Murphy, K. R.
- Venue
- Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-03-02
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 157-173
- ISSN
- 0887-6177 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-5843
- PMC
- PMC2858600
- OpenAlex
- W2117169541
- Cited by
- 468
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 28
- FWCI
- 18.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Shire
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH54509, R01MH054509)
- 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 › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Keywords
- adult ADHD, executive function, occupational functioning, workplace adaptation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Occupations, Problem Solving, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Social Adjustment, Work, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
