Cited by 49Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPersonal Information Management and User Behavior

A Context for Normalizing Impulsiveness at Work for Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (Combined Type)

Delisle, J., Braun, C. M. J.·2011·Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

Abstract

Impaired executive function and impulsiveness or intolerance to boredom in adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are thought to compromise performance at work. Several task parameters help people with ADHD to perform better on computerized cognitive tasks, namely reduced response-to-stimulus interval, discriminative feedback, or a format resembling a videogame. However, still very little is known about how these contexts might be helpful in a real work environment. We developed a computerized task resembling a fast-paced videogame with no response-to-stimulus interval and constant and diverse discriminative error feedback. The task included several measurements of high-order executive function (planning, working memory, and prospective memory) formatted as a single multitask simulating occupational activities (SOA). We also administered the Continuous Performance Test-II (CPT-II), a very simple vigilance task without discriminative feedback and with long response-to-stimulus intervals. We tested 30 adults answering to DSM-IV criteria of ADHD (combined type) and 30 IQ-matched adults without ADHD. As has been reported many times, the ADHD participants made significantly more errors of commission than the control participants on the CPT-II, whereas the two groups made the same number of errors of commission on the SOA. The ADHD group also sought discriminative feedback significantly more actively on the SOA than the control group and performed at par with the control group in all respects. There was no speed/accuracy trade-off, nor was there any evidence of other costs of normalization on the SOA. Impulsiveness in adult ADHD is compensable on a task simulating the work environment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/arclin/acr043

Cites

75 of 75 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
Delisle, J., & Braun, C. M. J.
Affiliations
Université du Québec à Montréal (CA)
Corresponding author
Braun, C. M. J.
Venue
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
Published
2011-06-08
Volume
26
Issue
7
Pages
602-613
ISSN
  • 0887-6177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-5843
OpenAlex
W2312438894
Cited by
49
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
Keywords
adult ADHD, combined type ADHD, impulsivity, executive function, commission errors, speed-accuracy trade-off, working memory, prospective memory, planning, sustained attention, employee performance
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Computer Simulation, Female, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Male, Models, Psychological, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychomotor Performance, 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.

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