Cited by 378Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderMind wandering and attentionDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Is the Continuous Performance Task a Valuable Research Tool for use with Children with Attention‐Deficit‐Hyperactivity Disorder?

Corkum, Penny V., Siegel, Linda S.·1993·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

Abstract

The Continuous Performance Task (CPT) has become a popular research tool used to distinguish children with Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) from their normal peers. Whether hyperactive children have a vigilance decrement remains an ongoing controversy. The theoretical basis of the CPT and variables known to influence performance are examined in order to interpret the inconsistencies evident in the research. Studies which employed the CPT in order to examine the possibility of sustained attention deficits in children with ADHD will be reviewed. The results are examined in light of group selection criteria, task variables and situational and external variables. It is concluded that there is no compelling evidence for a sustained deficit in ADHD children. An alternative theoretical model for understanding the results of CPT performance in ADHD children is provided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1993.tb01784.x

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Omission errors are linked to attentional lapses, suggesting that long reaction times, the primary cause of reaction time variability, are due to inattention.

    “Omission errors occur when a patient does not respond to a target stimulus and has been linked to attentional lapses [56], thus suggesting that long RTs, the primary cause of RTV, are due to inattention.”

    From Reaction Time Variability in ADHD: A Review (2012) · cites this paper as [56]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Corkum, P. V., & Siegel, L. S.
Corresponding author
Siegel, Linda S.
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1993-10
Volume
34
Issue
7
Pages
1217-1239
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
OpenAlex
W2061766502
Cited by
378
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 14
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
continuous performance test, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, sustained attention, vigilance decrement, hyperactivity, children, task variables, external factors
MeSH terms
Attention, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Discrimination Learning, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time

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