CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 147Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyCognitive Abilities and Testing

Working memory training in young children with ADHD : a randomized placebo‐controlled trial

Open access
van Dongen‐Boomsma, Martine, Vollebregt, Madelon A., Buitelaar, Jan K., Slaats‐Willemse, Dorine·2014·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
DOI 10.1111/jcpp.12218
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Until now, working memory training has not reached sufficient evidence as effective treatment for ADHD core symptoms in children with ADHD ; for young children with ADHD , no studies are available. To this end, a triple‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled study was designed to assess the efficacy of Cogmed Working Memory Training ( CWMT ) in young children with ADHD . Methods: Fifty‐one children (5–7 years) with a DSM ‐ IV ‐ TR diagnosis of ADHD (without current psychotropic medication) were randomly assigned to the active (adaptive) or placebo (nonadaptive) training condition for 25 sessions during 5 weeks. The compliance criterion (>20 sessions) was met for 47 children. The primary outcome measure concerned the core behavioural symptoms of ADHD , measured with the ADHD Rating Scale IV ( ADHD ‐ RS ). Secondary outcome measures were neurocognitive functioning, daily executive functioning, and global clinical functioning. The influence of the increase in difficulty level (Index‐Improvement) for the treatment group was also analysed. Clinical trial registration information – ‘Working Memory Training in Young ADHD Children’; www.clinicaltrials.gov ; NCT 00819611. Results: A significant improvement in favour of the active condition was found on a verbal working memory task ( p = .041; adapted Digit Span WISC ‐ III , backward condition). However, it did not survive correction for multiple testing. No significant treatment effect on any of the primary or other secondary outcome measurements was found. The Index‐Improvement significantly contributed to ADHD ‐ RS and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, both rated by the teacher, but revealed no significant group difference. Conclusions: This study failed to find robust evidence for benefits of CMWT over the placebo training on behavioural symptoms, neurocognitive, daily executive, and global clinical functioning in young children with ADHD .

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcpp.12218

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

12 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 43 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The study showed an effect size of 0.28 for the total score on the ADHD Rating Scale IV-investigator.

    “Our study showed an ES of 0.28 for the total score on the ADHD Rating Scale IV-investigator, which is in accordance with the mean ES”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    A significant improvement in favour of the active condition was found on the backward condition of the Adapted Digit Span WISC-III (p = .041).

    “A significant improvement in favour of the active condition was found on a verbal working memory task (p = .041;adapted Digit Span WISC-III, backward condition).”
    • Also stated in: § Neurocognitive functioning outcomes · plain
      “A significant difference in favour of the WMG was found on the backward condition of the DS (p = .041)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    No significant treatment effect was found on the primary outcome, the ADHD-RS-I total or subscales (inattention p = .380; hyperactivity/impulsivity p = .512; total p = .813).

    “There were no treatment effects on the primary outcome measurement, i.e., any of the ADHD-RS-I subscales (inattention: p = .380;hyperactivity/ impulsivity: t(41) = À0.655,p = .512,total: t (41) = À0.237,p = .813).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    No relationship was found between Index-Improvement and the backward Digit Span (r = .129, p = .568).

    “A correlation analysis (chosen because of violation of normality) showed no relationship between Index-Improvement and the backward DS (r = .129,p = .568).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    There was a significant difference between groups on the Start Index (p < .001).

    “There was a significant difference between groups (p < .001) on the Start Index.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 25
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The BRIEF-P and ADHD-RS-I were not influenced by Index-Improvement as a covariate.

    “Also, the BRIEF-P and the ADHD-RS-I were not influenced by the Index-Improvement as covariate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No significant treatment effect was found on the forward condition of the Adapted Digit Span (p = .980) or on any other neurocognitive outcome.

    “No treatment effect was found on the DS forward condition (p = .980),or any of the other neurocognitive functioning outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Index-Improvement significantly contributed to the teacher-rated ADHD-RS and BRIEF outcomes, but no significant group difference was revealed.

    “The Index-Improvement significantly contributed to ADHD-RS and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, both rated by the teacher, but revealed no significant group difference.”
    • Also stated in: § The relation between Index-Improvement and outcome measures · plain
      “The outcome of the BRIEF-T and ADHD-RS-T however, were significantly influenced by the Index-Improvement, even though no group difference was revealed (global executive composition BRIEF-T: Index-Improvement: t(42) = 2.401, p = .016;treatment effect: t(42) = 1.623, p = .105.ADHD-RS-T: Index-Improvement: t(42) = 2.073, p = .038;treatment effect: t(42) = 1.267, p = .205).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At baseline, 29.3% (12/41) of children reached the clinical threshold on the BRIEF-P WM subscale, and another 31.7% (13/41) scored subthreshold.

    “A clinical threshold (t ≥ 6.5) was reached by 29.3% of the children (12/41).Another 31.7% (13/41) scored subthreshold (under clinical threshold but t ≥ 6).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No significant treatment effects were observed on the ADHD-RS-T or on the BRIEF-P and BRIEF-T composite scores.

    “Neither were treatment effects observed on the ADHD-RS-T or BRIEF-P and BRIEF-T composite scores.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The compliance criterion of more than 20 sessions was met by 47 children.

    “The compliance criterion (>20 sessions) was met for 47 children.”
    • Also stated in: § Demographic and clinical characteristics · plain
      “Complier analyses thus were conducted for 47 children.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants, parents, teachers, training coaches, and investigators were blind to treatment assignment.

    “The study was triple-blind since the participants (the children, their parents, and teachers), the training coaches and the investigators were blind to treatment assignment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    All variables were normally distributed within groups and variances were homogeneous among groups, unless explicitly stated and dealt with accordingly.

    “All variables were distributed normally within groups and variances were homogeneous among groups, unless explicitly stated and dealt with accordingly.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation with 20 iterations.

    “Missing data were imputed, using multiple imputation with 20 iterations (Donders, van der Heijden, Stijnen, & Moons, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Donders, van der Heijden, Stijnen, & Moons, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: Missing data are missing at random and the multiple imputation model is appropriate.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    An ANCOVA controlling for baseline showed significant differences between completers and noncompleters, independent of treatment assignment, on inattentive (p = .007), hyperactive/impulsive (p = .006), and total (p = .003) ADHD-RS scores, with very unequal group sizes (completers N = 38, noncompleters N = 5).

    “An ANCOVA controlling for baseline showed significant group differences between children that did and did not complete the entire training, independent of treatment assignment (inattentive: t(40) = À2.858,p = .007;hyperactive/impulsive: t(4) = À2.901,p = .006,total: t(40) = À3.172,p = .003).Note however, that group sizes were very unequal (completers N = 38, noncompleters N = 5).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study used a triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled design.

    “a triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study was designed”
    • Also stated in: § Trial design · plain
      “Children with ADHD were randomly, triple-blindly, assigned to the active condition [the working memory group (WMG)] or the placebo condition [placebo group (PLG)] with stratification for age and gender.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    A Bonferroni correction was applied to control for multiple comparisons, with significance levels of p = .008 for behavioural, p = .002 for neurocognitive, and p = .025 for global clinical variables.

    “To evaluate the impact of multiple comparisons, a Bonferroni correction was performed, in which the amount of dependent variables corrected for was defined per level (the initial p-value of the matching level was divided by 6 behavioural, 18 neurocognitive and 2 global clinical variables, resulting in a significance level of p = .008,p = .002,and p = .025respectively).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    An intention-to-treat analysis was performed on all randomized children using the ADHD-RS-I.

    “Finally, in addition to the analysis of all compliers describe above, an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was performed on all randomized children (independent of treatment completion) using the ADHD-RS-I.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Randomization was stratified for age and gender, with predetermined random order and 1:1 allocation by a research team member not involved in data collection.

    “Children with ADHD were randomly, triple-blindly, assigned to the active condition [the working memory group (WMG)] or the placebo condition [placebo group (PLG)] with stratification for age and gender.A research team member, not involved in data collection, assigned the children (in predetermined random order and 1:1 allocation).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study was approved by the local Dutch Medical Ethics Committee and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki; parents gave written informed consent and children gave oral assent.

    “The study was approved by the local Dutch Medical Ethics Committee and conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki.All parents gave their written informed consent before participation; their children gave their oral assent.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In young children with ADHD, Cogmed Working Memory Training did not produce a significant treatment effect on the primary outcome or on other secondary outcomes.

    “No significant treatment effect on any of the primary or other secondary outcome measurements was found.”
    • Also stated in: § Behavioural functioning outcomes · plain
      “There were no treatment effects on the primary outcome measurement, i.e., any of the ADHD-RS-I subscales (inattention: p = .380;hyperactivity/ impulsivity: t(41) = À0.655,p = .512,total: t (41) = À0.237,p = .813).”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “no additional effect in favour of the active condition was found on any of the primary or other secondary outcome measurements.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The nonadaptive placebo training condition does not produce active working memory training effects and therefore functions as a valid placebo.
    • Rests on an assumption: The triple-blind assignment remained blinded throughout the trial.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Inconsistent findings within and between studies have yielded doubt about the generalization of the trained task effect in working memory training.

    “Inconsistent findings within and between studies, yielded doubt about the generalization of the trained task effect in this training (Chacko et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chacko et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    In the placebo condition, training was less challenging and each session was shorter than in the active condition, because difficulty stayed stable while training skills improved.

    “due to a stable difficulty level along with improvement in training skills, training is less challenging and training time per session is shorter in the placebo condition than in the active condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    This difference may have harmed the quality of parent interaction and coach involvement during training.

    “This possibly influenced the quality of interaction with the parent and involvement of the coach during training negatively (Chacko et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chacko et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The 95% confidence intervals of the b-values were centered on zero, which supported a true absence of group differences rather than a type-II error.

    “The fact that the 95%-CIs of the b-values were centred around zero (see Figure 1, appendix), supported an actual lack of difference between groups rather than a type-II error.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Working memory is regarded as a fundamental higher-order function that underlies other executive functions and is essential for goal-directed behaviour.

    “CWMT is based on the rationale that working memory (WM) (i.e., the ability to temporarily hold information while simultaneously manipulating the information (Baddeley, 1986)) is regarded as a fundamental higher-order function, underlying other executive functions (EFs) (Klingberg et al., 2005) and essential for goaldirected behaviour (Molfese & Molfese, 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Klingberg et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Molfese & Molfese, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Five studies reported neurocognitive data and found improvement on at least one trained working memory task.

    “Five studies reported on neurocognitive data and found improvement on at least one trained WM task (Klingberg et al., 2002(Klingberg et al., , 2005;;Holmes et al., 2009;Gray et al., 2012;Green et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Klingberg et al., 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Klingberg et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Holmes et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Six studies have examined the efficacy of the original version of CWMT in children with ADHD; all but one used a randomized controlled trial design.

    “So far, six studies examined the efficacy of the original version of CWMT in children with ADHD (Klingberg, Forssberg, & Westerberg, 2002;Klingberg et al., 2005;Holmes, Gathercole, & Dunning, 2009;Beck, Hanson, Puffenberger, Benninger, & Benninger, 2010;Gray et al., 2012;Green et al., 2012); all but one (Holmes et al., 2009) used a randomized controlled trial design.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Klingberg, Forssberg, & Westerberg, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Klingberg et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Holmes, Gathercole, & Dunning, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Rapport and colleagues concluded that CWMT was associated with moderate near-transfer effects only (d = 0.63), with cognitive and behavioural far-transfer effects lacking.

    “Rapport and colleagues explicitly targeted near versus far-transfer effects in their meta-analysis and concluded that CWMT was associated with moderate near-transfer effects only (d = 0.63).Cognitive and behavioural far-transfer effects were lacking.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rapport et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Insufficient knowledge about the long-term safety and efficacy of medication, and the continuous need for treatment, motivate nonpharmacological alternatives for ADHD.

    “However, insufficient knowledge about longterm safety (Berger, Dor, Nevo, & Goldzweig, 2008) and efficacy (van de Loo-Neus, Rommelse, & Buitelaar, 2011), as well as the continuous need for treatment (Jensen et al., 2007;Murray et al., 2008) call for nonpharmacological alternatives.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Berger, Dor, Nevo, & Goldzweig, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites van de Loo-Neus, Rommelse, & Buitelaar, 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Jensen et al., 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Given the sample's characteristics, the findings should not be assumed to apply to non-Caucasian races, ages outside 5-7 years, or children with IQ below 80.

    “Due to the sample characteristics, current findings should not be presumed to be applicable to races other than Caucasian, other age-ranges than 5-7 years, or children with IQs lower than 80.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The sample was smaller than planned because of recruitment difficulties, increasing the chance of a type-II error.

    “the sample was smaller in size than planned, due to recruitment difficulties, leading to an elevated chance for making a type-II error.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Two meta-analyses of nonpharmacological treatment studies in children with ADHD were unable to derive an overall significant effect size for core ADHD symptoms for cognitive training or for several neurocognitive functions.

    “Recently, two meta-analyses on nonpharmacological treatment studies in children with ADHD were unable to derive an overall significant effect size (ES) for the core symptoms of ADHD for cognitive training (Hodgson, Hutchinson, & Denson, 2012;Sonuga-Barke et al., 2013) as well as for several neurocognitive functions (Hodgson et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hodgson, Hutchinson, & Denson, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sonuga-Barke et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hodgson et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Four of these studies reported non-trained neurocognitive outcome measures, with two showing significant improvement on working memory, response inhibition, and attention.

    “Four of these studies reported nontrained neurocognitive outcome measures, with two showing significant improvement (i.e., on WM, response inhibition and attention) (Klingberg et al., 2002(Klingberg et al., , 2005)).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Klingberg et al., 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Klingberg et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The hypothesis underlying working memory training is that working memory performance principally reflects the effects of a general-purpose attentional system and that effective working memory training should lead to growth in domain-general attentional capacity and show transfer effects to untrained tasks.

    “The hypothesis underlying WMT is that WM performance principally reflects the effects of a general-purpose attentional system and that effective WM training should (a) lead to a growth in a domain-general attentional capacity, and (b) show transfer effects to untrained tasks (Barnett & Ceci, 2002;Shipstead et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Barnett & Ceci, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Shipstead et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

30 of 30

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The nonadaptive placebo training condition does not produce active working memory training effects and therefore functions as a valid placebo.

    “The placebo condition was completely identical to the active condition, except that the items to be remembered did not exceed the starting level of two items.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The active condition's difficulty adjustment actually increases working memory load and engages the intended training mechanisms.

    “In the active condition, the software adjusted task difficulty based on the child's performance.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Missing data are missing at random and the multiple imputation model is appropriate.

    “Missing data were imputed, using multiple imputation with 20 iterations (Donders, van der Heijden, Stijnen, & Moons, 2006).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The triple-blind assignment remained blinded throughout the trial.

    “The study was triple-blind since the participants (the children, their parents, and teachers), the training coaches and the investigators were blind to treatment assignment.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Index-Improvement provided by Cogmed validly measures improvement on the trained working memory tasks.

    “Trained task effects were assessed through a task improvement index (Index-Improvement) provided by Cogmed, calculated by subtracting the 'Start index' (average performance on days 2 and 3 from 4 of the tasks in the programme) from the 'Max index' (average of the best 2 trials over the course of the training).”
5 of 5

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: t(42) = 1.267, p = .205

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .205 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .212 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .205 · recomputed p = .212

  • Inconsistent p-value: t(41) = À0.655,p = .512

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .512 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .516 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .512 · recomputed p = .516

  • Inconsistent p-value: t(4) = À2.901,p = .006

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .006 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .044 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .044

3 of 3

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upt(41) = -0.655reported p = .512 · recomputed p = .516

    “t(41) = À0.655,p = .512”

  • Doesn’t add upt(42) = 1.267reported p = .205 · recomputed p = .212

    “t(42) = 1.267, p = .205”

  • Doesn’t add upt(4) = -2.901reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .044

    “t(4) = À2.901,p = .006”

  • Not confirmedt(42) = 2.401reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .021

    “t(42) = 2.401, p = .016”

  • Not confirmedt(42) = 1.623reported p = .105 · recomputed p = .112

    “t(42) = 1.623, p = .105”

  • Not confirmedt(42) = 2.073reported p = .038 · recomputed p = .044

    “t(42) = 2.073, p = .038”

  • Consistentt(41) = -0.237reported p = .813 · recomputed p = .814

    “t (41) = À0.237,p = .813”

  • Consistentt(44) = -0.658reported p = .514 · recomputed p = .514

    “t(44) = À0.658,p = .514”

  • Consistentt(25) = 15.59reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(25) = 15.59,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(26) = -1.818reported p = .081 · recomputed p = .081

    “t(26) = À1.818,p = .081”

  • Consistentt(40) = -2.858reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .007

    “t(40) = À2.858,p = .007”

  • Consistentt(40) = -3.172reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “t(40) = À3.172,p = .003”

12 of 12

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.

  • Reported comorbidity conflicts with an exclusion criterion

    Minor

    The exclusion criteria permit only two specified comorbid psychiatric diagnoses, but Table 2 reports a participant with Disruptive Behaviour NOS.

  • Compliance cutoff differs between sections

    Minor

    The abstract defines compliance as more than 20 sessions, whereas the Methods section defines a complier as completing at least 20 sessions. A child completing exactly 20 sessions would be classified differently under the two rules.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. American Psychiatric Association, 2000, Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (4th text
  2. Baddeley A., 1986, Working Memory
  3. 10.4088/jcp.11 · DOI
  4. Guy W., 1976, ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology‐Revised
  5. Molfese D., 2002, Developmental and clinical variations in executive functions Developmental variations in learning: Applications to social, executive function, language, and reading skills
  6. Raven J.C., 1998, Raven's progressive matrices and vocabulary scales
  7. Schroots J.J.F., 1976, Leidse Diagnostische Test: Handleiding [Leiden Diagnostic Test: Manual]
  8. Smidts D.P., 2005, The shape school (Computer program) [E‐Prime computer Software]
  9. Smidts D., 2009, BRIEF Executieve Functies Gedragsvragenlijst
  10. Sonneville L.M., 1999, Amsterdam neuropsychological tasks: A computer‐aided assessment program, Computers in Psychology, 6, 187
  11. van der Steene G.B.A., 1997, WPPSI‐R. Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. Vlaams‐Nederlandse Aanpassing
  12. Wechsler D., 1949, Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children
  13. Wechsler D., 1989, Manual for the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence Revised (WPPSI‐R)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
van Dongen‐Boomsma, M., Vollebregt, M. A., Buitelaar, J. K., & Slaats‐Willemse, D.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychiatry Radboud University Medical Centre Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour Nijmegen The Netherlands
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Vollebregt, Madelon A.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-03-15
Volume
55
Issue
8
Pages
886-896
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
DOI
10.1111/jcpp.12218
OpenAlex
W2161748518
Semantic Scholar
08e2dac43b92ff0ee4c232b6383b8098296e66d2
Cited by
142
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
10.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Dutch Organization of Scientific Research
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 › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, working memory training, Cogmed, young children, executive function, treatment efficacy, neurocognitive function, ADHD symptoms
MeSH terms
Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Treatment Outcome, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-07.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-07.

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