Cited by 193Developmental and Educational NeuropsychologyAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Recent Developments in Neuropsychological Models of Childhood Psychiatric Disorders

Willcutt, Erik G., Sonuga-Barke, Edmund J.S., Nigg, Joel T., Sergeant, Joseph A.·2008·Advances in Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

The number of studies on the neuropsychology of childhood disorders has increased exponentially over the past decade. We report the results of an initial meta-analysis of key neuropsychological constructs included in studies of nine of the most prevalent childhood disorders. Results indicated that the neuropsychological etiologies of each of these disorders are complex and multifactorial. No single deficit is necessary or sufficient to explain all cases of any disorder, but preliminary evidence suggests that disorders may be distinguished by profiles across multiple neuropsychological processes. Slow processing speed and increased response variability are ubiquitous across disorders, but somewhat distinct profiles emerge on different aspects of executive functions. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and Tourette’s disorder are most strongly associated with inhibitory difficulties, whereas difficulties with cognitive flexibility are most pronounced in groups with autism spectrum disorders and childhood-onset schizophrenia. Working memory difficulties are significant in most groups, but these weaknesses are largest in groups with learning disorders and childhood-onset schizophrenia. Future research is needed to clarify further the relations among these heterogeneous diagnostic phenotypes and complex neuropsychological processes to facilitate studies that link these weaknesses to specific etiological risk factors.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000118526

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Impairment has been found in hot EF functions of motivation control and reward-related decision making, as measured in temporal discounting and gambling tasks, with more inconsistent findings.

    “However, impairment has also been found in so-called “hot” EF functions of motivation control and reward-related decision making, as measured in temporal discounting and gambling tasks, with, however, more inconsistent findings (Willcutt et al., 2008; Noreika et al., 2013; Plichta and Scheres, 2014).”
  • Willcutt and colleagues' meta-analysis found a large effect size (Cohen's d 1.0-1.5) for the difference in cognitive flexibility between individuals with autism and typically developing groups.

    “Willcutt and colleagues [12] demonstrated, in their meta-analysis, a large effect size (Cohen’s d between 1.0 and 1.5) for the difference in ‘cognitive flexibility’ between individuals with autism compared to typically developing groups.”

    From The paradox of cognitive flexibility in autism (2009) · cites this paper as [12]

  • A meta-analysis by Willcutt and colleagues found mild cognitive flexibility difficulties in ADHD (Cohen's d .01-0.3).

    “However, according to a recent meta-analysis of Willcutt and colleagues [12], people with ADHD do experience mild difficulties in this domain (effect size [Cohen’s d] was .01–0.3, which is small).”

    From The paradox of cognitive flexibility in autism (2009) · cites this paper as [12]

  • ADHD is well established to involve severe cognitive control difficulties, yet cognitive flexibility does not seem to be a core deficit.

    “It is well established that people with ADHD encounter various severe cognitive control difficulties [57], but cognitive flexibility does not seem to be a key deficit [4,12,26,57,67].”

    From The paradox of cognitive flexibility in autism (2009) · cites this paper as [12]

  • ADHD patients consistently prefer smaller-immediate over larger delayed rewards using the choice-delay paradigm.

    “ADHD patients consistently prefer smaller-immediate over larger delayed rewards using the choice-delay paradigm (Willcutt et al, 2008)”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Willcutt, E. G., Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S., Nigg, J. T., & Sergeant, J. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Advances in Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
KARGER
Published
2008
Pages
195-226
OpenAlex
W2167951976
Cited by
193
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 14
FWCI
27.33
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • KARGER eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
child psychopathology, neuropsychological model, processing speed, response variability, executive function, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, working memory, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette syndrome, autism spectrum disorder, childhood schizophrenia, learning disabilities, neuropsychological profile, etiology

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