Cited by 148Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyBehavioral and Psychological Studies

A Pilot Study of the Efficacy of a Computerized Executive Functioning Remediation Training With Game Elements for Children With ADHD in an Outpatient Setting: Outcome on Parent- and Teacher-Rated Executive Functioning and ADHD Behavior

van der Oord, S., Ponsioen, A. J.G. B., Geurts, H. M., Brink, E. L. Ten, Prins, P. J. M.·2014·Journal of Attention Disorders

Abstract

Objective: This pilot study tested the short- and long-term efficacy (9 weeks follow-up) of an executive functioning (EF) remediation training with game elements for children with ADHD in an outpatient clinical setting, using a randomized controlled wait-list design. Furthermore, in a subsample, that is, those treated with methylphenidate, additive effects of the EF training were assessed. Method: A total of 40 children (aged 8-12 years) were randomized to the EF training or wait-list. The training consisted of a 25-session training of inhibition, cognitive flexibility, and working memory. Treatment outcome was assessed by parent- and teacher-rated EF, ADHD, oppositional deviant disorder, and conduct disorder symptoms. Results: Children in the EF training showed significantly more improvement than those in the wait-list condition on parent-rated EF and ADHD behavior in the total sample and in the subsample treated with methylphenidate. Effects were maintained at follow-up. Conclusion: This pilot study shows promising evidence for the efficacy of an EF training with game elements.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1087054712453167

Cites

25 of 25 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
van der Oord, S., Ponsioen, A. J. G. B., Geurts, H. M., Brink, E. L. T., & Prins, P. J. M.
Affiliations
  • Leuven University, Belgium
  • Lucertis, Outpatient Children’s Psychiatric Clinic, Beverwijk/Zaandam, Netherlands
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Journal of Attention Disorders
Published
2012-08-09
Volume
18
Issue
8
Pages
699-712
ISSN
  • 1087-0547 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-1246
OpenAlex
W1993435970
Cited by
148
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Attention Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
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 › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
executive function training, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, children, computer-based training, game-based intervention, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, working memory, methylphenidate, conduct disorder, outpatient care, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Ambulatory Care, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Child Behavior Disorders, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Methylphenidate, Parents, Pilot Projects, Play and Playthings, Reinforcement, Psychology, Waiting Lists, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Executive Function, Watchful Waiting

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