Cited by 80Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyChild and Animal Learning Development

Profiling executive dysfunction in adults with autism and comorbid learning disability

Barnard, Louise, Muldoon, Kevin, Hasan, Reem, O'Brien, Gregory, Stewart, Mary·2008·Autism

Abstract

Executive dysfunction is thought to be primary to autism. We examined differences in executive function between 20 adults with autism and learning disability and 23 individuals with learning disabilities outside the autistic spectrum. All participants were matched for chronological age and full-scale IQ, and were given a battery of tasks assessing fluency, planning, set-shifting, inhibition and working memory. Analyses of the individual tasks revealed very few significant differences between the two groups. However, analyses of composite scores derived for each executive domain revealed that the group with autism showed impaired performance on the working memory and planning tests. Together, these two measures were sufficient to classify participants into their diagnostic groups significantly better than would be expected by chance (75% of the autism group; 65% of the control group). Executive impairments were neither universal nor exclusive to the autism group, and we suggest that an alternative cognitive theory may better explain the cognitive profile we found.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1362361307088486

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • Two MCST studies could not differentiate adults with autism (low and high functioning) from typically developing adults.

    “Illustrative in this respect is that two studies that used an adjusted version of this task, the modified card sorting task (MCST) could not differentiate between adults with autism (low [27] and high functioning [8]) and typically developing adults.”

    From The paradox of cognitive flexibility in autism (2009) · cites this paper as [27]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barnard, L., Muldoon, K., Hasan, R., O'Brien, G., & Stewart, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Heriot-Watt University (GB)
  • Royal Victoria Infirmary (GB)
  • Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Corresponding author
Stewart, Mary
Venue
Autism
Published
2008-03
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
125-141
ISSN
  • 1362-3613 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7005
OpenAlex
W2105280926
Cited by
80
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Autism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
executive dysfunction, learning disabilities, comorbidities, working memory, planning, fluency, set-shifting, inhibition, cognitive profile, diagnostic classification, adults
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Autistic Disorder, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Intelligence, Learning Disabilities, Male, Memory, Intellectual Disability, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Verbal Behavior

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