MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Executive function deficits in preschool children with ADHD and DBD

2011· article· en· W1597537802 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConduct disorderComorbidityWorking memoryExecutive functionsAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderClinical psychologyIntelligence quotientResponse inhibitionDevelopmental psychologyCognitionPsychiatryAudiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Impairments in executive functions (EF) are consistently associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and to a lesser extent, with disruptive behavior disorder (DBD), that is, oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder, in school-aged children. Recently, larger numbers of children with these disorders are diagnosed earlier in development, yet knowledge about impairments in clinically diagnosed preschool children and the role of comorbidity is limited. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to examine EF in clinically referred preschool children with a clinical diagnosis of ADHD, DBD and ADHD + DBD. METHOD: Participants were 202 children aged 3.5-5.5 years, 61 with ADHD only, 33 with DBD only, 52 with comorbid ADHD + DBD and 56 typically developing children. Five EF tasks were administered. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the two-factor model (inhibition and working memory) fit the data better than a one-factor model in this clinical sample. Preschoolers with ADHD displayed inhibition deficits, also after controlling for IQ. Likewise, preschoolers with DBD displayed impaired inhibition, but when IQ was controlled differences were carried mostly by the effect on the task where motivational demands were high (i.e. when tangible rewards were used). This pattern was also found in the interaction between ADHD and DBD; impaired inhibition in the comorbid group, however, was more severe than in the DBD group. Regarding working memory, few group differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically diagnosed preschool children with ADHD showed robust inhibition deficits, whereas preschool children with DBD showed impaired inhibition especially where motivational incentives were prominent. Severity of inhibition impairment in the comorbid group was similar to the ADHD group.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it