EVALUATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING AND BEHAVIOUR IN YOUNG ADOLESCENTS WITH ADHD: A FOLLOW-UP STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Executive functioning (EF) impairment is frequent in the ADHD population. Psychostimulant medications (e.g. Methylphenidate [MPH]) are considered effective in reducing EF symptomatology. Limited studies have investigated the long-term effects of MPH on EF in young adolescents with ADHD (A-ADHD). OBJECTIVES To evaluate EF and behaviour challenges across three time points in A-ADHD who were involved in a MPH treatment trial. EF and behavioural functioning were evaluated using two separate parent questionnaires. DESIGN/METHODS A total of 21 A-ADHD (males=62%; n=13), ages 9–14 (M=12.33 years, SD=1.55 years) were evaluated at three separate time points: 1) Baseline (BL: no medication); 2) Best Dose (BD: following a 4-week trial of MPH treatment); and 3) long term Follow-Up (FU: defined as up to 2 years following best dose). Parents completed two behaviour rating scales: Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF) and Behaviour Assessment System for Children (BASC-2). Repeated measures analyses of variance (RmANOVA) were conducted measuring changes in EF and behavioural challenges over the three time points (BL, BD, and FU). RESULTS Significant differences were obtained in EF ratings over time on the BRIEF Behavioural Regulation Index (BRIEF-BRI; F (2,36) = 20.71, p < 0.001) and Metacognition Index (BRIEF-MI; F (2,36) = 26.83, p < 0.001). Pairwise comparison indicated a) significant decrease in symptom ratings for both indexes between time points BL and BD, and b) significant increase in symptom ratings for indexes between time points BD and FU. Similarly, behavioural ratings obtained on all BASC-2 indexes (Externalizing Problems, Internalizing Problems, Behavioral Symptoms, and Adaptive Skills) revealed a significant effect of time (F (2,36) range = 4.55 to 26.28, p range = <.001 to <.05). Pairwise comparison indicated a) significant decrease in symptom ratings across all BASC-2 indexes between BL and BD, and b) increase in symptom ratings across all BASC-2 indexes between BD and FU time points. Therefore, parent ratings indicated clinically significant difficulties with EF and behaviour during BL and FU and average EF and behaviour scores during BD. CONCLUSION During follow-up, parents of A-ADHD continue to report challenges in EF and in all aspects of behaviours and adaptive skills. Although parents reported positive changes during the MPH trial (BD), these behavioural improvements were not seen at follow-up. The combined use of screening tools for EF (BRIEF) and behaviour (BASC-2) might be of interest to paediatricians when monitoring medication responses in young adolescents with ADHD.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".