A Preliminary Investigation of Deficits in Executive Functions of Adults With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies over the past two decades have investigated the neuropsychological deficits in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but much less has been done on adults. This study aimed to assess the deficits in executive functions of adults with ADHD, especially in the areas of attention, inhibition, impulsivity, and planning. Twenty-four adults (18 years and older) diagnosed with ADHD according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition criteria, and also assessed with Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale, participated in the study. Executive functions in cases were compared with 20 matched controls through the three instruments of Tower of London (TOL), Continuous Performance Test (CPT), and Stroop test. Performance of cases was weaker than that of the control group in TOL. The difference was significant in subsequent thinking time in most of the trials and number of movements only at level 2. In CPT, the adults with ADHD made more commission errors. In addition, the ADHD cases made more errors in the word card of the Stroop test, and the time they spent reading all three cards was significantly longer than that of the control group. Our study suggests that several deficits in executive functions related to ADHD persist into adulthood, such as impairments in planning time and set shifting, response inhibition, impulsivity, and visuolingual processing. However, simple (visual-motor processing) and sustained attention might improve with age.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".