K L Purvis1, R Tannock. 1. Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test for the distinctiveness of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and reading disability (RD) and the independence of the cognitive domains, inhibition and phonological processing, which are proposed as central to ADHD and RD, respectively, using a classic double dissociation design. METHOD: A 2 (ADHD versus no ADHD) x 2 (RD versus no RD) model was used to examine the cognitive profile of 4 groups of children, aged 7 to 11 years. Two measures of inhibitory control and 3 phonological processing measures were used. RESULTS: The 2 RD groups (RD, ADHD + RD) were significantly impaired relative to the 2 non-RD groups (controls, ADHD) on all phonological processing measures. The 2 ADHD groups were significantly impaired on simple go-task responding relative to the non-ADHD groups and in inhibition. Contrary to predictions, an RD effect on inhibitory control was found on one inhibition measure. The comorbid group (ADHD + RD) generally exhibited the deficits of both single groups in an additive fashion. CONCLUSIONS: These findings question the role of inhibitory control as a unique cognitive marker for ADHD and suggest true comorbidity for children with both ADHD and RD.
OBJECTIVE: To test for the distinctiveness of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and reading disability (RD) and the independence of the cognitive domains, inhibition and phonological processing, which are proposed as central to ADHD and RD, respectively, using a classic double dissociation design. METHOD: A 2 (ADHD versus no ADHD) x 2 (RD versus no RD) model was used to examine the cognitive profile of 4 groups of children, aged 7 to 11 years. Two measures of inhibitory control and 3 phonological processing measures were used. RESULTS: The 2 RD groups (RD, ADHD + RD) were significantly impaired relative to the 2 non-RD groups (controls, ADHD) on all phonological processing measures. The 2 ADHD groups were significantly impaired on simple go-task responding relative to the non-ADHD groups and in inhibition. Contrary to predictions, an RD effect on inhibitory control was found on one inhibition measure. The comorbid group (ADHD + RD) generally exhibited the deficits of both single groups in an additive fashion. CONCLUSIONS: These findings question the role of inhibitory control as a unique cognitive marker for ADHD and suggest true comorbidity for children with both ADHD and RD.
Authors: Kate Flory; Richard Milich; Elizabeth P Lorch; Angela N Hayden; Chandra Strange; Richard Welsh Journal: J Abnorm Child Psychol Date: 2006-10-19
Authors: Lauren M McGrath; Bruce F Pennington; Michelle A Shanahan; Laura E Santerre-Lemmon; Holly D Barnard; Erik G Willcutt; John C Defries; Richard K Olson Journal: J Child Psychol Psychiatry Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 8.982
Authors: Erik G Willcutt; Stephen A Petrill; Sarah Wu; Richard Boada; John C Defries; Richard K Olson; Bruce F Pennington Journal: J Learn Disabil Date: 2013-02-28
Authors: Christien G W de Jong; Séverine Van De Voorde; Herbert Roeyers; Ruth Raymaekers; Jaap Oosterlaan; Joseph A Sergeant Journal: J Abnorm Child Psychol Date: 2009-10