Untitled

Abstract

The performance of clinic-referred children aged 6-11 (N = 100) was examined using the Conners' Continuous Performance Test (CPT) and measures of auditory attention (Auditory Continuous Performance Test; ACPT), phonological awareness, visual processing speed, and visual-motor competence. The Conners' CPT overall index was unrelated to measures of visual processing speed or visual-motor competence. Although the Conners' CPT converged with the ACPT, the latter demonstrated age and order effects. Significant variance in Conners' CPT parameters was predicted by phonological awareness measures, suggesting that Reading Disordered (RD) children could be "false positives" on the Conners' CPT. The Conners' CPT overall index, phonological awareness, and visual-motor measures were submitted to a 2 x 2 MANCOVA (ADHD vs. RD, covarying for age and socioeconomic status): a main effect for RD status was found. Children with ADHD did not have higher Conners' CPT scores than did clinical controls; however, children with Reading Disorders did. Phonological measures distinguished RD children from ADHD children and other clinical controls. ADHD children who failed the Conners' CPT were rated by teachers as more hyperactive. Despite the strengths of the Conners' CPT, its utility for differential diagnosis of ADHD is questioned.

Differential impact of methylphenidate and atomoxetine on sustained attention in youth with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder

“…It is possible that this finding reflects factors specific to our study – e.g., the relatively high proportion of youth with predominantly inattentive subtype, restricting the sample to only those who completed the CPT-II at all four assessment points, excluding youth who could not complete the CPT-II due to excessive hyperactivity or noncompliance from the analyses, titrating medication treatment based on severity of symptoms and tolerability but not on cognitive functioning per se , and using a dose optimization rather than a dose-response titration strategy. Nevertheless, the lack of concordance between improvement in CPT performance with MPH and parent reports of clinical improvement is consistent with findings from at least one study which also demonstrated a lack of association between the Conners’ CPT with parent and teacher ratings of inattention or hyperactivity (McGee, Clark, & Symons, 2000). One intriguing explanation for these findings is that they may indicate dissociation between cognitive and behavioral effects of stimulant medication.…”

Neuropsychological functioning in college students with and without ADHD.

“…It is also important to note that although a majority of studies documented greater perseverations and commission errors among participants with ADHD, other studies have not found such differences (Egeland, Johansen, & Ueland, 2009; Jarrett et al, 2014). Alternatively, previous research also indicates that individuals with a cognitive disorder (e.g., reading disorder; Advokat et al, 2007; McGee, Clark, & Symons, 2000) and/or a psychiatric condition (e.g., depression; Porter, Gallagher, Thompson, & Young, 2003) have also committed greater commission errors on continuous performance tasks, therefore it is important to note that poor performance on CPT tasks is not unique to ADHD. In fact, results from the present study suggest college students with one or more non-ADHD psychiatric diagnoses (e.g., mood, anxiety, and other disorders) performed more poorly on CPT-II tasks compared to those without such a diagnosis.…”

Behavioral Attention: A Longitudinal Study of Whether and How It Influences the Development of Word Reading and Reading Comprehension Among At-Risk Readers

“…First, Kieffer et al measured cognitive assessments of attentional shifting and inhibitory control – not attention ratings. Cognitive assessments and ratings of attention represent unique constructs known to make independent contributions to reading comprehension (Epstein, Erkanli, Conners, Klaric, Costello, & Angold, 2003; McGee, Clark, & Symons, 2000; Steele, Karmiloff-Smith, Cornish, & Scerif, 2012). Second, Kieffer et al presented single-point-in-time (or concurrent) data, not longitudinal data, which likely explains why they found a significant direct effect of attention while we did not.…”