Executive function assessment and adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Tasks versus ratings on the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale.

Abstract

Adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) exhibit variable impairments on executive function (EF) tasks. Due to this variability, ratings of EF (rather than tasks) have been proposed as an alternative method that better captures symptom severity and impairment among adults with ADHD. However, few studies have jointly examined performance across multiple neuropsychological domains and EF ratings as predictors of severity and impairment among adults with ADHD. Adults (N = 273) ages 18-38 years (M = 22.6 years, 55.3% male, 62.2% with ADHD) completed a comprehensive diagnostic and neurocognitive assessment, which included self and informant ratings of ADHD symptom severity and EF and tasks of arousal/activation, response inhibition, set shifting, interference control, and working memory. Hierarchical linear regression models indicated that tasks of arousal/activation and response inhibition uniquely predicted ADHD symptom dimensions and related impairments. Over and above EF task performance, EF ratings of time management significantly predicted increased inattention (β = .209, p < .001, ΔR² = 3.9%), whereas ratings of restraint predicted increased hyperactivity/impulsivity (β = .259, p < .001, ΔR² = 6.4%). Furthermore, EF ratings of time management, restraint, and emotion regulation incrementally accounted for variance in relationship, professional, and daily living impairments over and above EF task performance (ΔR² range = 1.7-7.7%). Results may help refine neurobiological theories and assessment of adult ADHD.

Brazilian Portuguese transcultural adaptation of Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale (BDEFS)

“…This absence of a strong correlation between ratings and tests reflects a lack of ecological validity of neuropsychological tests. Other studies using the BDEFS English Version have shown similar results [17][18][19][20]24,25 . For example, as found by Vasconcelos et al 26 the BIS 11 Brazilian Portuguese Version presents almost non-significant correlations with the Iowa Gambling Task, which support the theoretical and statistical difference between these types of neuropsychological methods.…”

“…The respondents have to select the best option based in a four-point Likert type-scale to describe the frequency of certain behaviors and situations linked with impulsivity. The BIS-11 has three subscales: attentional impulsivity (items 6,5,9,11,20,24,26,28), motor impulsivity (items 2,3,4,16,17,19,21,22,23,25,30) and non-planning impulsivity (items 1,7,8,10,12,13,14,15,18,27,29). Furthermore, the BIS-11 has a total score ranges from 30 to 120 points.…”

“…In this context, Barkley created the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale (BDEFS), which consists of a self-reported questionnaire that assesses different components of executive functioning related to daily-life impairments of psychiatric patients 16 . Since the publication of BDEFS, this scale has accumulated evidence of validity 17,18 , as well as utility in clinical practice for the assessment of psychiatric patients 19,20 . The present work presents the adaptation of the BDEFS to Brazilian Portuguese, and provides evidence of its reliability and construct validity in a non-clinical community sample of Brazilian adults.…”

Subclinical ADHD-Symptoms Are Associated with Executive-Functioning and Externalizing Problems in College Students without ADHD-Diagnoses

“…This may be explained in part by the fact that for the IA dependent measure, the beta-weight for the EF Self-Management-To-Time predictor (.44) was approximately three times as large as for the HI dependent measure (.16). In the ADHD diagnostic literature, poor management of time is typically associated more with an IA diagnosis than HI (Barkley & Murphy, 2011;Kamradt et al, 2014). Thus, the present non-clinical findings are consistent with this pattern.…”

Visual Distractors Disrupt Audiovisual Integration Regardless of Stimulus Complexity

“…Multisensory integration is also known to be disrupted in several developmental disorders including schizophrenia (De Jong et al, 2010; Postmes et al, 2014; Mayer et al, 2015), dyslexia (Facoetti et al, 2010; Krause, 2015), and autism (Ciesielski et al, 1995; Belmonte and Yurgelun-Todd, 2003; Foss-Feig et al, 2010; Kwakye et al, 2011; Woynaroski et al, 2013). In addition, many developmental disorders also have strong links to alterations in attentional networks, executive functioning, and higher-order processes (Cardinale et al, 2013; Kamradt et al, 2014; Sidlauskaite et al, 2016). However, very few studies have examined how the relationship between attention and multisensory integration develops or the link between multisensory integration and attention in developmental disorders and its role in shaping the trajectory, severity, and functioning of individuals with these disorders.…”