Is the Continuous Performance Task a Valuable Research Tool for use with Children with Attention‐Deficit‐Hyperactivity Disorder?

Abstract

The Continuous Performance Task (CPT) has become a popular research tool used to distinguish children with Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) from their normal peers. Whether hyperactive children have a vigilance decrement remains an ongoing controversy. The theoretical basis of the CPT and variables known to influence performance are examined in order to interpret the inconsistencies evident in the research. Studies which employed the CPT in order to examine the possibility of sustained attention deficits in children with ADHD will be reviewed. The results are examined in light of group selection criteria, task variables and situational and external variables. It is concluded that there is no compelling evidence for a sustained deficit in ADHD children. An alternative theoretical model for understanding the results of CPT performance in ADHD children is provided.

Time Perception: Does It Distinguish ADHD and RD Children in a Clinical Sample?

“…Overall, these findings are similar to those of other studies in suggesting that CPT scores do not consistently identify attention problems in children deemed to have ADHD relative to other clinical groups (Corkum & Siegel, 1993;Koelega, 1995;Trommer, Hoeppner, Lorder, & Armstrong, 1988). However, the fatigue effect found in this study impaired the reliability and hence the validity of the CCPT as a measure of sustained attention.…”

“…Continuous performance tasks can distinguish children with ADHD from normal children (Losier, McGrath, & Klein, 1996). However, studies involving clinical controls indicate that continuous performance tests do not reliably distinguish children with ADHD from other clinical groups (Barkley, DuPaul, & McMurray, 1990;Corkum & Siegel, 1993;Koriath, Gualtieri, Van Bourgondien, Quade, & Werry, 1985). In addition, children with RD tend to perform poorly on continuous performance tests (Eliason & Richman, 1987;Tarnowski, Prinz, & Nay, 1986).…”

Predicting the early developmental course of symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

“…Behavioral inhibition has been operationalized using a variety of measures, including the Continuous Performance Task (CPT) (see, for reviews, Barkley et al, 1992;Corkum & Siegel, 1993;Losier et al, 1996), delay of gratification tasks (DGTs) (Campbell, Douglas, & Morgernstern, 1971;Pennington & Ozonoff, 1996;Weyandt & Grant, 1994), and the Stroop Test (see for review, Homack & Riccio, 2004). Consistent with this literature, in the current study, behavioral inhibition is measured using CPT commission errors, DGT waiting time, and Stroop interference effects.…”

“…To date, the overwhelming majority of studies assessing various aspects of inhibition have demonstrated a concurrent inhibition deficit in school-aged children exhibiting ADHD symptoms compared with children without signs of ADHD (see, for reviews, Barkley, Grodzinsky, & DuPaul, 1992;Corkum & Siegel, 1993;Homack & Riccio, 2004;Losier, McGrath, & Klein, 1996;Oosterlaan, Logan, & Sergeant, 1998;Pennington & Ozonoff, 1996;Tannock, 1998). From these studies, we can conclude that behavioral inhibition deficits are related to ADHD symptoms.…”

Neurocognitive stability in Asperger syndrome, ADHD, and reading and writing disorder: a pilot study

“…EF/attention deficits characterize several childhood disorders such as ADHD (Trommer et al 1991, Grodinsky and Diamond 1992, Shue and Douglas 1992, Corkum and Siegel 1993, Korkman and Pesonen 1993, Pennington et al 1993, Weyandt and Willis 1994 and AS (Szatmari et al1990, Ozonoff et al 1991. The main symptoms of ADHD are inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity, and distractibility and this group appears to be most impaired in motor inhibition.…”