Latent Profile Analysis of Working Memory Performance in a Sample of Children with ADHD

Gomez, Rapson; Gomez, Rashika Miranjani; Winther, Jo; Vance, Alasdair

doi:10.1007/s10802-014-9878-5

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, their analysis resulted in subgroups differentiated by the severity of impairments, and not by selective profiles. Other empirical studies using latent profile or cluster analysis of NP tasks in large ADHD samples have differentiated three 106 107 or four 108 NP profile groups, which all included children with ADHD, as well as TD children, differing in severity but not in the type of profile. This might indicate that the identified NP deficit profiles were not ADHD-specific, but rather reflected characteristic distributions of NP performances, which are also present in the general population, with extreme values in children with ADHD.…”

Section: Current Neurobiological and Neuropsychological Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

ADHD: Current Concepts and Treatments in Children and Adolescents

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is among the most frequent disorders within child and adolescent psychiatry, with a prevalence of over 5%. Nosological systems, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) and the International Classification of Diseases, editions 10 and 11 (ICD-10/11) continue to define ADHD according to behavioral criteria, based on observation and on informant reports. Despite an overwhelming body of research on ADHD over the last 10 to 20 years, valid neurobiological markers or other objective criteria that may lead to unequivocal diagnostic classification are still lacking. On the contrary, the concept of ADHD seems to have become broader and more heterogeneous. Thus, the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD are still challenging for clinicians, necessitating increased reliance on their expertise and experience. The first part of this review presents an overview of the current definitions of the disorder (DSM-5, ICD-10/11). Furthermore, it discusses more controversial aspects of the construct of ADHD, including the dimensional versus categorical approach, alternative ADHD constructs, and aspects pertaining to epidemiology and prevalence. The second part focuses on comorbidities, on the difficulty of distinguishing between “primary” and “secondary” ADHD for purposes of differential diagnosis, and on clinical diagnostic procedures. In the third and most prominent part, an overview of current neurobiological concepts of ADHD is given, including neuropsychological and neurophysiological researches and summaries of current neuroimaging and genetic studies. Finally, treatment options are reviewed, including a discussion of multimodal, pharmacological, and nonpharmacological interventions and their evidence base.

show abstract

Section: Current Neurobiological and Neuropsychological Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

ADHD: Current Concepts and Treatments in Children and Adolescents

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This statistical method identifies probability-based clusters (e.g., patient subgroups) based on shared characteristics (e.g., symptoms) by forming a number of category latent variables representing each cluster (DiStefano & Kamphaus, 2006;Vermunt & Magidson, 2002). The method has been used to identify homogeneous subgroups in several areas of clinical research (e.g., Flensborg Damholdt, Shevlin, Borghammer, Larsen, & Ostergaard, 2012;Gomez, Gomez, Winther, & Vance, 2014;Rajendran, O'Neill, Marks, & Halperin, 2015;Van Hulst, De Zeeuw, & Durston, 2015;Ulbricht, Rothschild, & Lapane, 2015;Dhingra, Boduszek, & Klonsky, 2016), but has not previously been applied to examine OCD SDs.…”

Section: Defining Ocd Symptom Subgroupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symptom profiles and executive function in childhood obsessive-compulsive disorder

Hybel

Mortensen

Højgaard

et al. 2017

Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) often becomes manifest in childhood. It has been suggested that the symptom heterogeneity of the disorder could mask subgroups associated with executive function (EF) impairment. Though supported in adult studies, this is scarcely investigated in children. The aims of the present study were to: (i) investigate OCD symptom subgroups using an empirically supported and age-appropriate definition of symptom dimensions (SD) as well as latent profile analysis (LPA); (ii) compare the identified subgroups with respect to EFs, demographic, and clinical descriptives; and (iii) explore the associations between SDs and EFs. The study included 50 pediatric OCD patients and 50 matched controls. Patients were assessed with the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale from which three SD factor scores were generated. Participants were assessed with EF tasks from which latent variables measuring working memory, set shifting and response inhibition were derived. Parents rated executive function behaviors in their children. Three subgroups were identified, each predominantly characterized by one of the SDs. Subgroups differed with respect to parent-rated working memory and several demographic and basic clinical characteristics. The findings suggest the presence of clinically relevant child and adolescent OCD SD subgroups, but do not support the relevance of EFs in distinguishing SDs. Highlights • Three obsessive-compulsive subgroups were identified, each mapping onto one of the symptom dimensions of symmetry/hoarding, harm/sexual, or contamination/cleaning. • The subgroups differed with respect to parent-reported working memory, and several basic clinical characteristics, but not performance-based executive functions.

show abstract

“…Gomez et al . (2014) found three working memory (WM) sub-groups differentiated primarily by the level of performance. Rajendran et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%