Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2000
Phonological processing, not inhibitory control, differentiates ADHD and reading disability.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Purvis K L, Tannock R
Аннотация
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.
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.