This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

This study demonstrated a significant interplay between child and parental EF in the association with treatment adherence and glycemic control. Researchers and clinicians should remain attentive toward the role of neuropsychological concepts such as EF. Implementation in clinical practice seems meaningful.

A new parent-completed questionnaire, the Cognition and Motivation in Everyday Life (CAMEL) scale, was developed to provide a comprehensive assessment of neuropsychological impairment in children related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) across diverse cognitive, motivational and energetic domains. Its psychometric properties were investigated. A total of 60 items were generated to cover a wide range of putative ADHD-related neuropsychological processes. A clinical (n = 142) and community (n = 810) sample of parents with children between 6 and 16 years of age completed the questionnaire. Data on ADHD symptoms were also collected with a commonly-used, validated parent rating scale to explore the associations between CAMEL scores and dimensional measures of child ADHD and conduct problems. Factor analysis identified six factors which we labeled (i) Cognition, (ii) Self-Direction and Organization, (iii) Effort Engagement, (iv) Arousal Regulation, (v) Motivational Responsiveness, and (vi) Cautiousness. Self-Direction and Organization and Arousal Regulation were the strongest predictors for ADHD symptomatology. Self-Direction and Organization was strongly associated with inattention and Arousal Regulation with hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms. Parents distinguished between broad neuropsychological domains in reliable and plausible ways, making distinctions between key aspects of functioning. However, the boundaries between these domains did not map directly onto the distinctions drawn within traditional models of ADHD deficits. Further research is required to examine the predictive validity and cost-effectiveness of the CAMEL scale compared to direct objective testing using laboratory measures in predicting prognosis and treatment outcome.

These studies provide evidence for the ecological validity of EL ratings. Furthermore, they add evidence for the associations between EL and ADHD.

BackgroundProminent theoretical accounts of attention‐deficit/hyperactivity‐disorder (ADHD) hypothesize that reinforcement learning deficits underlie symptoms of ADHD. The Dynamic Developmental Theory and the Dopamine Transfer Deficit hypothesis assume impairments in both the acquisition and extinction of behavior, especially when learning occurs under partial (non‐continuous) reinforcement, and subsequently the Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect (PREE). Few studies have evaluated instrumental learning in ADHD and the results are inconsistent. The current study investigates instrumental learning under partial and continuous reinforcement schedules and subsequent behavioral persistence when reinforcement is withheld (extinction) in children with and without ADHD.MethodsLarge well‐defined samples of children with ADHD (n = 93) and typically developing (TD) children (n = 73) completed a simple instrumental learning task. The children completed acquisition under continuous (100%) or partial (20%) reinforcement, followed by a 4‐min extinction phase. Two‐way (diagnosis by condition) ANOVAs evaluated responses needed to reach the learning criterion during acquisition, and target and total responses during extinction.ResultsChildren with ADHD required more trials to reach criterion compared to TD children under both continuous and partial reinforcement. After partial reinforcement, children with ADHD executed fewer target responses during extinction than TD children. Children with ADHD executed more responses than TD children during extinction, irrespective of learning condition.ConclusionsThe findings demonstrate general difficulties in instrumental learning in ADHD, that is, slower learning irrespective of reinforcement schedule. They also show faster extinction following learning under partial reinforcement in those with ADHD, that is, a diminished PREE. Children with ADHD executed more responses during extinction. Results are theoretically important, with clinical implications for understanding and managing learning difficulties in those with ADHD, as they suggest poorer reinforcement learning and lower behavioral persistence.