Phonological Processing, Not Inhibitory Control, Differentiates ADHD and Reading Disability

Purvis, Karen; Tannock, Rosemary

doi:10.1097/00004583-200004000-00018

Cited by 179 publications

(188 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

161

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Schachar & Tannock (1995) Leung et al (1996) Lynam (1996 Manassis, Tannock, & Barbosa (2000) Purvis & Tannock (2000) multiformity of B models have been consistent in the literature. If the alternate forms model is the correct comorbidity model, both of the pure groups (A only and B only) and the comorbid group (AB) should perform equivalently on each measure and differ from the control group.…”

Section: Examining the Underlying Deficits Of Disorders To Testmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…Purvis and Tannock (2000) and Pennington et al (1993) predicted that the comorbid group would exhibit deficits of Leung et al (1996), Manassis et al (2000), Schachar and Tannock (1995), and Lynam (1996) predicted that the comorbid group should be different in the pattern of deficits shown from the two pure groups. The results from the simulations show that the three independent disorders model described by Neale and Kendler (1995) is closer to the comorbidity model described by Leung et al (1996), Schachar and Tannock (1995), and Lynam (1996) than the comorbidity model described by Purvis and Tannock (2000) and Pennington et al (1993). In the data simulated for the three independent disorders model, the A-only group had the deficits of Disorder A and did not have the deficits of Disorder B, whereas the B-only group had the deficits of Disorder B and did not have the deficits of Disorder A.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Testing Hypotheses Regarding the Causes of Comorbidity: Examining the Underlying Deficits of Comorbid Disorders.

Rhee¹,

Hewitt²,

Corley³

et al. 2005

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors examined the validity of a method commonly used to test alternative hypotheses regarding the causes of comorbidity: the examination of underlying deficits of comorbid disorders. The authors simulated data in which the true causes of comorbidity were known, then compared the patterns of underlying deficits of the comorbid disorders found in the simulated data with the predicted results. The method of examining the underlying deficits of comorbid disorders could distinguish between several comorbidity models, including those that could not be distinguished well using other methods. The ability to distinguish the correct model decreased as the sample size and the correlation between the underlying deficits and the symptom scores decreased, suggesting that the issue of power should be considered carefully.Keywords: comorbidity, comorbidity models, comorbid disorders, underlying deficits, simulations Epidemiological evidence suggests that the rate of comorbidity among psychiatric disorders exceeds the rate expected by chance (e.g., Newman et al., 1996;Simonoff et al., 1997). Many researchers have considered alternative hypotheses for the causes of comorbidity and ways to test these hypotheses

show abstract

Section: Examining the Underlying Deficits Of Disorders To Testmentioning

confidence: 59%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing Hypotheses Regarding the Causes of Comorbidity: Examining the Underlying Deficits of Comorbid Disorders.

Rhee¹,

Hewitt²,

Corley³

et al. 2005

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research of de Jong et al (2009) and Purvis and Tannock (2000) revealed that children with RD had an impaired stop signal reaction time in comparison to control children. However, other studies found no differences between both groups (e.g., Reiter, Tucha, & Lange, 2005;Schmid et al, 2011).…”

Section: Behavioral Inhibition In Children With Reading Disabilitiesmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…In addition, several studies reported behavioral inhibition deficits in children with RD (e.g., de Jong et al, 2009;Purvis & Tannock, 2000;van der Schoot, Licht, Horsley, & Sergeant, 2000). Research of de Jong et al (2009) and Purvis and Tannock (2000) revealed that children with RD had an impaired stop signal reaction time in comparison to control children.…”

Section: Behavioral Inhibition In Children With Reading Disabilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is considered as the capacity to suppress a prepotent or dominant response and entails the deliberate control of a primary motor response in compliance with changing context cues (Nigg, 2000). Both the Go/no-go (Luce, 1986) and the Stop-signal task (Logan, Cowan, & Davis, 1984) are frequently conducted measures of behavioral inhibition (e.g., Friedman & Miyake, 2004;Purvis & Tannock, 2000).…”

Section: Behavioral Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Behavioral inhibition in children with learning disabilities

Weerdt

Desoete

Roeyers

2013

Research in Developmental Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children with reading disabilities (RD, n = 17), mathematical disabilities (MD, n = 22), combined reading and mathematical disabilities (RD+MD, n = 28) and control peers (n = 45) were tested on behavioral inhibition with a Go/no-go task in a picture, letter and digit-modality. In contrast to children without RD, children with RD made significantly more commission errors on alphanumeric (letter and digit) modalities compared to the non-alphanumeric picture modality. As compared to children without MD, children with MD made as much commission errors on the picture modality as on the letter modality. No significant interaction-effect was found between RD and MD. These results can be considered as evidence for behavioral inhibition deficits related to alphanumeric stimuli in children with RD but not in children with MD.

show abstract

Assessment and Intervention Practices for Children with ADHD and Other Frontal‐Striatal Circuit Disorders

Hale¹,

Reddy²,

Wilcox³

et al. 2009

Best Practices in School Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phonological Processing, Not Inhibitory Control, Differentiates ADHD and Reading Disability

Cited by 179 publications

References 55 publications

Testing Hypotheses Regarding the Causes of Comorbidity: Examining the Underlying Deficits of Comorbid Disorders.

Testing Hypotheses Regarding the Causes of Comorbidity: Examining the Underlying Deficits of Comorbid Disorders.

Behavioral inhibition in children with learning disabilities

Assessment and Intervention Practices for Children with ADHD and Other Frontal‐Striatal Circuit Disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About