7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 1/28
Impact of Gender and Age on ExecutiveFunctioning: Do Girls and Boys
With and Without Attention DeficitHyperactivity Disorder Differ
Neuropsychologically in Preteenand Teenage Years?
Larry J. Seidman Pediatric Psychopharmacology Unit, Psychiatry Service
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Department of Psychiatry
Harvard Medical School
Department of Psychiatry Massachusetts Mental Health Center, Boston
Commonwealth Research Center,
Massachusetts Mental Health Center, Boston
Joseph Biederman, Michael C. Monuteaux, Eve Valera,and Alysa E. Doyle
Pediatric Psychopharmacology Unit, Psychiatry Service
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Department of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School
Stephen V. Faraone Pediatric Psychopharmacology Unit, Psychiatry Service
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Department of Psychiatry
Harvard Medical School
Department of Epidemiology
Harvard School of Public Health
DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 27 (1), 79–105Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Larry J. Seidman, Pediatric Psychopharmacology Unit
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 2/28
ADHD is known to have neuropsychological correlates, characterized mainly by ex-
ecutive function (EF) deficits. However, most available data are based on studies of
boys through age 12. Our goal was to assess whether girls with ADHD expressneuropsychological features similar to those found in boys, and whether these im-
pairmentsare found in both preteen and teen samples. Participants were 101 girls and
103 boys with DSM–III–R ADHD, and 109 comparison girls and 70 boys without
ADHD, ages 9 to 17 years. Information on neuropsychological performance was ob-
tained in a standardized manner blind to clinical status. Primary regression analyses
controlled for age, socioeconomic status, learning disability, and psychiatric comor-
bidity. Girls and boys with ADHD were significantly more impaired on some mea-
sures of EFs than healthy comparisons but did not differ significantly from each
other. With the exception of 1 test score there were no significant Sex × Diagnosis in-
teractions. Moreover, there were no more significant interactions among age, gender,and diagnosis than would be expected by chance. Neuropsychological measures of
EFs were comparably impaired in girls compared to boys with ADHD, and these im-
pairments are found at ages 9 to 12 and ages 13 to 17. These findings suggest that ex-
ecutive dysfunctions are correlates of ADHD regardless of gender and age, at least
through the late teen years.
Cognitive deficits, particularly impairments in attention and executive functions
(EFs), are considered to be a core part of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) (Barkley, 1997; Douglas, 1972). Many studies show that ADHD chil-dren are impaired on various tasks of vigilance, processing speed, verbal learn-
ing, memory, and EFs (e.g., set shifting, planning and organization, complex
problem solving, and response inhibition) (Barkley, 1997; Barkley, Grodzinsky,
& DuPaul, 1992; Denckla, 1991; Grodzinsky & Diamond, 1992; Pennington,
Groisser, & Welsh, 1993; Pennington & Ozonoff, 1996; Seidman, Benedict et
al., 1995; Seidman, Biederman, et al., 1995; Seidman, Biederman, Faraone,
Weber, Mennin, et al., 1997; Seidman, Biederman, Faraone, Weber, & Ouellette,
1997). These dysfunctions have been shown in a number of studies to persist
into late adolescence (at least in boys with ADHD; Fischer, Barkley, Edelbrock,& Smallish, 1990; Seidman, Biederman, Faraone, Weber, & Ouellette, 1997)
and adulthood (Seidman, Biederman, Weber, Hatch, & Faraone, 1998) and are
found in nonreferred siblings of ADHD patients who have been diagnosed with
ADHD (Seidman, Biederman, Monuteaux, Weber, & Faraone, 2000). More im-
portant, EF deficits have been shown to be independent of psychiatric comor-
bidity (Seidman, Biederman, Faraone, Weber, & Ouellette, 1997; Seidman et al.,
2000; Seidman et al., 1998).
The central theoretical construct guiding our neuropsychological understand-
ing of ADHD is that of executive dysfunction (Barkley, 1997). The hypothesis thatthe neuropsychological underpinnings of ADHD are characterized by executive
80 SEIDMAN ET AL.
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 3/28
damage (Mattes, 1980; Shue & Douglas, 1992). They observed that lesions in the
frontal lobe (and especially prefrontal cortex) in experimental animals and human
neurological patients are often associated with impulsivity, distractibility, and hy-peractivity, in combination or as isolated deficits (Fuster, 1989). EFs are distinct
from other mental functions such as perception or memory per se. There is, how-
ever, considerable overlap with domains such as attention, and with certain com-
ponents of learning and memory, such as those involved with encoding and re-
trieval (Pennington & Ozonoff, 1996).
Although this hypothesis has received general support, several studies have not
found EF deficits in children with ADHD, additional studies have found that chil-
dren with ADHD perform poorly on some EF tasks but not others, and EF deficits
are not unique to ADHD (cf. reviews in Barkley et al., 1992; Pennington &Ozonoff, 1996; Sergeant, Geurts, & Oosterlaan, 2002; and studies by Klorman et
al., 1999; and Weyandt & Willis, 1994). Moreover, individual classification of per-
sons with ADHD using neuropsychological measures has had limited success
(Doyle, Biederman, Seidman, Weber, & Faraone, 2000). These findings indicate
that more research is necessary, particularly on important dimensions known to ef-
fect neuropsychological functioning, such as age and sex.
Although ADHD affects both genders, most of the research literature, includ-
ing studies evaluating neuropsychological functioning, is devoted to males
(Berry, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 1985; Gaub & Carlson, 1997; Gershon, 2002).Gaub and Carlson’s review indicated that few studies included sufficient num-
bers of female participants to warrant gender-based conclusions. Nevertheless,
there are data supporting the presence of a valid syndrome of ADHD in girls. A
previous study of girls with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor-
ders (3rd ed. [ DSM–III ]; American Psychiatric Association, 1980) attention defi-
cit disorder (Faraone, Biederman, Keenan, & Tsuang, 1991) documented the
same patterns of comorbidity and familiality in girls that had been observed in
boys. Recent work by our group (Biederman et al., 2002), reporting on the larg-
est data set to date on girls with ADHD, identified more similarities than differ-ences in the core features of ADHD with a few notable exceptions. Girls were
more likely than boys to have a somewhat higher rate of predominantly inatten-
tive type of ADHD (although the combined type was the leading type in both
genders), a lesser likelihood to have a learning disability (LD), a lesser likeli-
hood to manifest problems in school or in their spare time, and a lower risk for
comorbid conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder (Biederman et al.,
2002). Their results are consistent with Gershon’s meta-analytic review (2002)
that indicated more externalizing problems in boys with ADHD. Our research
team has also demonstrated that the familial transmission of ADHD andcomorbid disorders was similar in boys and girls (Faraone, Biederman, Mick, et
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING 81
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 4/28
Some research has suggested that girls with ADHD are more neuropsy-
chologically impaired than boys with the disorder (Gaub & Carlson, 1997). This
observation, although possibly true for measures of intelligence (Gershon,2002), may not generalize to EFs, which only partially overlap with intelligence
(Pennington & Ozonoff, 1996). Although the literature is limited, in fact, most
studies suggest that, although there are neuropsychological impairments in girls
with ADHD compared to control girls (Hinshaw, Carte, Sami, Treuting, &
Zupan, 2002; Seidman et al., 2004), there are no differences between girls and
boys with ADHD on EFs. For example, DeHaas (1986) showed that both girls
and boys with ADHD scored significantly below controls on digit span and all
subtests of the Stroop. However, there were no significant differences between
ADHD girls and ADHD boys. Similarly, Houghton et al. (1999) found differ-ences between ADHD girls and controls on the Stroop and Wisconsin Card
Sorting Test (WCST), but they failed to find differences between girls and boys
with ADHD. Several studies (Arcia & Conners, 1998; Breen, 1989; Horn, Wag-
ner, & Ialongo, 1989; Schuerholz, Singer, & Denckla, 1998; Sharp et al., 1999)
failed to find any gender differences on Continuous Performance Test (CPT)
measures. Castellanos et al. (2000) demonstrated that girls with ADHD per-
formed more poorly than healthy controls on delayed response and Go–No-go
oculomotor tasks, consistent with EF impairments that have been noted in boys,
but they did not examine gender differences. Nigg (1999), using a stop-signaltask measuring inhibition, showed that ADHD girls were slower to respond than
were controls. In a pilot study, we reported that girls might have a milder
neuropsychological syndrome than that observed in boys with ADHD (Seidman,
Biederman, Faraone, Weber, Mennin, et al., 1997). However, we subsequently
reanalyzed the data on ADHD girls and sex-matched controls in a sample almost
three times larger than the pilot study (Seidman et al., 2004). In this larger sam-
ple we found clear deficits in ADHD seemingly comparable to those observed in
boys with ADHD, although we did not directly compare girls and boys with
ADHD (Seidman et al., 2004). In a comparable study, also with a large sampleand an extensive neuropsychological battery, Hinshaw et al. (2002) demon-
strated significant impairments in girls with ADHD.
Only two studies found significant gender differences between ADHD boys
and girls on some attention and executive tasks. Rucklidge and Tannock (2001)
found that girls and boys with ADHD (ages 13–16) were both impaired in process-
ing speed compared to normal teenagers, but the boys with ADHD were slower in
processing speed than the girls with the disorder. However, Rucklidge and
Tannock (2001) did not demonstrate significant differences on the Block Design,
Digit Span, Symbol Search, and Arithmetic subtests of the Wechsler IntelligenceScale–Third Edition (WISC–III; Wechsler, 1991) or on measures of word identifi-
82 SEIDMAN ET AL.
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 5/28
that ADHD girls made significantly fewer CPT impulsivity errors than did ADHD
boys, although no normal controls were studied. Newcorn et al. (2001) did not find
significant differences on the CPT Inattention and Dyscontrol scales.More important, very few studies have evaluated the effects of age on neuropsy-
chological function in ADHD, and none have addressed age in the context of
neuropsychological function in both genders. Surprisingly, whereas there are now
numerous studiesof adults with ADHD(a recent meta-analysis byHervey, Epstein,
& Curry, 2004, reviewed33 studies), there are only a handfulof studiesof teenagers
withADHD(Fischer etal., 1990;Newcorn etal.2001;Rucklidge& Tannock,2001;
Seidman, Biederman, Faraone, Weber, & Ouellette, 1997). The vast majority of re-
searchhasfocusedonchildrenunderage 13.We previouslyevaluated boyswithand
withoutADHD DiagnosticandStatisticalManualofMentalDisorders(3rded.,rev.[ DSM–III–R]; American Psychiatric Association, 1987), ages 9 to 22, on a wide
range of neuropsychological measures, including such EF measures as the Stroop,
WCST, AuditoryCPT(ACPT), andRey–OsterriethComplex Figure(ROCF),anda
measure ofverbal learning.We foundthat youngerandolderboyswithADHDwere
comparably impaired on the Stroop, WCST, and ROCF when contrasted with
age-matched controls above and below 15 years of age (Seidman, Biederman,
Faraone, Weber, & Ouellette, 1997). The older groups of controls and ADHD boys
showed better performance than the younger groups, but there was no Group × Age
interaction.Thus, the extant literature suggests effects of diagnosis (ADHD vs con-trol) and age, but no interactions. A similar finding was reported by Weyandt and
Willis (1994) in younger children.
This literature review suggests that there are some EF impairments in girls with
ADHD but provides limited data about age or gender differences on measures of
executive functioning. Moreover, methodological limitations impede conclusive
interpretations. These include (a) small sample sizes that do not provide enough
power to be conclusive; (b) failure to routinely include a substantial group of male
and female controls to address normal sex differences (Arnold, 1996); (c) failure to
evaluate teenage participants; virtually all studies are of children ages 6 to 12 or of adults; (d) relatively limited sets of EF measures that may not enable an evaluation
of an appropriate range of measurement; and (e) failure to control for the common
psychiatric comorbidities and learning disabilities (Faraone, Biederman, Mon-
uteaux, Doyle, & Seidman, 2001; Seidman, Biederman, Monuteaux, Doyle, &
Faraone, 2001; Semrud-Clikeman et al., 1992).
These data suggest the need for a well-controlled study using a large sample of
boys and girls with ADHD, from childhood through teenage years, using a range
of well-accepted measures of executive functioning. Thus, in this study, we evalu-
ate whether girls with ADHD have neuropsychological features that are similar tothose found in boys, and whether comparable neuropsychological deficits are ob-
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING 83
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 6/28
tween the sexes. Furthermore, we expected that the observed group differences
(ADHD vs. control) would not be accounted for by psychiatric comorbidity, learn-
ing disabilities, or medications.
METHOD
Participants
Data from two virtually identical family studies of ADHD(differing only in ratesof
different ethnicities and range of ages at neuropsychological testing) were com-
bined. The first study (Biederman et al., 1992) provided neuropsychological data
from118maleADHDcasesand99controls,ages9to20,inwhichtheeffectsofagehad been previously studied (Seidman, Biederman, Faraone, Weber, & Ouellette,
1997).Thesecondstudy(Biedermanetal.,1999)providedneuropsychologicaldata
from140 femaleADHDcases and 122 comparisonchildren aged 6 to17 at the time
of ascertainment. Ina pilot studyof neuropsychological functioning inADHD girls,
we reported on a small subset of this sample; 43 girls, ages 6 to 17 years with
DSM–III–RADHD,and36comparisongirlswithoutADHD(Seidman,Biederman,
Faraone, Weber, Mennin, et al., 1997). We subsequently reanalyzed these data with
the complete girls sample described previously (Seidman et al., 2004). We havenot
previously reported any direct comparisons of executive functioning between theboys’andgirls’samples.Becausethegirls’samplerangedinagefrom6to17andthe
boys’sample rangedinage from9 to20at the timeoftesting,analyseswithboysand
girls were restricted to the age overlap (ages 9–17 inclusive, “age-restricted” sam-
ple). Participants were 101 girls (mean age 12.5 years, SD = 2.6) and 103 boys with
ADHD (mean age 13.5 years, SD = 2.2) and 109 comparison girls (mean age 12.7
years, SD = 2.6) and 70boys without ADHD(mean age 13.3years,SD = 2.5), rang-
ing from 9 to 17 years.
We obtained informed consent for all participants. Parents provided written in-
formed consent for their children, and children and adolescents provided writtenassent. All male participants were English-speaking, White, and non-Hispanic. In
the female sample, all participants were English-speaking, 91.6% were White,
5.3% African American, 1.9% Hispanic, and 1.2% Asian Americans. We excluded
children if they had major sensory–motor handicaps (e.g., paralysis, deafness,
blindness), psychosis, autism, or an estimated Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) less than 80.
Each of the cases of ADHD met diagnostic criteria for current ADHD at the time of
the clinical referral; at the time of testing, each had active symptoms of the disor-
der. This study is a naturalistic sample of referred persons in which some persons
with ADHD have been previously medicated. A subset of the sample described as“unmedicated” refers to absence of use of any psychotropic medications at the
84 SEIDMAN ET AL.
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 7/28
Psychiatric Assessments
All diagnostic assessments used structured interviews based on the criteria of the
DSM–III–R. Psychiatric assessments relied on the epidemiologic version of the
Schedule for Affective Disorder and Schizophrenia for Children (Orvaschel,
1985). Diagnoses were based on independent interviews with the mothers and di-
rect interviews of children except for children younger than 12 years of age, who
were not directly interviewed. The structured interviews assessed lifetime history
of psychopathology. ADHD symptoms reported here were measured at the time of
neuropsychological testing. The assessment personnel were blind to diagnosis
(ADHD or control) and ascertainment site (psychiatric or pediatric). All neuropsy-
chological function assessments were administered and scored by examiners who
were unaware of all other data on the participants.
Because the neuropsychological performance of the boys’sample was assessed
prior to the publication of DSM–IV, we used DSM–III–R criteria to define ADHD
case status. Similarly, the study of girls was developed and probands ascertained
before DSM–IV was made available. Thus, the case definition of all participants
was based on DSM–III–R criteria, which precludes the stratification of the sample
by DSM–IV ADHD subtypes.
The interviewers or testers had undergraduate degrees in psychology, and they
were trained to high levels of interrater reliability for psychiatric diagnosis by the
second author. We computed kappa coefficients of agreement by having experi-
enced, board-certified child and adult psychiatrists diagnose participants from
audiotaped interviews made by the assessment staff. Based on 173 interviews from
a mixed pediatric and adult data set, the median kappa for all diagnoses was 0.86;
the kappa for ADHD was 0.98, 0.93 for conduct disorder, 0.80 for multiple anxiety
disorders, and 0.83 for major depression.
A committee of board-certified child and adult psychiatrists resolved all diag-
nostic uncertainties. The committee members were blind to the participants’ascer-
tainment group, ascertainment site, all data collected from other family members,
and all nondiagnostic data (e.g., neuropsychological tests). Diagnoses were con-
sidered positive if, based on the interview results, DSM–III–R criteria were un-
equivocally met to a clinically meaningful degree. Rates of psychiatric disorders
reported here are lifetime prevalences. Psychiatric comorbidity was operationally
defined by presence of any of the following: two or more anxiety disorders, major
depression, or conduct disorder.
Neuropsychological Tests
Based on our review of the literature and our previous neuropsychological work
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING 85
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 8/28
of the integrity of fronto-subcortical brain systems hypothesized to be abnormal in
ADHD (Mattes, 1980). The tests chosen include measures of vigilance (ACPT),
planning and organization (ROCF organization), response inhibition (StroopColor and Word Test), set shifting and categorization (WCST perseverations and
categories sorted), and verbal and visual learning and memory (Wide Range As-
sessment of Memory and Learning [WRAML] list learning). The tests used are
considered estimates of the hypothesized cognitive functions.
As in previous studies, tests were administered in a fixed order: (a) the ROCF
Copy (Osterrieth, 1944; Rey, 1941); (b) the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children–Revised (WISC–R; Wechsler, 1974)–Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale–Revised (WAIS–R; Wechsler, 1981) Vocabulary and Digit Span; (c) the
ROCF Recall; (d) the WISC–R–WAIS–R Block Design, Arithmetic andCoding–Digit Symbol subtests; (e) the ACPT (Weintraub & Mesulam, 1985); (f)
the WRAML list learning test for children < 17 (Adams & Sheslow, 1990), or
the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT) in children ≥ 17 years of age
(Delis, Kramer, Kaplan, & Ober, 1987); (g) the computerized WCST (Heaton,
Chelune, Talley, Kay, & Curtiss, 1993); and (h) the Stroop test (Golden, 1978).
There were very few participants in the age range (17–18), so no data is pre-
sented on the CVLT.
For the ACPT we measured omission, commission, and late errors that were
summed to a “total errors” score. We chose the WRAML list learning test for chil-dren <17 because the CVLT–Children’s Version (CVLT–C) was not available at
the time the study began, and it allowed a roughly comparable measure of verbal
learning. To make the WRAML verbal learning test more comparable to the CVLT
we added a fifth learning trial.
The ROCF was administeredandscored according to the methods of Waber and
Holmes (1985) subsequent to training by one of this system’s originators (Jane
Holmes Bernstein, PhD). This method was chosen because we hypothesized that
participants with ADHD would have organization deficits in contrast to simple vi-
sual–spatial deficits; the developmental scoring of Waber and Holmes assessessuch strategies. We used the “Organization” score of the ROCF because it reflects
planning, decision making, and strategy in constructing a figure (on copy and from
memory). Thus, the Organization score distinguishes EFs from visual–spatial pro-
cesses, which are codified by the “Accuracy” score. The analysis of the process by
which a person constructs a figure is considered to be a good index of executive
functioning (Kaplan, 1990; Seidman, 1997). Further administration and scoring
details on the ROCF are provided elsewhere (Seidman, Benedict, et al., 1995;
Teknos, Bernstein, & Seidman, 2003). The tests used in the study have interrater
reliabilities in the 0.90s (Lezak, 1995; Wechsler, 1981).All tests were administered and scored by examiners who were supervised by
86 SEIDMAN ET AL.
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 9/28
et al., 2002; Faraone et al., 1993; Faraone, Biederman, Mennin, Gershon, &
Tsuang, 1996), we will only report (for descriptive purposes) estimated FSIQ
(Brooker & Cyr, 1986), based on the vocabulary and block design subtests of theWISC–R (Wechsler, 1974) or WAIS–R (Wechsler, 1981). These two subtests are
frequently used for an IQ estimate because their estimate of IQ shows a high corre-
lation with FSIQ based on all of the subtests (Sattler, 1988). Academic achieve-
ment was assessed with the Reading and Arithmetic tests of the Wide Range
Achievement Test–Revised (WRAT–R) (Jastak & Jastak, 1985) to define forms of
LD. Participants with ADHD and LDs were grouped into one LD category, com-
bining arithmetic and reading disabilities when present. We used the procedure
recommended by Reynolds (1984) and others (Frick et al.,1991) to define LD.
FSIQ and achievement scores are initially converted to the z scores ZIQ and ZA,respectively. Expected achievement score, ZEA, is then estimated by the regres-
sion equation:
ZEA = rIQA ×ZIQ
In which rIQA is the correlation between the IQ and achievement tests. Values
from the control sample were used. Then, the discrepancy score is ZEA – ZA and
its SD = (1 – r2IQA)½. We defined as LD any participant who had a value greater
than 1.65 on the standardized discrepancy score:
(ZEA-ZA)/(1–r2IQA)½
Plan of Analysis
We chose 17 neuropsychological scores from five tests (Stroop, WCST, WRAML,
ACPT, and ROCF) as dependent measures for analysis. Three independent vari-
ables were used in analyses: Group (ADHD vs. Control), sex, and age. We first
modeled the neuropsychological variables as outcomes in linear regression models
with ADHD group as the independent variable, controlling for socioeconomic sta-tus (SES; Hollingshead, 1975), age, psychiatric comorbidity, and LD. To address
the comparability of executive functioning in girls and boys with and without
ADHD, we tested the interaction between ADHD status and gender, with the
neuropsychological variables as the outcomes. This interaction term tests if the ef-
fect of ADHD on neuropsychological performance differs by gender. If this inter-
action term is significant at α = 0.05, we present results separately by gender. If it is
not significant, we combine the samples and present the effect of ADHD on
neuropsychological performance, controlling for SES, age, psychiatric
comorbidity, LD, and gender. Analyses were also repeated with just the unmedi-cated participants, and using IQ as a covariate. Also, to assess the impact of age on
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING 87
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 10/28
these subgroups. Ordinary least squares regression models were used for all analy-
ses, as implemented in STATA (Stata Corporation, 1992). All tests were two-tailed
and the alpha was set at 0.05.
RESULTS
We first present analyses testing whether girls with ADHD have neuropsycho-
logical features that are similar to those found in boys (“full sample”), followed up
by identical analyses of the smaller group of unmedicatedparticipants. We hypoth-
esized that EF deficits would be comparable between the sexes and that the ob-
served group differences (ADHD vs. control) would not be accounted for by psy-
chiatric comorbidity, learning disabilities, or medications.
Demographic Characteristics and Academic Functioning in
Full Sample (Table 1)
We found a number of differences in demographics and academic functioning be-
tween the boys and girls with ADHD as compared to controls. Not unexpectedly,
the combined sample of boys and girls with ADHD had significantly more psychi-atric comorbidity, higher rates of learning disabilities, more frequent use of
psychotropic medications, lower IQ estimates, lower achievement in arithmetic
and reading, and lower SES, compared to the controls. Girls with ADHD differed
significantly from controls on all clinical variables just described. Similarly, and
not surprisingly, boys with ADHD differed from the male comparisons on all the
same variables. Control girls had significantly lower grade levels, SES, and IQ es-
timates than control boys. Finally, ADHD girls were significantly younger and
from a lower grade level, had fewer LDs, more ADHD symptoms, and a lower IQ
estimate than ADHD boys.
Neuropsychological Functioning in the Full Sample of
ADHD Participants
There were significant group effects (ADHD participants performed worse in all
cases) on all four variables from the Stroop and on the WCST number of categories
sorted, perseverative, and nonperseverative error scores (see Table 2). Controlling
for IQ did not affect the Stroop but did attenuate the WCST scores.
There was almost no evidence of a Sex × Group interaction effect as only 1 of 17 variables was significant: ROCF Copy organization showed a significant effect
88 SEIDMAN ET AL.
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 11/28
T A B L E 1
D e m o g r a p h i c V a r i a b l e
s f o r A l l B o y s a n d G i r l s W i t h A D H D a n d C o n t r o l s B e t w e e n t h e A g e s o f 9 a n d 1 7
A D H D
C o n t r o l s
g r a p h i c
V a r i a b l e s
G i r l s ( n = 1 0 1
)
B o y s ( n = 1 0 3 )
T
o t a l ( n = 2 0 4 )
G i r l s ( n = 1
0 9 )
B o y s ( n = 7 0 )
T o t a l (
n = 1 7 9 )
1 2 . 5
a * * ( 2 . 6 )
1 3 . 5 ( 2 . 2 )
1 3 . 0 ( 2 . 4 )
1 2 . 7 ( 2 . 6 )
1 3 . 3 ( 2 . 5 )
1 3 . 0 ( 2 . 6 )
7 . 0 a * * ( 2 . 6 )
7 . 8 ( 2 . 2 )
7 . 4 ( 2 . 5 )
7 . 3 a * ( 2 . 6
)
8 . 0 ( 2 . 7 )
7 . 6 ( 2 . 7 )
1 . 8 ( 0 . 9 )
1 . 9 b * * ( 1 . 0 )
1 . 9 c * * ( 0 . 9 )
1 . 7 a * ( 0 . 8
)
1 . 4 ( 0 . 7 )
1 . 6 ( 0 . 8 )
i a t r i c c o m o r b i d i t y
5 1 % b * * ( N = 5 1 )
6 3 % b * * ( N = 6 5 )
5 7 % c * * ( N = 1 1 6 )
6 % ( N = 7 )
1 4 % ( N = 1 0 )
9 %
( N = 1 7 )
i n g d i s a b i l i t y
1 8 % a * * b * * ( N =
1 8 )
4 6 % b * * ( N = 4 5 )
3 2 % c * * ( N = 6 3 )
5 % ( N = 5 )
1 3 % ( N = 9 )
8 %
( N = 1 4 )
c a t e d
6 5 % b * * ( N = 6 6 )
6 3 % b * * ( N = 6 5 )
6 4 % c * * ( N = 1 3 1 )
0 % ( N = 0 )
0 % ( N = 0 )
0 %
( N = 0 )
D s y m p
t o m s d
1 1 . 6
a * * b * * ( 1 . 9 )
9 . 3 b * * ( 3 . 6 )
1 0 . 5 c * * ( 3 . 1 )
1 . 4 ( 2 . 2 )
1 . 9 ( 2 . 6 )
1 . 6 ( 2 . 4 )
i m a t e
1 0 5 . 7 a * b * * ( 1 1 . 5 )
1 0 9 . 0 b * * ( 1 3 . 5 )
1 0 7 . 4 c * * ( 1 2 . 6 )
1 0 9 . 8 a * * ( 1
1 . 0 )
1 1 7 . 7 ( 1 0 . 5 )
1 1 2 . 9 ( 1 1 . 4 )
T – R A r i t h m e t i c
9 5 . 9
b * * ( 1 3 . 8 )
9 3 . 0
b * * ( 1 8 . 2 )
9 4 . 5 c * * ( 1 6 . 0 )
1 0 6 . 5 ( 1 5 . 7
)
1 0 9 . 9 ( 1 5 . 3 )
1 0 7 . 8 ( 1 5 . 6 )
T – R R e
a d i n g
1 0 0 . 7 b * * ( 1 5 . 6 )
1 0 1 . 3 b * * ( 1 6 . 3 )
1 0 1 . 1 c * * ( 1 5 . 9 )
1 1 0 . 0 ( 1 0 . 4
)
1 1 1 . 5 ( 1 0 . 2 )
1 1 0 . 6 ( 1 0 . 3 )
o t e . V
a l u e s i n t a b l e r e f l e c t m e a n s a n d s t a
n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s ( i n p a r e n t h e s e s ) u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e n o t e d . I Q e s t i m a t e b a s e d o n t h e V o c a b u l a r y a n d B l o c k D e s i g n
B r o o k e
r & C y r , 1 9 8 6 ) o f t h e W e c h s l e r
I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n – R
e v i s e d ( W e c h s l e r , 1 9 7 4 ) o r t h e W
e c h s l e r A d u l t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e
– R e v i s e d
h s l e r , 1 9 8 1 ) . A D H D = a t t e n t i o n d e f i c i t h y
p e r a c t i v i t y d i s o r d e r ; S E S = s o c i o e
c o n o m i c s t a t u s ( H o l l i n g s h e a d , 1 9 7 5 ) ; W R A T – R = W i d e R a n g e A c h
i e v e m e n t
R e v i s e d
( J a s t a k & J a s t a k , 1 9 8 5 ) .
G e n d e r e f f e c t w i t h i n d i a g n o s t i c s t a t u s . b A D H D e f f e c t w i t h i n g e n d e r . c D i f f e r e d f r o m t o t a l c o n t r o l g r o u p . d R e f e r s t o c u r r e n t A D H D s y m p t o m s e x p e r i e n c e d
n t h e p a
s t m o n t h .
< . 0 5 .
* * p < . 0 1 .
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 12/28
T A B
L E 2
N e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l P e r f o r m a n c e o f A l l B o y s a n d G i r l s
W i t h A D H D a n d C o n t r o l s B e t w
e e n t h e A g e s o f 9 a n d 1 7
C o n t r o l
A D H D
G i r l s a
B o y
s b
G i r l s c
B o y s d
h o l o g i c
a l T a s k
M
S D
M
S D
M
S D
M
S
D
G e n d e r
S t a t u s
I n t e r a c t i o n
t w s c o r e
8 8 . 6
1 3 . 7
8 8 . 1
1 6 . 8
7 9 . 6
1 6 . 0
8 1 . 7 1
6 . 4
t ( 3 5 6 ) = 0 . 3 , p = . 7 8 3
t ( 3 5 6 ) = – 3 . 3 , p = . 0 0 1 * *
t ( 3 5 5 ) = 1 . 2 , p = . 2 2 0
aw s c o r e
6 1 . 3
1 3 . 4
5 9 . 3
1 2 . 9
5 4 . 8
1 4 . 8
5 5 . 6 1
2 . 8
t ( 3 5 6 ) = – 2 . 0 , p = . 0 5 0 * *
t ( 3 5 6 ) = – 2 . 9 , p = . 0 0 4 *
t ( 3 5 5 ) = 1 . 5 , p = . 1 4 2
W o r d r a w s c o r e
3 5 . 5
9 . 7
3 5 . 6
1 0 . 7
2 9 . 4
1 1 . 5
3 0 . 7 1
0 . 8
t ( 3 5 6 ) = – 0 . 2 , p = . 8 5 0
t ( 3 5 6 ) = – 4 . 3 , p = . 0 0 0 * *
t ( 3 5 5 ) = 0 . 8 , p = . 4 2 9
e n c e t s c o r e
5 0 . 9
6 . 3
5 1 . 0
6 . 6
4 8 . 2
7 . 2
4 8 . 4
7 . 7
t ( 3 5 5 ) = 0 . 2 , p = . 8 2 8
t ( 3 5 5 ) = – 2 . 8 , p = . 0 0 5 *
t ( 3 5 4 ) = 0 . 1 , p = . 9 1 4
C a r d S
o r t T e s t
i e s
5 . 3
1 . 4
5 . 5
1 . 0
5 . 0
1 . 7
4 . 8
1 . 8
t ( 3 0 9 ) = – 0 . 2 , p = 8 3 2
t ( 3 0 9 ) = – 2 . 5 , p = . 0 1 3
t ( 3 0 8 ) = – 1 . 1 , p = . 2 5 9
t o m a i n
t a i n s e t
1 . 1
1 . 2
1 . 1
1 . 3
1 . 2
1 . 4
1 . 1
1 . 2
t ( 3 0 9 ) = 0 . 1 , p = . 9 1 3
t ( 3 0 9 ) = 0 . 2 , p = . 8 1 0
t ( 3 0 8 ) = – 0 . 2 , p = . 8 7 3
r a t i v e e r r o r s
1 5 . 1
1 0 . 2
1 1 . 3
7 . 9
1 7 . 1
1 2 . 8
1 6 . 7 1
1 . 7
t ( 3 0 9 ) = – 0 . 8 , p = . 4 4 9
t ( 3 0 9 ) = 2 . 3 , p = . 0 2 4
t ( 3 0 8 ) = 1 . 1 , p = . 2 8 1
s e v e r a t i v e e r r o r s
1 5 . 4
9 . 4
1 1 . 8
8 . 0
1 6 . 7
1 3 . 1
1 8 . 3 1
3 . 8
t ( 3 0 9 ) = 0 . 1 , p = . 9 3 5
t ( 3 0 9 ) = 2 . 6 , p = . 0 1 1
t ( 3 0 8 ) = 1 . 8 , p = . 0 7 2
t o t a l w o r d s
o n 5 t r i a l s
5 0 . 3
8 . 2
5 0 . 6
1 0 . 2
4 7 . 4
1 1 . 1
4 6 . 2 1
1 . 2
t ( 3 1 8 ) = – 0 . 5 , p = . 6 4 0
t ( 3 1 8 ) = – 1 . 5 , p = . 1 3 4
t ( 3 1 7 ) = – 0 . 6 , p = . 5 7 9
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 13/28
C P T
o n s
1 . 9
2 . 4
1 . 7
2 . 2
2 . 6
3 . 2
2 . 6
3 . 0
t ( 3 5 8 ) = – 0 . 3 , p = . 7 6 0
t ( 3 5 8 ) = 0 . 8 , p = . 4 2 8
t ( 3 5 7 ) = 0 . 2 , p = . 8 4 1
s s i o n s
0 . 1
0 . 3
0 . 2
0 . 4
0 . 2
0 . 5
0 . 4
1 . 2
t ( 3 5 6 ) = 1 . 7 , p = . 0 8 6
t ( 3 5 6 ) = 0 . 9 , p = . 3 6 8
t ( 3 5 5 ) = 0 . 3 , p = . 7 8 3
p o n s e s
2 . 3
2 . 3
2 . 2
2 . 3
2 . 9
3 . 1
2 . 1
1 . 9
t ( 3 6 0 ) = – 0 . 5 , p = . 6 4 1
t ( 3 6 0 ) = 0 . 8 , p = . 4 0 6
t ( 3 5 9 ) = – 1 . 5 , p = . 1 4 9
r o r s
4 . 3
3 . 9
4 . 1
3 . 5
5 . 7
5 . 0
5 . 1
4 . 4
t ( 3 5 6 ) = – 0 . 1 , p = . 9 3 7
t ( 3 5 6 ) = 1 . 3 , p = . 2 0 7
t ( 3 5 5 ) = – 0 . 8 , p = . 4 4 0
r e i t h
g a n i z a t i o n
9 . 0
3 . 3
1 0 . 5
3 . 3
8 . 6
3 . 8
8 . 5
4 . 0
—
— e
t ( 3 4 4 ) = – 2 . 4 , p = . 0 1 6 *
t a l a c c u
r a c y
6 4 . 2
2 . 5
6 4 . 2
2 . 8
6 3 . 3
3 . 9
6 2 . 9
6 . 0
t ( 3 4 4 ) = – 0 . 4 , p = . 6 7 9
t ( 3 4 4 ) = – 1 . 6 , p = . 1 0 1
t ( 3 4 3 ) = 0 . 0 , p = . 9 9 4
r g a n i z a
t i o n
7 . 6
4 . 2
8 . 9
4 . 2
7 . 0
3 . 9
7 . 3
4 . 5
t ( 3 3 5 ) = 1 . 3 , p = . 2 1 3
t ( 3 3 5 ) = – 1 . 5 , p = . 1 4 2
t ( 3 3 4 ) = – 1 . 3 , p = . 2 0 7
o t a l a c c u r a c y
4 6 . 2
9 . 6
5 2 . 0
8 . 2
4 7 . 5
1 0 . 9
4 9 . 7 1
1 . 6
t ( 3 3 5 ) = 2 . 8 , p = . 0 0 5
t ( 3 3 5 ) = 0 . 2 , p = . 8 6 9
t ( 3 3 4 ) = – 1 . 6 , p = . 1 1 5
P v a l u
e s a r e b a s e d o n t h e p r i m a r y r e g r e s
s i o n a n a l y s e s c o n t r o l l i n g s i m u l t a n
e o u s l y f o r a g e , s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a
t u s , p s y c h i a t r i c c o m o r b i d i t y , a n d l e a r n i n g d i s a b l i l i t y ;
k s i n d i c a t e a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t c o n t r o l l i n g f o r t h e s e v a r i a b l e s a n d I Q s . G e n
d e r a n d s t a t u s c o l u m n s a r e d e r i v e d f r o m m o d e l s r u n i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n
D H D = a t t e n t i o n d e f i c i t h y p e r a c t i v i t y d i s o r d e r ; W R A M L = W i d e R a n g e A c h
i e v e m e n t T e s t o f M e m o r y a n d L e a r n i n g ( A d a m s & S h e s l o w , 1 9 9 0 ) ;
C P T = C o n t i n u o u s
c e T e s t .
– 1 0 9 . S a m p l e s i z e s v a r y f o r d i f f e r e n t t e s t s d u e t o m i s s i n g d a t a . b n = 6 1 – 7 0 .
c n = 7 6 – 1 0 0 . d n = 8 6 – 9 8 . e A D H D
e f f e c t f o r b o y s , t ( 1 5 4 ) = – 2 . 7 , p = . 0 0 8 ; A D H D e f f e c t
1 9 6 ) =
– 0 . 5 , p = . 6 0 8 .
0 5 . * * p < . 0 1 .
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 14/28
There was little evidence of gender effects as only 2 of 17 models were signifi-
cant: the Stroop color score and ROCF accuracy of delayed recall. IQ correction
did not change the pattern of these results.We directly contrasted neuropsychological functioning between boys and
girls with ADHD, controlling for age, LD, symptom level, and IQ (not shown in
tables). Only 2 of 17 variables were significantly different: WCST categories
sorted and nonperseverative errors were slightly worse in boys than girls with
ADHD ( p < .05). The results were the same for analyses restricted to partici-
pants of White descent.
Neuropsychological Functioning in Unmedicated ADHD
Participants and Controls
We repeated the identical regression analyses with controls and persons with
ADHD who were unmedicated. There were significant group effects (ADHD par-
ticipants performed worse in all cases) on three variables from the Stroop and on
the WCST number of categories sorted, and nonperseverative errors, and on the
ROCF Copy organization score. Controlling for IQ tended to attenuate the results
(see Table 3).
There was no robust evidence of a Sex × Group interaction effect as only 1 of 17
variables was significant: ROCF Copy organization showed a significant effect ac-counted for by a large drop off in organization among the boys with ADHD com-
pared to male controls. IQ had little effect on these results.
Overall, there was little evidence of the effects of gender as only 3 of 17 com-
parisons were significant, and these were all on the ROCF. Controlling for IQ
tended to attenuate the results.
We evaluate whether the neuropsychological deficits observed in boys and girls
with the disorder are comparable in preteen and teenage years.
Effects of Age on Neuropsychological
Functioning in ADHD and Controls
Table 4 presents the demographic data for the age and sex stratified groups. Based
on visual inspection of the raw neuropsychological scores in Table 5, girls and
boys with and without ADHD in the 13 to 17 age group had better performance on
virtually all variables (65 of 68 comparisons) compared to those in the 9 to 12 age
group. This is consistent with our findings previously published with the sample of
boys, which showed age effects on most neuropsychological variables, but no
age-by-group interaction (Seidman, Biederman, Faraone, Weber, & Ouellette,1997). In these analyses, with the combined sample of boys and girls only 2 of the
92 SEIDMAN ET AL.
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 15/28
T A B
L E 3
N e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l T e s t P e r f o r m a n c e o f C o n t r o l s a n d U n m e d i c a t e d A D H D B o y s a n d G i r l s
B e t w e e n t h e A g e s o f 9 a n d 1 7
C o n t r o l
A D H D
G i r l s a
B o
y s b
G i r l s c
B o y s d
c h o l o g i c
a l T a s k
M
S D
M
S D
M
S D
M
S D
G e n d e r
S t a t u s
I n t e r a c t i o n
s t a w s c o r e
8 8 . 6
1 3 . 7
8 8 . 1
1 6 . 8
7 9 . 1
1 4 . 6
8 5 . 4
1 5 . 2
t ( 2 3 4 ) = 0 . 5 , p = . 6 3 3
t ( 2 3 4 ) = – 2 . 6 , p = . 0 1 1 *
t ( 2 3 3 ) = 1 . 8 , p = . 0 6 8
a w s c o r e
6 1 . 3
1 3 . 4
5 9 . 3
1 2 . 9
5 4 . 1
1 3 . 5
5 7 . 8
1 0 . 9
t ( 2 3 4 ) = – 1 . 5 , p = . 1 2 8 *
t ( 2 3 4 ) = – 2 . 8 , p = . 0 0 6 *
t ( 2 3 3 ) = 1 . 9 , p = . 0 5 9
w o r d r a w s c o r e
3 5 . 5
9 . 7
3 5 . 6
1 0 . 7
2 9 . 1
1 1 . 8
3 2 . 7
1 1 . 5
t ( 2 3 4 ) = 0 . 3 , p = . 7 6 6
t ( 2 3 4 ) = – 2 . 9 , p = . 0 0 5
t ( 2 3 3 ) = 1 . 5 , p = . 1 4 9
e n c e t s c o r e
5 0 . 9
6 . 3
5 1 . 0
6 . 6
4 7 . 2
7 . 3
4 9 . 0
8 . 7
t ( 2 3 4 ) = 0 . 7 , p = . 4 8 9
t ( 2 3 4 ) = – 1 . 8 , p = . 0 6 7
t ( 2 3 3 ) = 1 . 0 , p = . 3 1 4
C a r d S
o r t T e s t
i e s
5 . 3
1 . 4
5 . 5
1 . 0
4 . 8
1 . 8
4 . 6
1 . 9
t ( 2 0 2 ) = 0 . 9 , p = . 3 7 1
t ( 2 0 2 ) = – 2 . 0 , p = . 0 4 3
t ( 2 0 1 ) = – 0 . 6 , p = . 5 5 7
t o m a i n
t a i n s e t
1 . 1
1 . 2
1 . 1
1 . 3
1 . 3
1 . 5
1 . 1
1 . 3
t ( 2 0 2 ) = 0 . 1 , p = . 8 8 7
t ( 2 0 2 ) = 0 . 7 , p = . 4 7 0
t ( 2 0 1 ) = – 0 . 2 , p = . 8 4 0
r a t i v e e
r r o r s
1 5 . 1
1 0 . 2
1 1 . 3
7 . 9
1 6 . 6
1 4 . 3
1 6 . 4
9 . 8
t ( 2 0 2 ) = – 1 . 7 , p = . 0 9 3
t ( 2 0 2 ) = 1 . 3 , p = . 2 0 9
t ( 2 0 1 ) = 0 . 7 , p = . 4 9 3
s e v e r a t i v e e r r o r s
1 5 . 4
9 . 4
1 1 . 8
8 . 0
1 6 . 8
1 2 . 7
2 0 . 6
1 6 . 1
t ( 2 0 2 ) = – 0 . 8 , p = . 4 2 8
t ( 2 0 2 ) = 2 . 2 , p = . 0 3 3
t ( 2 0 1 ) = 1 . 8 , p = . 0 6 7
t o t a l w o r d s
o n 5 t r i a l s
5 0 . 3
8 . 2
5 0 . 6
1 0 . 2
4 7 . 3
1 0 . 9
4 7 . 1
9 . 7
t ( 2 0 9 ) = 0 . 2 , p = . 8 7 0
t ( 2 0 9 ) = – 1 . 3 , p = . 1 8 6
t ( 2 0 8 ) = – 0 . 1 , p = . 9 2 1
( c o n t i n u e d )
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 16/28
T A B L E 3 ( C o n t i n u e d )
C o n t r o l
A D H D
G i r l s a
B o
y s b
G i r l s c
B o y s d
c h o l o g i c
a l T a s k
M
S D
M
S D
M
S D
M
S D
G e n d e r
S t a t u s
I n t e r a c t i o n
C P T
o n s
1 . 9
2 . 4
1 . 7
2 . 2
2 . 7
2 . 9
2 . 4
2 . 8
t ( 2 3 4 ) = – 0 . 9 , p = . 3 8 2
t ( 2 3 4 ) = 1 . 1 , p = . 2 7 7
t ( 2 3 3 ) = – 0 . 1 , p = . 8 8 8
s s i o n s
0 . 1
0 . 3
0 . 2
0 . 4
0 . 1
0 . 4
0 . 1
0 . 4
t ( 2 3 2 ) = 1 . 7 , p = . 0 9 8 *
t ( 2 3 2 ) = – 0 . 2 , p = . 8 4 2
t ( 2 3 1 ) = – 0 . 5 , p = . 6 4 9
p o n s e s
2 . 3
2 . 3
2 . 2
2 . 3
3 . 2
2 . 6
2 . 2
2 . 1
t ( 2 3 6 ) = – 0 . 4 , p = . 7 2 6
t ( 2 3 6 ) = 1 . 1 , p = . 2 6 5
t ( 2 3 5 ) = – 1 . 7 , p = . 1 0 1
r o r s
4 . 3
3 . 9
4 . 1
3 . 5
6 . 0
4 . 9
4 . 7
4 . 4
t ( 2 3 2 ) = – 0 . 5 , p = . 6 1 3
t ( 2 3 2 ) = 1 . 4 , p = . 1 6 2
t ( 2 3 1 ) = – 1 . 2 , p = . 2 2 9
r e i t h
r g a n i z a t i o n
9 . 0
3 . 3
1 0 . 5
3 . 3
8 . 5
3 . 8
8 . 3
3 . 8
—
— e
t ( 2 2 0 ) = – 2 . 2 , p = . 0 2 7 *
t a l a c c u r a c y
6 4 . 2
2 . 5
6 4 . 2
2 . 8
6 3 . 8
1 . 8
6 2 . 9
7 . 2
t ( 2 2 1 ) = – 0 . 5 , p = . 6 0 5
t ( 2 2 1 ) = – 1 . 0 , p = . 3 3 5
t ( 2 2 0 ) = – 0 . 7 , p = . 4 7 2
r g a n i z a
t i o n
7 . 6
4 . 2
8 . 9
4 . 2
6 . 0
3 . 8
8 . 2
4 . 1
t ( 2 1 4 ) = 2 . 8 , p = . 0 0 7
t ( 2 1 4 ) = – 1 . 5 , p = . 1 2 9
t ( 2 1 3 ) = 0 . 7 , p = . 4 8 9
o t a l a c c
u r a c y
4 6 . 2
9 . 6
5 2 . 0
8 . 2
4 5 . 2
1 0 . 6
5 1 . 2
9 . 0
t ( 2 1 4 ) = 4 . 0 , p = . 0 0 0 *
t ( 2 1 4 ) = – 0 . 8 , p = . 4 4 7
t ( 2 1 3 ) = 0 . 0 , p = . 9 7 4
P v a l u
e s a r e b a s e d o n t h e p r i m a r y r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s c o n t r o l l i n g s i m u l t a n
e o u s l y f o r a g e , s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a
t u s , p s y c h i a t r i c c o m o r b i d i t y , a n d l e a r n i n g d i s a b l i l i t y ;
k i n d i c a t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t c o n t r o l l i n g f o r t h e s e v a r i a b l e s a n d I Q s . G e n d e r a n d s t a t u s c o l u m n s a r e d e r i v e d f r o m m o d e l s r u n i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n
D H D = a t t e n t i o n d e f i c i t h y p e r a c t i v i t y d i s o
r d e r ; W R A M L = W i d e R a n g e A c h i e v e m e n t T e s t o f M e m o r y a n d L e a r n i n g A d a m s & S h e s l o w , 1 9 9 0 ) ;
C P T = C o n t i n u o u s
n c e T e s t .
8 – 1 0 9 . S a m p l e s i z e s v a r y f o r d i f f e r e n t t e s t s d u e t o m i s s i n g d a t a . b n = 6 1 – 7 0 . c n = 3 5 . d n = 3 4 . e A D H D e f f e c t f o
r b o y s , t ( 9 5 ) = – 3 . 4 , p = . 0 0 1 ; A D H D e f f e c t f o r g i r l s ,
1 . 2 , p =
. 2 4 8 .
0 5 .
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 17/28
T A B L E 4
D e m o g r a p h i c C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s S
t r a t i f i e d b y A g e a n d G e n d e r
g r a p h i c
F e a t u r e b y A g e G r o u p
A D H D
C o n t r o l s
G i r l s b
B o y s
G i r l s
B o y s
M
M
M
M
– 1 2 a
e
1 0 . 4 ± 1 . 2
1 1 . 3 ± 0 . 9
1 0 . 6 ± 1 . 2
1 0
. 7 ± 0 . 8
a d e
4 . 9 ± 1 . 3
5 . 6 ± 1 . 0
5 . 2 ± 1 . 3
5
. 2 ± 0 . 8
S
1 . 9 ± 0 . 9
1 . 8 ± 0 . 9
1 . 7 ± 0 . 8
1
. 6 ± 0 . 8
c h i a t r i c c o m o r b i d i t y
4 4 % ( n = 2 4 )
6 1 % ( n = 2 5 )
5 % ( n = 3 )
1 0 % ( n = 3 )
a r n i n g d
i s a b i l i t y
1 3 % ( n = 7 )
4 7 % ( n = 1 7 )
0 % ( n = 0 )
1 6 % ( n = 4 )
d i c a t i o n s t a t u s
7 0 % ( n = 3 8
6 6 % ( n = 2 7 )
0 % ( n = 0 )
0 %
( n = 0 )
H D s y m p t o m s c
1 1 . 3 ± 1 . 8
9 . 5 ± 3 . 9
0 . 8 ± 1 . 7
1
. 4 ± 2 . 3
e s t i m a t e
1 0 4 . 6 ± 1 0 . 8
1 0 6 . 7 ± 1 4 . 5
1 0 9 . 4 ± 1 1 . 6
1 1 7
. 7 ± 1 1 . 5
R A T A r i t h m e t i c
9 6 . 8 ± 1 3 . 8
9 2 . 3 ± 1 9 . 7
1 0 6 . 6 ± 1 7 . 1
1 1 3
. 2 ± 1 8 . 4
R A T R e a d i n g
1 0 0 . 3 ± 1 5 . 8
1 0 3 . 0 ± 1 8 . 3
1 0 9 . 9 ± 1 0 . 2
1 1 1
. 1 ± 1 0 . 0
3 – 1 7 d
e
1 4 . 9 ± 1 . 4
1 4 . 9 ± 1 . 5
1 5 . 0 ± 1 . 4
1 5
. 2 ± 1 . 3
a d e
9 . 3 ± 1 . 4
9 . 2 ± 1 . 5
9 . 6 ± 1 . 6
1 0
. 0 ± 1 . 4
S
1 . 7 ± 0 . 9
2 . 0 ± 1 . 0
1 . 7 ± 0 . 8
1
. 4 ± 0 . 7
c h i a t r i c c o m o r b i d i t y
5 7 % ( n = 2 7 )
6 5 % ( n = 4 0 )
8 % ( n = 4 )
1 7 % ( n = 7 )
a r n i n g d
i s a b i l i t y
2 3 % ( n = 1 1 )
4 5 % ( n = 2 8 )
1 0 % ( n = 5 )
1 2 % ( n = 5 )
d i c a t i o n s t a t u s
6 0 % ( n = 2 8 )
6 1 % ( n = 3 8 )
0 % ( n = 0 )
0 %
( n = 0 )
H D s y m p t o m s c
1 2 . 1 ± 1 . 9
9 . 1 ± 3 . 4
2 . 0 ± 2 . 5
2
. 2 ± 2 . 9
e s t i m a t e
1 0 7 . 1 ± 1 2 . 2
1 0 5 . 2 ± 1 2 . 9
1 1 0 . 3 ± 1 0 . 4
1 1 4
. 3 ± 1 0 . 0
R A T A r i t h m e t i c
9 4 . 9 ± 1 3 . 9
9 3 . 4 ± 1 7 . 3
1 0 6 . 5 ± 1 4 . 1
1 0 7
. 5 ± 1 2 . 4
R A T R e a d i n g
1 0 1 . 1 ± 1 5 . 4
1 0 0 . 1 ± 1 4 . 9
1 1 0 . 0 ± 1 0 . 6
1 1 1
. 8 ± 1 0 . 4
o t e . A
D H D = a t t e n t i o n d e f i c i t h y p e r a c t i v i t y d i s o r d e r ; S E S = s o c i o e c o n o m
i c s t a t u s ; W R A T = W i d e R a n g e A
c h i e v e m e n t T e s t .
o r A D H
D g i r l s , n = 5 4 ; b o y s , n = 3 6 – 4 1 . F
o r C o n t r o l s g i r l s , n = 5 6 – 5 7 ; b o y s n = 2 5 – 2 9 . b S a m p l e s i z e s v a r y f o r d i f f e r e n t t e s t s d u e t o m i s s i n g d a t a . c R e f e r s t o
n t A D H
D s y m p t o m s e x p e r i e n c e d w i t h i n t h e p a s t m o n t h . d F o r A D H D g i r l s ,
n = 4 7 ; b o y s , n = 5 5 – 6 2 . F o r C o n t r o l s g i r l s , n = 5 2 ; b o y s n = 4 1 .
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 18/28
T A B L E 5
N e
u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l P e r f o r m a n c e
S t r a t i f i e d b y A g e a n d G e n d e r
A D
H D
C o n t r o l
p s y c h o l o g i c a l T a s k s b y A g e G r o u p
G i r l s b
B o y s
G i r l s
B o y s
– 1 2 a
o o p T e s
t
W o r d r a w s c o r e
7 1 . 5 ± 1 3 . 1
7 3 . 9 ± 1 5 . 1
8 4 . 7 ± 1 2 . 3
7 8
. 5 ± 1 2 . 8
C o l o r r a
w s c o r e
4 6 . 9 ± 1 1 . 4
4 7 . 8 ± 1 1 . 1
5 4 . 1 ± 1 0 . 7
5 1
. 2 ± 9 . 4
C o l o r – w
o r d r a w s c o r e
2 2 . 9 ± 7 . 8
2 4 . 3 ± 8 . 1
3 0 . 2 ± 7 . 9
2 8
. 4 ± 9 . 3
n t e r f e r e n c e t s c o r e
4 6 . 9 ± 6 . 9
4 6 . 6 ± 6 . 3
4 9 . 3 ± 6 . 2
4 8
. 7 ± 5 . 9
s c o n s i n
C a r d S o r t T e s t
C a t e g o r i e s
4 . 6 ± 1 . 9
4 . 9 ± 1 . 5
5 . 2 ± 1 . 4
5
. 3 ± 1 . 3
F a i l u r e t o m a i n t a i n s e t
1 . 2 ± 1 . 4
1 . 2 ± 1 . 2
1 . 4 ± 1 . 3
1
. 4 ± 1 . 6
P e r s e v e r a t i v e e r r o r s
2 0 . 0 ± 1 3 . 3
1 7 . 3 ± 1 1 . 7
1 7 . 1 ± 1 0 . 0
1 2
. 5 ± 8 . 9
N o n p e r s e v e r a t i v e e r r o r s
1 8 . 9 ± 1 4 . 8
1 7 . 6 ± 1 0 . 7
1 7 . 3 ± 8 . 4
1 4
. 9 ± 8 . 8
W R A M
L t o t a l w o r d s l e a r n e d o n 5 t r i a l s
4 5 . 1 ± 1 1 . 3
4 4 . 9 ± 1 0 . 7
4 8 . 5 ± 8 . 2
4 8
. 6 ± 1 0 . 9
d i t o r y C
P T
O m i s s i o
n s
3 . 3 ± 3 . 5
3 . 6 ± 3 . 3
2 . 7 ± 2 . 9
2
. 8 ± 2 . 8
C o m m i s s i o n s
0 . 3 ± 0 . 6
0 . 3 ± 0 . 7
0 . 1 ± 0 . 3
0
. 2 ± 0 . 4
L a t e r e s p o n s e s
3 . 8 ± 3 . 4
2 . 8 ± 1 . 9
3 . 1 ± 2 . 5
3
. 5 ± 2 . 4
T o t a l e r r o r s
7 . 4 ± 5 . 1
6 . 7 ± 4 . 3
6 . 0 ± 4 . 4
6
. 5 ± 3 . 5
y O s t e r r e i t h
C o p y o r
g a n i z a t i o n
6 . 8 ± 3 . 5
6 . 3 ± 3 . 4
7 . 8 ± 3 . 1
8
. 8 ± 3 . 6
C o p y t o t a l a c c u r a c y
6 2 . 3 ± 5 . 0
6 2 . 3 ± 6 . 2
6 4 . 0 ± 3 . 0
6 3
. 3 ± 4 . 2
D e l a y o r g a n i z a t i o n
5 . 3 ± 3 . 4
5 . 4 ± 3 . 6
6 . 6 ± 4 . 0
7
. 1 ± 4 . 5
D e l a y t o
t a l a c c u r a c y
4 3 . 4 ± 1 1 . 8
4 6 . 9 ± 1 1 . 5
4 5 . 2 ± 9 . 1
5 1
. 6 ± 9 . 5
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 19/28
3 – 1 7 c
o o p T e s
t
W o r d r a w s c o r e
8 9 . 1 ± 1 3 . 8
8 7 . 0 ± 1 5 . 1
9 2 . 9 ± 1 4 . 0
9 5
. 3 ± 1 6 . 0
C o l o r r a
w s c o r e
6 4 . 1 ± 1 2 . 8
6 0 . 9 ± 1 1 . 1
6 9 . 2 ± 1 1 . 4
6 5
. 4 ± 1 1 . 8
C o l o r – w
o r d r a w s c o r e
3 7 . 0 ± 1 0 . 5
3 5 . 0 ± 1 0 . 2
4 1 . 3 ± 8 . 1
4 1
. 0 ± 8 . 3
n t e r f e r e n c e t s c o r e
4 9 . 8 ± 7 . 3
4 9 . 7 ± 8 . 3
5 2 . 7 ± 6 . 1
5 2
. 6 ± 6 . 6
s c o n s i n
C a r d S o r t T e s t
C a t e g o r i e s
5 . 4 ± 1 . 4
4 . 7 ± 2 . 0
5 . 4 ± 1 . 5
5
. 7 ± 0 . 7
F a i l u r e t o m a i n t a i n s e t
1 . 1 ± 1 . 5
1 . 1 ± 1 . 1
0 . 7 ± 1 . 0
0
. 9 ± 1 . 0
P e r s e v e r a t i v e e r r o r s
1 3 . 5 ± 1 1 . 2
1 6 . 3 ± 1 1 . 8
1 3 . 1 ± 1 0 . 1
1 0
. 6 ± 7 . 2
N o n p e r s e v e r a t i v e e r r o r s
1 4 . 0 ± 1 0 . 3
1 8 . 9 ± 1 5 . 7
1 3 . 5 ± 1 0 . 1
9
. 6 ± 6 . 6
W R A M
L t o t a l w o r d s l e a r n e d o n 5 t r i a l s
5 0 . 8 ± 9 . 8
4 7 . 4 ± 1 1 . 6
5 2 . 9 ± 7 . 5
5 2
. 3 ± 9 . 3
d i t o r y C
P T
O m i s s i o
n s
1 . 7 ± 2 . 5
2 . 0 ± 2 . 5
1 . 0 ± 1 . 2
1
. 0 ± 1 . 4
C o m m i s s i o n s
0 . 0 ± 0 . 2
0 . 4 ± 1 . 4
0 . 0 ± 0 . 1
0
. 1 ± 0 . 3
L a t e r e s p o n s e s
2 . 0 ± 2 . 4
1 . 7 ± 1 . 8
1 . 4 ± 1 . 5
1
. 3 ± 1 . 6
T o t a l e r r o r s
3 . 7 ± 4 . 0
4 . 0 ± 4 . 2
2 . 4 ± 1 . 9
2
. 4 ± 2 . 4
y O s t e r r e i t h
C o p y o r
g a n i z a t i o n
1 0 . 6 ± 3 . 0
1 0 . 0 ± 3 . 6
1 0 . 3 ± 3 . 0
1 1
. 8 ± 2 . 3
C o p y t o t a l a c c u r a c y
6 4 . 5 ± 1 . 2
6 3 . 3 ± 6 . 0
6 4 . 5 ± 1 . 7
6 4
. 8 ± 0 . 4
D e l a y o r g a n i z a t i o n
9 . 0 ± 3 . 5
8 . 5 ± 4 . 6
8 . 7 ± 4 . 2
1 0
. 3 ± 3 . 3
D e l a y t o
t a l a c c u r a c y
5 2 . 1 ± 7 . 6
5 1 . 6 ± 1 1 . 4
4 7 . 2 ± 1 0 . 2
5 2
. 4 ± 7 . 2
o t e . A
D H D = a t t e n t i o n d e f i c i t h y p e r a c t i v i t y d i s o r d e r ; W R A M L = W i d e R
a n g e A c h i e v e m e n t T e s t o f M e m o
r y a n d L e a r n i n g ; C P T = C o n t i n u o u s P e r f o r -
e T e s t .
o r A D H
D g i r l s , n = 4 2 – 5 4 ; f o r b o y s , n = 3 6 – 3 9 . F o r C o n t r o l s g i r l s , n = 4 4 – 5 7
; f o r b o y s , n = 2 8 – 2 9 . b S a m p l e s i z e
s v a r y f o r d i f f e r e n t t e s t s d u e t o m i s
s i n g d a t a .
A D H D g i r l s , n = 3 4 – 4 6 ; f o r b o y s , n = 4 7 –
5 9 . F o r C o n t r o l s g i r l s , n = 4 2 – 5 2 ; f o r b o y s , n = 3 2 – 4 1 .
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 20/28
.03). In the sample restricted to girls with and without ADHD, only 2 of 17 vari-
ables measured had a significant interaction (Stroop Word Raw Score: t (207) =
2.4, p = .02; ROCF Delayed Recall Total Accuracy: t (195) = 2.1, p =.04).We looked further at these three variables to determine the effect of ADHD on
the different age groups in the full sample and in the sample of girls only. There
were no significant effects of ADHD in the younger or older group in the full sam-
ple on the WCST Failure to Maintain Set and ROCF Delayed Recall Total Accu-
racy. There was a significant effect of ADHD in the younger group of the girls sam-
ple on the Stroop Word Raw Score, t (109)= –4.0, p = .001). No significant effects
were noted in the older sample on either variable or in the younger group of the
girls sample using the ROCF Delay Total Accuracy.
DISCUSSION
Boys and girls with ADHD were significantly more impaired on some EFs than
were normal comparison participants, reflected in worse performance on the
Stroop and WCST. Effects were very similar when analyzing data in the smaller
sample of unmedicated boys and girls with ADHD, with additional impairments
observed on the ROCF organization score for the ADHD participants. The neuro-
psychological deficits are not accounted for by psychiatric comorbidity or LD.This overall pattern is not surprising because in previous separate analyses of sam-
ples of boys and girls with ADHD compared to sex-matched controls, we demon-
strated that children and teenagers with ADHD are impaired in these domains
(Seidman, Biederman, Faraone, Weber, & Ouellette, 1997; Seidman et al., 2004).
This is also consistent with a large and growing literature demonstrating EF defi-
cits in girls and boys with ADHD. Of importance, Sex × Diagnosis interactions
were found in only 10% to 15% of the variables tested, suggesting that males and
females with ADHD have largely comparable neuropsychological deficits. More-
over, consistent with an earlier report on boys with ADHD and comparisons(Seidman, Biederman, Faraone, Weber, & Ouellette, 1997), there were very few
interactions of age with diagnosis in the total sample or in the girls’ sample alone,
suggesting that neuropsychological deficits are comparable at ages 9 to 12 and 13
to 17. This is important because very few studies of ADHD have neuropsycho-
logically evaluated the teenage years. These results suggest that neuropsycho-
logical deficits in ADHD are quite similar across both age and sex, at least through
17 years of age.
Other investigators have shown that girls have attention and EF deficits (Arcia
& Conners, 1998; Breen, 1989; Castellanos et al., 2000; DeHaas, 1986; Horn et al.,1989; Houghton et al., 1999; Nigg, 1999; Rucklidge & Tannock, 2001; Schuerholz
98 SEIDMAN ET AL.
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 21/28
sample sizes, absence of both male and female controls to address normal sex dif-
ferences (Arnold, 1996), relatively limited sets of EF measures, and failure to con-
trol for psychiatric comorbidities and LDs. In this study we addressed these meth-odological concerns using a large sample of more than 200 children with ADHD
and a like number of controls, by having controls of both genders selected in com-
parable study designs, and by using a wide range of well-accepted measures of EF.
Our analyses controlled for psychiatric comorbidity and LD simultaneously. The
neuropsychological impairments on some measures were present even after these
important factors were controlled. These stringent statistical adjustments enable us
to conclude more definitively that neuropsychological deficits are a robust compo-
nent of ADHD in males and females.
The presence of very similar levels of executive deficits in girls and boys withADHD adds to an emerging body of literature that many of the clinical and
neurobiological correlates are similar in the two genders (Biederman et al., 2002).
Moreover, the existing data, albeit limited, tends to support relatively similar struc-
tural brain abnormalities. For example, Castellanos et al. (2001, 2002) demon-
strated that girls with ADHD, like boys, had smaller total brain volumes, and repli-
cated previous findings for boys in the posterior–inferior lobules of the cerebellar
vermis, compared to controls. Moreover, Castellanos et al. (2002) demonstrated
stable structural brain abnormalities across ages 4 to 18 for most of the brain re-
gions tested (with the exception of the caudate). Those data, which were derivedfrom a combination of cross-sectional and longitudinal evaluations, are consistent
with our neuropsychological data, pointing to relatively stable brain differences
and neuropsychological dysfunctions at least until the late teenage years.
The question as to whether attention, EF, and memory deficits observed in
ADHD (or in other neurocognitive disorders) are a function of IQ is a general issue
for neuropsychological studies. In previous research, we (Faraone et al., 1993),
and others (Werry, Reeves, & Elkind, 1987), have shown that IQ is associated with
ADHD. Caution must be exercised in matching for IQ (Meehl, 1970), because
controlling for IQ may remove a portion of the variance directly attributable to theindependent variable of interest (e.g., ADHD). Moreover, results should be viewed
very cautiously, when, as in this case (of IQ), the covariate shares variance with
both independent and dependent variables (Miller & Chapman, 2001). Nonethe-
less, we chose to use IQ as a covariate to provide as complete a picture as possible
of the cognitive and neuropsychological deficits in ADHD children. When we
used IQ as a covariate to determine if executive deficits are present over and above
IQ differences, although there was some attenuation of results, most impairments
on the Stroop remained significant. These results support the conclusion that some
of the executive impairments in ADHD children go beyond intellectual deficits as-sessed by IQ.
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING 99
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 22/28
fect by comparing boys and girls with ADHD, in which girls had higher symptom
levels. However, only 2 of 17 variables differed significantly between boys and
girls with ADHD. Small differences in the overall number of symptoms do not ap-pear to have a significant effect on the neuropsychological functioning in ADHD
children.
Although the overall picture did not support a Gender × Group interaction (only
1 of 17 tests was significant), the significant finding on the ROCF organization
score is intriguing. It is possible that the effect (which was confined to males with
ADHD vs. male controls) was a chance finding. Alternatively, this variable may be
more sensitive than the other tests for the age groups studied. This latter hypothesis
requires independent confirmation by evaluating the developmental sensitivity for
each of the EF measures. Given the age range studied, from 9 to 17, the effects of puberty may impact on these measures and would be important to study.
Our results must be viewed in the light of some methodological limitations.
First, the boys’and girls’ samples differed in that the boys had only White partici-
pants and the girls had a small number of non-White participants. However, the
pattern of results was virtually identical to that observed in the complete sample
when the non-White participants were excluded from the analysis. Second, as the
results are cross-sectional, we cannot test the longitudinal impact of age or gender
on ADHD or the relative effect of treatment on executive functioning. Also, the
groups were ascertained 5 years apart from each other, so cohort effects could po-tentially be misconstrued as gender effects. Nevertheless, participants were
equated on a host of variables, were drawn from the same age epoch, from the
same geographic area, and acquired using virtually identical methods from the
same group of investigators. These design features minimize the possibility that
cohort effects are operating. In addition, improved performance in the older group,
regardless of ADHD status, was documented for both the boys and girls samples.
This pattern of improvement is also consistent with the limited number of studies
that have addressed developmental issues with regard to EFs (Bedardet al., 2002).
Because the boys’ sample was originally ascertained during the era of DSM–III–R, wecompared the girls toboys using DSM–III–Rcriteria. These results
will need to be tested with participants ascertained with DSM–IV criteria to deter-
mine if the results generalize. However, there is evidence that the overlap between
cases defined by DSM–III–R and DSM–IV criteria is extensive (Biederman et al.,
1997), which suggests that our results may generalize to DSM–IV ADHD samples
with limited differences. Further studies of the DSM–IV subtypes may also be re-
vealing in relation to gender and neurocognitive function (Nigg, Blaskey,
Huang-Pollock, & Rappley, 2002). Finally, we did not explore test order effects.
However, some tests in the beginning, middle, and end of the battery discriminatedgroups, and there did not seem to be any obvious effects. Moreover, because our re-
100 SEIDMAN ET AL.
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 23/28
In summary, we found that girls with ADHD have a very similar profile of exec-
utive dysfunctions compared to boys with the disorder, and this was true in youn-
ger and older age groups. The results of this study are consistent with the idea thatthe neurobiology of ADHD is largely independent of gender and age, at least
through the late teen years. The effects of sex on neurocognition in ADHD should
be further studied in adults to determine if the pattern observed through age 17
continues throughout the life span.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported, in part, by United States Public Health Service (National
Institute of Mental Health) Grants R01MH–41314 and R01MH–50657 (to Joseph
Biederman).
We thank Katherine Crum for her assistance with this study.
REFERENCES
Adams, W., & Sheslow, D. (1990). The wide range assessment of memory and learning. Wilmington,
DE: Jastak Associates.
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd
ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd
ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th
ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Arcia, E., & Conners, C. K. (1998). Gender differences in ADHD? Journal of Developmental and Be-
havioral Pediatrics, 19, 77–83.
Arnold, L. (1996). Sex differences in ADHD: Conference summary. Journal of Abnormal Child Psy-
chology, 24, 555–569.
Barkley, R. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a
unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 65–94.
Barkley, R. A., Grodzinsky, G.,& DuPaul, G. J. (1992). Frontal lobe functions in attention deficit disor-
der with and without hyperactivity: A review and research report. Journal of Abnormal Child Psy-
chology, 20, 163–188.
Bedard, A. C., Nichols, S., Barbosa, J. A., Schachar, R., Logan, G. D., & Tannock, R. (2002). The de-
velopment of selective inhibitory control across the lifespan. Developmental Neuropsychology, 21,
93–111.
Berry, C. A., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1985). Girls with attention deficit disorder: A silent
minority? A report on behavioral and cognitive characteristics. Pediatrics, 76, 801–809.
Biederman, J., Faraone, S. V., Weber, W., Russell, R. L., Rater, M., & Park, K. S. (1997). Correspon-dence between DSM–III–R and DSM–IV attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 1682–1687.
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING 101
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 24/28
chiatric referral sources. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38,
966–975.
Biederman, J., Faraone, S. V., Keenan, K., Benjamin, J., Krifcher, B., Moore, C., et al. (1992). Further
evidence for family–genetic risk factors in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Patterns of
comorbidity in probands and relatives in psychiatrically and pediatrically referred samples. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 49, 728–738.
Biederman, J., Mick, E., Faraone, S. V., Braaten, E., Doyle, A., Spencer, T., et al. (2002). Influence of
gender on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children referred to a psychiatric clinic. Ameri-
can Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 36–42.
Breen, M. J. (1989). Cognitive and behavioral differences in ADHD boys and girls. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 30, 711–716.
Brooker, B. H., & Cyr, J. J. (1986). Tables for clinicians to use to convert WAIS–R short forms. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 42, 983–986.
Castellanos, F. X., Giedd, J. N., Berquin, P. C., Walter, J. M., Sharp, W., Tran, T., et al. (2001). Quantita-tive brain magnetic resonance imaging in girls with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 58, 289–295.
Castellanos, F. X., Lee, P. P., Sharp, W., Jeffries, N. O., Greenstein, D. K., Clasen, L. S., et al.
(2002). Developmental trajectories of brain volume abnormalities in children and adolescents
with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288,
1740–1748.
Castellanos, F. X., Marvasti, F. F., Ducharme, J. L., Walter, J. M., Israel, M. E., Krain, A., et al. (2000).
Executive function oculomotor tasks in girls with ADHD. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 644–650.
DeHaas, P. A. (1986). Attention styles and peer relationships of hyperactive and normal boys and girls.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 457–467.Delis, D. C., Kramer, J. H., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B. A. (1987). California verbal learning test–adult ver-
sion. New York: Psychological Corporation.
Denckla, M. B. (1991). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, residual type. Journal of Child Neurol-
ogy, 6, S44–S50.
Douglas, V. I. (1972). Stop, look and listen: The problem of sustained attention and impulse control in
hyperactive and normal children. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 4, 259–282.
Doyle, A. E., Biederman, J., Seidman, L. J., Weber, W., & Faraone, S. V. (2000). Diagnostic efficiency
of neuropsychological test scores for discriminating boys with and without ADHD. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 477–488.
Faraone, S. V., Biederman, J., Keenan, K., & Tsuang, M. T. (1991). A family–genetic study of girls with
DSM–III attention deficit disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 112–117.
Faraone, S. V., Biederman, J.,Krifcher Lehman, B.,Spencer,T., Norman, D.,Seidman, L., et al. (1993).
Intellectual performance and school failure in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
and in their siblings. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 616–623.
Faraone, S. V., Biederman, J., Mennin, D., Gershon, J., & Tsuang, M. (1996). A prospective four year
follow-up study of children at risk for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Psychiatric, neuropsy-
chological and psychosocial outcome. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 35, 1449–1459.
Faraone, S. V., Biederman, J., Mick, E., Doyle, A. E., Wilens, T., Spencer, T., et al. (2001). A family
study of psychiatric comorbidity in girls and boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Bio-
logical Psychiatry, 50, 586–592.
Faraone, S. V., Biederman, J., Mick, E., Williamson, S., Wilens, T., Spencer, T., et al. (2000). Family
study of girls with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157,
102 SEIDMAN ET AL.
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 25/28
Faraone, S. V., Biederman, J., & Monuteaux, M. C. (2000). Attention-deficit disorder and conduct dis-
order in girls: Evidence for a familial subtype. Biological Psychiatry, 48, 21–29.
Faraone, S. V., Biederman, J., & Monuteaux, M. C. (2001). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
with bipolar disorder in girls: Further evidencefor a familial subtype? Journal of AffectiveDisorders,
64, 19–26.
Faraone, S. V., Biederman, J., Monuteaux, M. C., Doyle, A. E., & Seidman, L. J. (2001). A psycho-
metric measure of LD predicts educational failure four years later in boys with attention deficit hy-
peractivity disorder. Journal of Attention Disorders, 4, 220–230.
Fischer, M., Barkley, R. A., Edelbrock, C. S., & Smallish, L. (1990). The adolescent outcome of hyper-
active children diagnosedby research criteria: II. Academic, attentional, andneuropsychological sta-
tus. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 580–588.
Frick, P. J., Lahey, B. B., Kamphaus, R. W., Loeber, R., Christ, M. A. G., Hart, E. L., et al. (1991). Aca-
demic underachievement and the disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 59, 289–294.Fuster, J. (1989). The prefrontal cortex (2nd ed.). New York: Raven.
Gaub, M., & Carlson, C. L. (1997). Gender differences in ADHD: A meta-analysis and critical review.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 1036–1045.
Gershon, J. (2002). A meta-analytic review of genderdifferences in ADHD. Journal of Attention Disor-
ders, 5, 143–154.
Golden, C. J. (1978). Stroop Color and Word Test: A manual for clinical and experimental use. Chi-
cago: Stoelting.
Grodzinsky, G., & Diamond, R. (1992). Frontal lobe functioning in boys with attention deficit hyperac-
tivity disorder. Developmental Neuropsychology, 8, 427–445.
Heaton, R. K., Chelune, G. J., Talley, J. L., Kay, G. G., & Curtiss, G. (1993). Wisconsin Card Sort Test
manual: Revised and expanded. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Hervey, A. S., Epstein, J. N., & Curry, J. F. (2004). Neuropsychology of adults with attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analytic review. Neuropsychology, 18, 485–503.
Hinshaw, S. P., Carte, E. T., Sami, N., Treuting, J. J., & Zupan, B. A. (2002). Preadolescent girls
with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: II. Neuropsychological performance in relation to
subtypes and individual classification. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 70,
1099–1011.
Horn, W., Wagner, A., & Ialongo, N. (1989). Sex differences in school-aged children with pervasive at-
tention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 109–125.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. New Haven, CT: Yale University, De-
partment of Sociology.
Houghton,S.,Douglas, G.,West, J.,Whiting, K.,Wall,M.,Langsford, S.,et al. (1999). Differential pat-
terns of executive function in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder according to gen-
der and subtype. Journal of Child Neurology, 14, 801–805.
Jastak, J. F., & Jastak, S. (1985). The Wide Range Achievement Test–Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak
Associates.
Kaplan, E. (1990). The process approach to neuropsychological assessment of psychiatric patients.
Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 2, 51–66.
Klorman, R., Hazel-Fernandez, L. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Fletcher, J. M., Marchione, K. E., Holahan, J.
M., et al. (1999). Executive functioning deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are inde-
pendent of oppositional defiant disorder or reading disorder. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 1148–1154.
Lezak, M. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mattes, J. A. (1980). The role of frontal lobe dysfunction in childhood hyperkinesis. Comprehensive
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING 103
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 26/28
Meehl, P. E. (1970). Nuisance variables and the expost factodesign. In M. Radner & S. Winokur (Eds.),
Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 373–402). Minneapolis, MN: University of Min-
nesota Press.
Miller, G. A., & Chapman, J. P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 110, 40–48.
Newcorn, J. H., Halperin, J. M., Jensen, P. S., Abikoff, H. B., Arnold, L. E., Cantwell, D. P., et al.
(2001). Symptom profiles in children with ADHD: Effects of comorbidity and gender. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 137–146.
Nigg, J. T. (1999). The ADHD response-inhibition deficit as measured by the stop task: Replication
with DSM–IV combined type, extension, and qualification. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
27, 393–402.
Nigg, J. T., Blaskey, L. G.,Huang-Pollock, C. L., & Rappley, M. D. (2002). Neuropsychological execu-
tive functions and DSM IV ADHD subtypes. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adoles-
cent Psychiatry, 41, 59–66.Orvaschel, H. (1985). Psychiatric interviews suitable for use in research with children and adolescents.
Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 21, 737–745.
Osterrieth, P. A. (1944). Le test de copie d’une figure complexe. Archives de Psychologie, 30,
206–256.
Pennington, B. F., Groisser, D., & Welsh, M. C. (1993). Contrasting cognitive deficits in attention defi-
cit hyperactivity disorder versus reading disability. Developmental Psychology, 29, 511–523.
Pennington, B. F., & Ozonoff, S. (1996). Executive functions and developmental psychopathology.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 51–87.
Rey, A. (1941). L’examen psychologique dans les cas d’encephalopathie traumatique. Archives de
Psychologie, 28, 286–340.
Reynolds, C. R. (1984). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. Journal of Special Educa-tion, 18, 451–476.
Rucklidge, J. J., & Tannock, R. (2001). Psychiatric, psychosocial, and cognitive functioning of female
adolescents with ADHD. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40,
530–540.
Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of children’s intelligence (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Sattler.
Schuerholz, L. J., Singer, H. S., & Denckla, M. B. (1998). Gender study of neuropsychological and
neuromotor function in children with Tourette syndrome with and without attention-deficit hyperac-
tivity disorder. Journal of Child Neurology, 13, 277–282.
Seidman, L., Biederman, J., Faraone, S., Weber, W., Mennin, D., & Jones, J. (1997). A pilot study of
neuropsychological function in ADHD girls. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adoles-
cent Psychiatry, 36, 366–373.
Seidman, L., Biederman, J., Monuteaux, M., Weber, W., & Faraone, S. V. (2000). Neuropsychological
functioning in nonreferred siblings of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 252–265.
Seidman, L. J. (1997). Neuropsychological testing. In A. Tasman, J. Kay, & J. Lieberman (Eds.), Psy-
chiatry (Vol. 1, pp. 498–508). Philadelphia: Saunders.
Seidman, L. J., Benedict, K. B., Biederman, J., Bernstein, J. H., Seiverd, K., Milberger, S., et al. (1995).
Performance of children with ADHD on the Rey–Osterrieth complex figure: A pilot neuropsy-
chological study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 1459–1473.
Seidman, L. J., Biederman, J., Faraone, S. V., Milberger, S., Norman, D., Seiverd, K., et al. (1995). Ef-
fects of family history and comorbidity on the neuropsychological performance of children withADHD: Preliminary findings. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
34, 1015–1024.
104 SEIDMAN ET AL.
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 27/28
cents from a large clinically referred sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65,
150–160.
Seidman, L. J., Biederman, J., Monuteaux, M. C., Doyle, A., & Faraone, S. V. (2001). Learning disabil-
ities and executive dysfunction in boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Neuropsychology, 15, 544–556.
Seidman, L. J., Biederman, J., Valera, E., Monuteaux, M. C., Doyle, A. E., & Faraone, S. V. (2004).
Neuropsychological functioning in girls with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with and with-
out learning disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Seidman, L. J., Biederman, J., Weber, W., Hatch, M., & Faraone, S. V. (1998). Neuropsychological
function in adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 44, 260–268.
Semrud-Clikeman, M. S., Biederman, J., Sprich, S., Krifcher, B., Norman, D., & Faraone, S. (1992).
Comorbidity between ADHD and learning disability: A review and report in a clinically referred
sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 439–448.
Sergeant, J. A., Geurts, H., & Oosterlaan, J. (2002). How specific is a deficit of executive functioningfor attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder? Behavioural Brain Research, 130, 3–28.
Sharp, W., Walter, J., Marsh, W., Ritchie, G., Hamburger, S., & Castellanos, X. (1999). ADHD in girls:
Clinical comparability of a research sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adoles-
cent Psychiatry, 38, 40–47.
Shue, K. L., & Douglas, V. I. (1992). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and the frontal lobe syn-
drome. Brain and Cognition, 20, 104–124.
Stata Corporation. (1992). Stata reference manual: Release 3.1. (6th ed.). College Station, TX: Stata
Corporation.
Teknos, K. S., Bernstein, J. H., & Seidman, L. J (2003). Performance of attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disordered children on the Rey–Osterrieth complex figure. In J. Knight & E. F. Kaplan (Eds.), The
Rey–Osterrieth Handbook (pp. 433–438). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Waber,D., & Holmes, J. M. (1985). Assessing children’s copy productions of the Rey–Osterrieth Com-
plex Figure. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 7, 264–280.
Wechsler,D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler IntelligenceScale for Children–Revised. NewYork: Psy-
chological Corporation.
Wechsler,D. (1981). Manual for the WechslerAdult Intelligence Scale–Revised. SanAntonio, TX:Psy-
chological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–III. New York: Psycho-
logical Corporation.
Weintraub, S., & Mesulam, M. M. (1985). Mental state assessment of young and elderly adults in be-
havioral neurology. In M. M. Mesulam (Ed.), Principles of behavioral neurology (pp. 71–123). Phil-
adelphia: Davis.Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test–Three administration manual. Wilmington,
DE: Wide Range.
Werry, J. S., Reeves, J. C., & Elkind, G. S. (1987). Attention deficit, conduct, oppositional, and anxiety
disorders in children: I. A review of research on differentiating characteristics. Journal of the Ameri-
can Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 133–143.
Weyandt, L. L., & Willis , W.G. (1994). Executive functions in school-aged children: Potential efficacy
of tasks in discriminating clinical groups. Developmental Neuropsychology, 10, 27–38.
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING 105
7/25/2019 Seidman, LJ- Impact of Gender and Age on Executive Functioning (2005)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seidman-lj-impact-of-gender-and-age-on-executive-functioning-2005 28/28