IDeA – A center of DIPF (German Institute for International Educational Research) and Goethe-University in cooperation with the Sigmund-FreudInstitut Frankfurt/M.
www.idea-frankfurt.eu
Are Inhibitory Deficits and Delay Aversion Independently Related to Preschool ADHD? Poster presented at the 3rd Eunethydis International Conference on ADHD, May 21st-24th 2014, Istanbul,Turkey (1,2) Merkt , Pavlina
(3) Markomichali , Joy
(4) Schröder ,
Julia (2,5) (3) Caterina Gawrilow , & Edmund Sonuga-Barke
Witold
(4) Nowakowski ,
(1) ZKPR, University of Bremen; (2) IDeA Centre; (3) DBBL, University of Southampton, (4) Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, (5) Eberhard Karls University Tübingen
Executive function (EF) deficits and delay aversion contribute independently to preschool ADHD (Sonuga-Barke, Dalen, & Remington, 2003). Children with ADHD display more inhibitory deficits and are more delay averse than control children (Dalen, Sonuga-Barke, Hall, & Remington, 2004). EF deficits show higher relations to inattention, whereas delay aversion is related to hyperactivity/impulsivity (Thorell, 2007). However, the assessment of delay aversion in preschool age is challenging. A new measure of delay aversion - the bee task - was introduced to find out whether inhibition and delay aversion are independently related to ADHD symptoms. Method Sample One hundred twenty two German children (68 girls, M-age = 6.16 years, SD = 0.38) participated three months before they entered school in spring 2013. The majority of children was born in Germany (n = 119, 97.5%) and spoke German as first language (78.7%). 81.8% of parents had visited school at least 12 years, which is equivalent to an German university-entrance diploma. Measures Day-night stroop like task. Children were asked to say the opposite (e.g. “day”) to whatever was presented in a picture on a computer screen (e.g., picture of a moon; Gerstadt, Hong, and Diamond,1994). Go/NoGo. Children had to press a key (Go) when a frequent stimulus (a blue figure) appeared on the screen, but to inhibit the response (NoGo) when an infrequent stimulus (a red figure) appeared (Berlin & Bohlin, 2002). Bee task. Children had to choose how many flowers they wanted to collect with the help of a bee in a computer game. They were able to stop the bee at any time during the flight. Marshmallow. We placed one cookie in front of the child and told them that they could eat it right away or receive a second cookie if they waited until the experimenter returned (after 20 min; Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguz, 1989). ADHD. ADHD symptoms were rated by the parents and the child’s kindergarten teachers using a German rating scale for preschool children containing the 18 criteria for ADHD as presented in the DSM and ICD which has been used in large national surveys (Döpfner & Lehmkuhl, 2000). Summary and conclusion Inhibition and delay aversion, as measured by a novel adjustable delay task - the bee task - are independently related to preschool ADHD. However, the relations are stronger for inhibition and inattention. The marshmallow task is not related to any of the other tasks. References: Berlin, L., & Bohlin, G. (2002). Response inhibition, hyperactivity, and conduct problems among preschool children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 3, 242-251. Dalen, L., Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S., Hall, M., & Remington, B. (2004). Inhibitory deficits, delay aversion and preschool AD/HD: Implications for the dualpathway model. Neural Plasticity, 11, 1–11. Döpfner, M. & Lehmkuhl, G. (2000). Diagnostik-System für Psychische Störungen im Kindes- und Jugendalter nach ICD-10 und DSM-IV (DISYPS-KJ) (2. korrigierte und ergänzte Aufl.) [Diagnostic system for psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence, 2nd ed.]. Bern: Huber. Gerstadt, C. L., Hong,Y. J., & Diamond, A. (1994). The relationship between cognition and action: Performance of children 31⁄2-7 years old on a Strooplike day-night test. Cognition, 53, 129-153. Mischel, W. Shoda,Y., & Rodriguz, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933–938. Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S., Dalen, L., & Remington, B. (2003). Do executive deficits and delay aversion make independent contributions to preschool attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 1335–1342. Thorell, L. (2007). Do delay aversion and executive function deficits make distinct contributions to the functional impact of ADHD symptoms: A study of early academic skill deficits. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 48, 1061–1070.
[email protected]
Results The time children waited in the marshmallow test is not related to any other measure (see Table 1). Therefore, it was not included into the regressions. Table 1 Correlations of Age, Inhibition, Delay and ADHD Symptoms 1. Age 2. Day-night stroop 3. Go/NoGo 4. Bee task 5. Marshmallow 6. ADHD 7. Inattention 8. Hyperactivity/ impulsivity
1. 1
2. 3. 4. .132 .265** .151 1 .357** .156 1
.213 1
5. 6. 7. 8. .072 .008 -.038 .039 .084 -.284** -.294** -.248** .170 -.290** -.345** -.217* .093 -.235** -.247** -.200* 1 -.143 -.155 -.117 1 .915** .955** 1 .754** 1
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01. Results of hierarchical regressions showed that if inhibition was entered in the first step it explained 12% of the variance in ADHD symptoms (see Table 2). Delay aversion entered in the second step, added on a marginally significant level. If delay aversion was entered in the first step it explained 5% of the variance in ADHD symptoms and inhibition added to the prediction in the second step. The total amount of explained variance in ADHD symptoms was 15%. There were no differential relation of inhibition and delay aversion to the symptoms domains of inattention (R2 = 18%) and hyperactivity/impulsivity (R2 = 10%). Table 2 Hierarchical Regression Predicting ADHD Symptoms through Measures of Inhibition and Delay Aversion Model 1 Step 1 Day night stroop Go/NoGo R2 Step 1 Step 2 Bee task R2 Step 2 Model 2 Step 1 Bee task R2 Step 1 Step 2 Day night stroop Go/NoGo R2 Step 2
ADHD (sum) Inattention
Hyperactivity/ Impulsivity
-.207* -.216* 12.1%*
-.196* -.276* 15.3%*
-.196* -.147 8.1%*
-.166+ 14.7%*
-.166 17.9%
-.164 10.1%
-.232* 5.5%*
-.247* 6.1%*
-.200* 4.0%*
-.192* -.186* 14.7%*
-.180* -.246* 17.9%*
-.183+ -.120 10.1%*
Note. + p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
