Poster F37, Tuesday, March 28, 8:00 – 10:00 am, Pacific Concourse
Inhibition and Updating Abilities Predict Dyslexia and Comorbid Dyslexia- Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children
Caoilainn Doyle1, Lorraine Boran1, Alan Smeaton1, Geraldine Scanlon1; 1Dublin City University
Dyslexia and ADHD appear behaviorally distinct, yet, high comorbidity suggests shared neurocognitive underpinnings. Executive function (EF) is a candidate factor for explaining both, as it appears to be a trans-diagnostic factor differentially implicated in neuro-developmental conditions. Despite extensive research, it is unclear how EF is implicated in dyslexia and comorbid dyslexia-ADHD. Addressing methodological issues from previous EF profiling studies this study aims to examine EF in both conditions using Miyake’s 3-factor model, and explore the predictive ability of EF for diagnoses of both conditions. Seventy one children (27 dyslexia, 15 comorbid, 28 control) aged 10-12 years completed a battery of executive function (inhibition, updating and switching) and reading measures. Applying a Bonferroni correction (p<.004), dyslexia and comorbid dyslexia-ADHD demonstrated significant impairments relative to controls on inhibition (dyslexia: F(1,53)= 9.29, =9.29, p=.004, d=1.01; comorbid: F(1,40)=11.55, p=.002, d=1.49) and reading (dyslexia: F(1,54)=56.60, p=.000, d=2.0; comorbid: F(1,42)=59.58, p=.000, d=2.47); and a trend (p<.05) for impairments on updating (dyslexia: F(1,53)=5.68, p=.021, d=.86; comorbid: F(1,41)=8.49, p=.006, d=1.28). Both groups (dyslexia and comorbid dyslexia-ADHD) did not significantly differ from each other on EF or reading measures. Inhibition and updating scores significantly predicted both conditions (dyslexia: X2(2) =20.86, p<.001, R2=.42 (Nagelkerke); comorbid: X2(2) =24.10, p<.001, R2=.61 (Nagelkerke)), demonstrating good classification (dyslexia: sensitivity: 77.8%, specificity: 78.6%; comorbid: sensitivity: 78.6%, specificity: 100%) and accuracy (dyslexia: AUC=.825, 95% CI: .72-.94; p=.000; comorbid: AUC=.901; 95% CI: .77-1.0; p=.000). Results suggest inhibition and updating are shared neurocognitive factors implicated in both conditions, and may be candidate factors for targeted intervention.
Topic Area: EXECUTIVE PROCESSES: Other