Stroop interference and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A review and meta-analysis
Stroop interference and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A review and meta-analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0894-4105.21.2.251
复制
发表时间：
2007-03-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
van Engeland, Herman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lansbergen, Marieke M.;Kenemans, J. Leon;van Engeland, Herman
以前的综述和荟萃分析，解决异常Stroop干扰注意力缺陷多动障碍（ADHD）产生了混合的结果。本研究的作者认为，这种不一致性可能反映了两种常用的Stroop干扰量化方法-差异评分法和Golden方法（C。J. Golden，1978年）。戈尔登的方法校正基本字阅读是不够的，差异得分是敏感的结果变量的性质。后者可以用比率分数来补救。与之前的荟萃分析相比，该荟萃分析涵盖了所有年龄组和所有Stroop检验变量，并排除了使用Golden量化方法的研究。在所有研究中，通过相对于对照评分的差异评分量化的ADHD干预的平均效应量为0.24，但每项时间研究为1.11;结果变量是一个重要的调节变量，反映了差异评分对该变量的敏感性。对19项研究中比率分数的一致性分析显示，ADHD组相对于对照组受到更多的干扰。它的结论是，干扰控制是一贯妥协的个人多动症。
Previous reviews and meta-analyses that addressed abnormal Stroop interference in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) yielded mixed results. The authors of the present study argue that the inconsistencies may reflect the problematic nature of 2 frequently used methods to quantify Stroop interference-the difference score and Golden's method (C. J. Golden, 1978). Golden's method correction for base-word reading is inadequate, and the difference score is sensitive to the nature of the outcome variable. The latter can be remedied with a ratio score. Contrasting previous meta-analyses, this meta-analysis covers all age groups and all Stroop test variants, and it excludes studies using the Golden quantification method. Mean effect sizes for interference in ADHD as quantified by difference scores relative to control scores were 0.24 across all studies but 1.11 for time-per-item studies; outcome variable was a significant moderator variable, reflecting the sensitivity of the difference score to this variable. Consistency analysis of ratio scores across 19 studies reveals more interference for the ADHD groups relative to the control groups. It is concluded that interference control is consistently compromised in individuals with ADHD.