{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

77%20Attention%20and%20impulsivity%20characteristics%20of%20the%20biological%20

77%20Attention%20and%20impulsivity%20characteristics%20of%20the%20biological%20

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–11. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
Image of page 5

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 8
Image of page 9

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 10
Image of page 11
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Amer. J. Orthopsychiat. 56(3). July I986 ATTENTION AND' IMPULSIVITY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BIOLOGICAL AND AOOPTIVE PARENTS OF HYPERACTIVE AND NORMAL CONTROL CHILDREN Jody Alberts-Corush. Ph.D.. Philip Firestone, Ph.D.. John T. Goodman. Ph.D. 0n tests comparing I 76 biological and adoptive parents of hyperactive and normalcontrol children, biological parents of h yperactives evidenced more attentional difficulties, slower mean reaction times, and fewer correct recognitions than did the other parents. They showed no significant dif- ferences in impulsivity. A familial association between childhood hyperac- tivity and attentional deficits in the biological parents was suggested, as was the persistence of attentional difficulties as compared to impulse con- trol problems. Hyperactivity is a leading cause of child clinical referrals, accounting for approximately one-third of all diag- nosed psychiatric disorders in school age children.35 Studies ofthe incidence of hyperactivity in the general popula- tion is variably estimated to range from 3% to 10%.21 Although physical over- activity has historically been identified as the major component of hyperactiv- ity, the recent diagnostic category re- visions in the DSM-III indicate a shift in -viewpoint from overactivity to a dis- order of attention as the most central factor in the disorder. As Whalen“3 aptly pointed out, it is no longer necessary to prove that hyperac- tivity exists. Nevertheless, despite the general acceptance of the reality of hyperactivity as a clinical phenomenon, relatively little is known of its etiological roots although recent theories have fo- cused on biologically-based factors. Of particular interest to the present investi- gation has been the work on family morbidity and risk. Several papers have reported a higher incidence of psychopathology in the parents of hyperactive children when compared with control groups.’- 27 When the par- ents of hyperactive children were com- pared to the parents of psychiatric out- patient children, a higher incidence of antisocial personality and hysten'a was found in the former than in the latter group. Both groups appeared to have a higher than normal incidence 'of alco- holism and the parents of the psychiatric A revised version of a paper submitted to the Journal in January I986. Authors are at: Department of Psychology. Ottawa Board of Education (Alberts-Corush), Child Study C enter. School of Psychology. University of Ottawa (Firestone). and Department of Psychology, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (Goodman). © 1986 American Orthopsychiatric Association. Inc. 413 414 population evidenced a higher incidence of schizophrenia and schizophreniform psychoses than the parents of hyperac- tives.“ In support of a genetic hypothesis to explain the higher incidence of psychopathology in the parents of hy- peractives as compared to controls, several adoption studies have found support for a greater frequency of dis- orders in the biological parents of hyperactive children when compared to the adoptive parents of hyperac- tives.2- "- 37 Finally, further but limited support for a genetic etiology for hyperactivity has been presented by Lopez.22 whose study of ten sets of twins found a 100% concordance rate for hyperactivity in the monozygotic pairs and only a [7% concordance in the dizygotic pairs. In addition to the family risk studies, research concern as to the course and long-term prognosis of hyperactivity into adolescence and adulthood has served to broaden the area of study of this complex disorder. The findings of an increasing number of prospective longitudinal studies since I970 indicate that while the problems of physical overactivity and distractibility evi- dence some improvement, the atten- tional deficits and impulse control problems endure into adolescence and adulthood!“ '6- '9- 4' Impulsive and immature-dependent personality dis- orders have been reported to be more frequently diagnosed in hyperactives than in controls.'7 Independent inves- tigators examining other areas of psychopathology have retrospectively linked adult impulse and personality disorders with childhood hyperactiv- ity.'5- ’3 The recent studies suggest that there is a chronic. developmental com- ponent to hyperactivity. Moreover, the findings raise important questions re- garding the role that familial and envi- PARENTS OF HYPERACTIVES ronmental factors may play in the psychosocial outcome in hyperactive teenagers and adults. Reviews by Dubeyl0 and McMahonl3 have pointed out several flaws in the family risk research, including poor diagnostic procedures for the popula- tions being studied, lack of homogeneity of the groups. poor sampling proce- dures, lack of “blindness" as to diag- nostic groups being studied by the in- vestigators, and the lack of well-known standardized assessment tools in the measurement of the psychological char- acteristics in question. Despite these criticisms, the large number of studies involved strongly suggests a familial as- sociation for hyperactivity in which ge- netic factors are of major importance. In the present study more empirical measures of psychological functioning were utilized in an attempt to answer one major question: do the parents of hyperactive" children Show the same cognitive deficits as the hyperactive children? In order to answer this, the biological and adopted parents of hyperactives and normal controls were set the experimental tasks on which hyperactives have demonstrated poor performance—namely. those related to attention and impulse control. METHOD Subjects Forty-three hyperactive children and their families participated in the study. The children were selected from the files of the department of psychology of the Children‘s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in Ottawa. Twenty-five were the biological offspring of the parents under investigation and 18 were adopted before six months of age. The children were required to meet the following criteria for the study: I) having been referred by a pediatrician who sus- pected hyperactivity; 2) having' been ALBERTS-CORUSH ET AL diagnosed as hyperactive’by a registered psychologist (PF) in accordance with DSM-III criteria for Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; 3) having, received "a’Co'nners’s Teacher Hyperac-v ‘ tivity lndex (HI) score of LS or higher on the teachers' rating scale.’ A total of 25 biological and 20 adopted normal—control children and their par- ents participated in the study. The 25 biological and two of the adopted nor- mal controls were selected from the medical records of CHEO. After the identification and acceptance of partici- pation by the parents of the hyperactive index case, the name of a prospective normal control child was drawn from the next medical record to occur chronologically after that of the hy-' peractive child. Another 18 adopted nonnal comrols were solicited through ,an advertisement in the local newspa- pers. These children met the follOWing criteria: I) no history of learning Or be- havior problems; 2) no history of psychotropic medication; 3) no hos- pitalization for more than one four-day period during the previous 36 months; 4) Conners’s Teachers‘ Hyperactivity Index less than 1.0;5) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) [Q at least 85. The subjects in the study were the 176 (88 sets) biological and adoptive parents of these children. The parenting couples had maintained intact relationships from the time of birth or adoption at six months of age or earlier. Adoptions by biological relatives were excluded. Rating Scales Shipley Institute of Living Scale. This scale was originally devised as a mea- sure of organic pathology and cognitive deterioration” but is presently used as a brief screening measure of the subject‘s current level of intellectual functioning. Several investigators have found corre- lations between the Shipley Scale and 415 the full-scale WAIS score to range from .78 to .90.3°- 3" Porteus Maze Test. The test was originally developed as a supplement to the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale .in identifying mental retardation.“-32 More recently, it has been reported to be a valid and reliable measure of planning ability,judgment, impulsiveness. atten- tion, and ability to delay gratifica- tion.“ ‘° In a discriminant analysis of 27 measures frequently used to distinguish between hyperactive and normal con- trol children, Homatidis and Konstan- tareas'“ found that the Po‘rteus Maze Test was one of only three measures needed to discriminate accurately be- tween their sample of hyperactive and normal control boys. An automated ver- sion of the Porteus Maze Test was used in the investigation. The instrument automatically recorded three scores: the number and duration of contacts with the sides of the maze pathway, and the total time to the completion of the maze. Span of Apprehension. The Span of Apprehension is a task which measures the amount of information that can be simultaneously processed during a brief visual presentation. Based on early signal detection procedures, Estes“ de- veloped a measure that taps the varia- bility of attention span. The task was designed to minimize the effects of memory or motivational influences. The subject is required to make a forced- choice letter recognition response to oneof two signal letters (i.e.. the letterT or F) upon a tachistoscopic exposure of short duration."8 The Span of Ap- prehension Task has frequently been used in research with schizophrenic children and adults.‘ Neale and his co- workers” asserted that the reduction in correct detections on the Span task rep- resents a true deficit in attention. Re- cently. Denton8 found differences be- tween hyperactive and normal control 416 boys on the Span test. In the present study, the target stimuli were embedded in arrays containing either 0, 4, or 8 ad- ditional irrelevant letters (i.e., matrices of l, 5, or 9 letters). Reaction Time Apparatus. The de- layed reaction time task (DRT) has often been used as a measure of attentional processes. The task has been found to discriminate between hyperactive and normal children“- ‘3- '4 as well as to be drug-sensitives' ‘2 (see Firestone” for a full description). This task results in two dependent measures. The first is of mean reaction time (RT) measured in milliseconds. The second is of unneces- sary responses to the various stimuli; these are recorded and designated Ex- traneous Responses (RTEXT). Procedures Following the telephone contact and the family‘s acceptance of involvement in the study, a Conners‘s Teachers‘ Rating Scale was sent to the index child’s teacher for'completion and return. After the rating scale was returned and an ap- propriate hyperactivity criterion was achieved, the parents were contacted to arrange an appointment at their family’s convenience. Each hyperactive and normal control index child was tested alone in a small room free of extraneous visual and au- PARENTS OF HYPERACTIVES ditory stimuli. The PPVT was adminis- tered in one period of approximately 15 minutes. The parents were tested sepa- rately with a battery of five tests. These were presented in random order for each partner, all five in a single session of approximately two hours. All tests were administered in accordance with stan- dard instructions. ' RESULTS Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) sig- nificant at .05 or less were followed by tests of simple effects. The analyses re- vealed sigiiificant differences between the groups on the PPVT'and the HI, F(1,84) = 5.21. p<.03, and F(l,84) = 757.27, p<.001 respectively (TABLE 1). The results indicated that the normal control children had higher IQs than the hyperactives and, not surprisingly, the hyperactive children were rated as more hyperactive: There was no differente between the groups on the age factor. Demographic Variables The ANOVAs on the demographic variables (TABLE 2) revealed that the adoptive parents as a group were older than the biological parents, F(1, 168) = 26.92, p<.001. and that mothers were younger than fathers, F(l,l68)=4.27, p<.04. Table 1 MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVlATlONS OF CHILDREN FOR AGE, IQ, AND CONNERS‘S TEACHER HYPERACTIVITY INDEX (CTHI) BIOLOGICAL ADOPTED , BIOLOGICAL ADOPTED NORMAL NORMAL HYPERACTIVE HYPERACTIVE CONTROL CONTROL VARIABLE CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN cHILDREN Age 9.55 9.57 9.53 9.44 (1.32)- (1.31) (1.33) (1.43) PPVT-IQ 111.92 116.00 119.60 121.20 (15.73) (11.75) (14.49) (10.65) CTHI 1.84 1.76 .23 .25 (.30) (.35) (.21) (.19) ' Standard Deviations are given in parentheses. ALBERTS-CORUSH ET AL 417 Table 2 MOTHERS' AND FATHERS' GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR AGE. IQ. AND LEVEL OF EDUCATION VARIABLE BH Age (115) Mothers 33.64 (4-63? Fathers 36.04 (5.69) IO Mothers 106.40 (8.89) Fathers 108.92 (8.87) Education (yrs) Mothers 11.88 (2.26) Fathers 12.24 (3.56) Family Income 27.85 (thousands) (12.15) BH: Biological parents of hyperactive children (N=25) AH: Adoptive parents of hyperactive children (N=18) AH 3c AC 39.69 36.04 38.95 (6.41) (4.70) (5.60) 41.83 37.32 40.30 (6.73) (5.22) (6.34) 113.61 114.72 114.90 (6.48) (6.28) (7.51) 115.26 116.32 118.95 (10.60) (7.87) (7.16) 13.67 14.23 14.55 (1.65) (2.36) (1.91) 15.17 14.97 .. 15.70 (2.96) (2.73) (2.99) 31.06 30.88 32.75 (11.34) (10.61) (12.69) BC: Biological parents of normal control children (N=25) AC: Adoptive parents of normal control children (N=20) ' Standard Deviations are given in parentheses. 'The analyses of the {(25 revealed a significant Group x Relationship in- teraction, F( l ,68)=4.8 l , p <.03. Results of the simple main effects analyses indi- cated that the biological parents of hyperactive children (BH) had lower IQs than the adoptive parents of hyperactive children (AH) and the biological parents of normal control children (BC). No IQ differences were found between the adoptive parents of normal control children (AC) and the AH group or between the AC and BC groups. In addition, there was a signifi- cant main effect for Sex, indicating that fathers obtained higher IQ scores than mothers, F(l,l68)=4.0[, p<.05. The results of the ANOVA for years of education indicated a significant in- teraction for Group >< Relation, F(l , l68)=4.50,p<.04, as well as signifi- cant main effects for all three main fac- tors. The results of the tests of simple main effects indicated that the BH group completed fewer years of education than the AH and the BC groups..No difference in years of education Was- found between the AC and the AH or between the AC and the BC. Further- more, fathers completed more school than mothers, F(l,l68)=5.58, p<.02. Correlational analyses were undertaken and several correlations, all low, were found to exist between the demographic and the attention variables, ranging from 'r=.l7 to r=.28, irrespective of sign. The amount of variance shared in common between any combination of demographic and dependent measure was also low, ranging from r2=.03 to r2=.06. Keppel20 has proposed that“the main criterion for a control variable is a high correlation with the independent variable." Similarly, Winer“Z has cau- tioned about the employment of co- variates in factorial designs. Because the correlations between the dependent variables and the demographic variables were so low and the shared variance so small, it was decided that analysis of variance would be the preferred proce- dure. 418 Dependent Measures A MANOVA was conducted on the five attention variables resulting in a significant Group effect F(S, l64)=8.03, p<.00i; Relation effect F(5.l64)=3.56, p<.004; Sex effect F(5,I64)=2.90, p<.02; and Group x RelatiOn interac- tion F(S, i64)=3.77, p<.003. Therefore, 2x2><2 ANOVAS were undertaken for each attention variable. TABLE 3 con- tains the scores on the DRT and Span Apprehension tasks. ANOVAS on the RT achieved significance for Group F(l,l68)=28.6l. p<.001; for Relation F(l,l68)=8.24, p<.01; and for Sex F(l,l68)=ll.88, p<.001; and on the Group x Relation interaction F( i , I68)=9.88, p<.002. The » tests of simple main effects revealed the ' BH had slower mean reaction time than PARENTS OF HYPERACTIVES the AH and the BC. No differences in reaction time were found between the AC and the BC or between the AC and the AH groups (FIGURE 1). In addition, mothers had slower mean reaction times than fathers. The analyses of the RTEXT and Span Size I yielded no statistically significant effects. The ANOVA on Span Size 5 (FIGURE 2) indicated statistically significant dif— ferences for Group F(l,168)=4.21, p<.04 and on the Group x Relation in- teraction F(l,l68)=6.44, p<.01. Tests for simple main effects revealed that the BH had fewer correct recognitions than the BC and the AH. The AC were not different from the BC and the AH. The Span Size 9 ANOVA (FIGURE 3) produced a significant Group effect F(I,168)=I3.32, p<.OOI', a significant Table 3 MOTHERS AND FATHERS GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE FIVE ATTENTION VARIABLES VARIABLE BH RT Mothers 367.50 (59.04)‘ Fathers 328.57 (65.07) RTEXT Mothers . 2.92 (2.78) Fathers 2.56 (2.57) Span Size 1 Mothers 29.96 (.20) Fathers 29.96 (.20) Span Size 5 Mothers 29.28 (-94) Fathers 29.28 (1.28) Span Size 9 Mothers 27.36 (1.58) Fathers 26.96 (1.97) BH: Biological parents of hyperactive children (N=25) AH: Adoptive parents of hyperactive children (N=1B) AH ac AC 308.92 306.08 295.19 (40.56) (54.72) (44.47) 298.14 270.62 284.21 (38.26) - (33.18) (38.71) 2.22 2.04 2.20 (1.83) (2.13) (2.29) 2.50 2.24 2.35 (2.36) (2.07) (1.93) 29.89 30.00 29.90 (.32) (.00) (.31) 30.00 29.96 29.95 (.00) (.20) (.22) 29.83 29.76 29.70 (38) (60) (30) 29.78 29.84 29.70 (55) (.63) (.30) 28.81 28.76 28.30 (.98) (.93) (1.17) 28.28 28.32 28.60 (1.57) (1.48) (1.35) BC: Biological parents of normal control children (N=25) AC: Adoptive parents at normal control children (N=20) ' Standard Deviations are given in parentheses. ALBERTS-CORUSH ET AL Figure 1 MEAN DELAYED REACTION TIMES OF PARENTAL GROUPS \Ictl I _.L__ g r- ! T I m. E -J g o——-—————-—-—°:z-a -4 f _ WHWI Relation effect F(‘1,i68)e7.02, p<.0l; and a significant Group x Relation in- teraction F(l,l68)=9.96, p<.002. Re- sults of the tests of simple main effects indicated that the BH had fewer correct recognitions on Span Size 9 than the BC and the AH. No differences in correct recognitions on Span Size 9 were found between the AH and the AC or between the AC and the BC. A MANOVA conducted on the im- pulsivity variables of the Porteus Maze Test proved to be nonsignificant and consequently no further analyses were conducted. DISCUSSION The 'results of the present study provide strong evidence for a familial association between childhood hyper- activity and attentional deficits in the biological parents of hyperactive children. As anticipated. the biological parents of hyperactive children exhib- ited more attentional difficulties than 419 the other groups of parents as reflected by slower mean reaction times on the DRT task and fewer correct recog- nitions with increasing matrix size on the Span of Apprehension Task. In ad- dition. it was confirmed that the adop- tive parents of normal controls did not differ from the adoptive parents of hyperactives or the biological parents of controls on these attention measures. The hypothesis of greater impulsivity, as measured by the Maze test, in the biological parents of hyperactive chil- dren was not confirmed. The demographic variables also yielded interesting findings: The bio- logical parents of children Were found to be significantly younger than the adoptive parents. Thus may be ex- plained by the fact that adoptive parents often have spent time trying to conceive their own child and then have to undergo a lengthy screening process by adoption Figure 2 NUMBER OF CORRECT RECOGNITIONS ON SPAN OF APPREHENSION TASK WITH EIVE ELEMENTS BY PARENTAL GROUPS In "a Mun-mu- —l-I-ll 5 E .l__L_._l__.,._l___.l__.L...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern