Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Jul 24.
Published in final edited form as: J Sch Psychol. 2025 Jul 24;111:101485. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2025.101485

Examining social withdrawal in relation to academic enablers in students with and without cognitive disengagement syndrome

R Elizabeth Capps a,*, Stephen P Becker b,c
PMCID: PMC12357054  NIHMSID: NIHMS2104077  PMID: 40816873

Abstract

Students’ social behaviors are associated with academic enablers and academic outcomes. However, social withdrawal, a key correlate of youth with cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS), has not been examined in relation to academic enablers. In this cross-sectional study, we examined associations between teacher-reported social withdrawal and academic enablers, and also whether associations differed for students with or without teacher-reported elevations in CDS. We hypothesized that social withdrawal would be significantly associated with each academic enabler and that CDS would significantly moderate each association. Participants were 257 2nd-5th grade students (Mage = 8.79, 36.6% female) with (n = 129) and without (n = 128) elevated CDS symptoms. In regression analyses controlling for family income, medication use, and ADHD symptom severity, higher social withdrawal was independently associated with lower interpersonal skills, CDS status was uniquely associated with lower motivation, and both social withdrawal and CDS status were uniquely associated with lower engagement. Results from interaction models indicated that higher social withdrawal was associated with lower study skills and lower homework self-regulation for students with CDS but not for students without CDS. Findings point to the potential importance of social withdrawal for the academic enabler behaviors of elementary students, particularly for students with clinically-elevated CDS symptoms. Implications of these results have the potential to inform both assessment and intervention in school to support students’ academic functioning.

Keywords: Academic enablers, Asocial, Homework, Sluggish cognitive tempo, Study skills, Withdrawal

The importance of students’ social behaviors on learning has long been noted (see Bandura, 1997; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). Specifically, social behaviors are associated with academic enablers, which are skills that facilitate students’ academic learning (DiPerna & Elliott, 2002). One aspect of students’ social behavior that has specifically been tied to learning academic skills is social withdrawal (see Rubin & Burgess, 2001). However, connections between social withdrawal and enablers have yet to be studied. Further, it is important to evaluate connections between social withdrawal and academic enablers in students with cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS). CDS refers to a set of attentional difficulties including slowed behavior/thinking, excessive daydreaming, seeming to be in a fog, and mental confusion (Becker, 2025; Becker & Barkley, 2018). Students with CDS tend to exhibit social withdrawal as a key characteristic of their social functioning (see Fredrick & Becker, 2023a), and they commonly experience difficulties in academic functioning (Becker et al., 2022). Thus, understanding how social withdrawal is associated with academic enablers and how this association may be unique to students with CDS can highlight important directions for intervention to support their academic functioning.

1. Social behavior and academics

Theory and empirical evidence support that students’ social behaviors (e.g., social interactions and relationships) with peers and adults promote academic skill development and academic outcomes. Vygotsky (1978) emphasized the importance of social exchange within an individual’s zone of proximal development that results in learning. In addition, Bandura (1997) centered the importance of social interaction in learning by positing that youth learn by listening to and imitating other people. Thus, according to these two theorists, effective interactions with others play a crucial role in student learning. Additionally, social relationships are theorized to serve as a motivator for learning. Specifically, social relationships that fulfill youth’s needs are thought to facilitate students’ motivation to learn and appropriately interact with others (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Empirical evidence largely supports theoretical links between social behaviors and academic outcomes. For example, positive associations have been found between peer acceptance and academic skills (Kiuru et al., 2015). Research has also shown a positive link between middle school-aged students’ prosocial behaviors with peers (Wentzel, 1993) and teachers’ ratings of elementary-aged students’ social skills with peers and adults (Malecki & Elliott, 2002) with higher academic achievement. Yet, studies demonstrating an association between social behaviors with academic achievement do not provide evidence of how social behaviors are associated with skill development. Understanding these associations is important because these prosocial skills can be targeted in intervention and classroom practices to promote academic achievement. Additionally, recent policy initiatives, such as adoption of classroom Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports (https://www.pbis.org/), underscores the importance of schools promoting these skills in and of themselves to support students’ functioning (see Garcia, 2014).

1.1. Academic enablers

Included in this group of school-related prosocial skills are academic enablers. Rather than achievement outcomes, academic enablers are behaviors students engage in that allow them to participate in the academic environment and achieve (DiPerna & Elliott, 2002). Thus, academic enablers can be thought of as a means to academically achieve. Academic enablers include interpersonal skills, study skills, engagement, and motivation. In their theoretical model of academic enablers, a student’s skills interacting with others serves as the starting point for other academic enablers that ultimately leads to achievement (DiPerna et al., 2002). Research supports positive associations between students’ interpersonal skills and study skills and between interpersonal skills and reading achievement (DiPerna et al., 2002), highlighting that academic enablers include aspects of social functioning that are associated with achievement. Academic enablers are influenced by many environmental factors, including interactions with others in the classroom (see Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). Evidence suggests that teacher practices that enhance teacher-student relationship quality are positively associated with academic enablers (Owens et al., 2021), and negative peer relationships may portend low academic enablers (Buhs et al., 2006). As active participants in these interactions and consistent with academic enabler theory, it is reasonable to expect that students’ own behaviors may influence these interactions and influence academic enablers. Thus, to promote students’ development of academic enablers in the classroom, it is important to understand how students’ behaviors within interactions are associated with them. Understanding this association may point to important areas of assessment and targets of intervention for school psychologists.

1.2. Homework performance

In addition to academic enablers, students’ homework performance also represents a key area for promoting student success (Cooper et al., 2006). Serving as an opportunity for students to practice skills developed in the classroom, homework performance represents a relevant construct to academic enablers, notably study skills, as homework performance may capture the product of academic enablers in the classroom. Homework performance also accounts for teacher support of students’ homework (see Power et al., 2015), and thus social interactions between students and teachers may also play a critical role. Understanding the association between students’ social behaviors and homework performance is important for supporting student functioning by targeting a key area of school functioning.

1.3. Developmental considerations

Understanding these associations is particularly important in the later elementary-aged years. First, in general education settings, associations between some academic enablers and academic achievement may be even more critical in older elementary-aged students compared to younger elementary-aged students (Anthony et al., 2021). Specifically, Anthony et al. (2021) found that the effects of study skills on academic outcomes were stronger for older (fourth through fifth grade) than younger (kindergarten through third grade) elementary students. Similarly, the researchers found that the effect of interpersonal skills on academic outcomes through study skills was stronger for older rather than younger elementary students (Anthony et al., 2021). This suggests that for all students, even though associations between academic enablers and achievement are important at all ages, they are particularly important during the late elementary years.

2. Social withdrawal

Despite the importance of understanding social functioning in relation to academic enablers to support student learning, one aspect of student social functioning that is not well-studied in its connection to academic enablers is social withdrawal. Social withdrawal refers to a youth’s isolation from peers (Rubin et al., 2009) for a variety of reasons, including social disinterest or shyness (Rubin et al., 2009), but is not due to exclusion by peers (see Rubin & Chronis-Tuscano, 2021). Social withdrawal is associated with poorer peer functioning (see Rubin et al., 2009). Specifically, social withdrawal has been found to be positively associated with peer exclusion, negatively associated with prosocial behaviors with peers (Coplan et al., 2004), and associated with a greater likelihood of being disliked by peers compared to youth who do not evidence social withdrawal (Ollendick et al., 1990). In addition, social withdrawal is associated with less close student-teacher relationships (see Rubin et al., 2009).

Because youth who exhibit social withdrawal likely have limited interactions with classroom peers (Birch & Ladd, 1998), they may have limited opportunities to develop academic skills through social interactions (Rubin & Burgess, 2001). Supporting this idea, several studies have implicated a link between social withdrawal and academic achievement across schooling. For example, Stenseng et al. (2022) found small but significant negative correlations between teacher ratings of social withdrawal and academic achievement both cross-sectionally and longitudinally for students followed from ages six to 14. Indeed, some research suggests elementary-aged youth with higher levels of shyness (one aspect of social withdrawal) display lower academic assessment scores than those with lower levels of shyness (Crozier & Hostettler, 2003). Regarding connections between social withdrawal and academic skill development, some evidence suggests that, among students with low early literacy skills, higher levels of social withdrawal are negatively associated with reading skills cross-sectionally and significantly predict later reading skills across the early school years (Hall et al., 2016). Thus, identifying and assessing social withdrawal may help school psychologists identify students who may be at risk for low achievement.

Surprisingly, associations between social withdrawal and academic enablers have yet to be examined. Exploring this association is important because social withdrawal is a feature of youth who experience significant difficulties in academic functioning. Additionally, social withdrawal is a relatively uncommon reason for teacher referral for educational services, particularly compared to youth disruptive behavior (e.g., Hutton, 1985; Lloyd et al., 1991), such that these youth’s academic difficulties may be under-identified. Thus, understanding an association between social withdrawal and academic enablers may point to important avenues for classroom practices and intervention to support students’ learning and may underscore the importance of teachers and other school staff identifying these youth to support their learning.

2.1. Developmental considerations

As the importance of peer interactions and academic demands begin to increase over elementary school (Laursen & Veenstra, 2021; Rubin et al., 2015), considering associations between student social withdrawal and academic enablers is especially important. This period may also represent a time whereby identification of students who display high levels of social withdrawal and low levels of academic enablers may benefit from effective intervention to prevent poor academic outcomes that may come with the increasing challenge of the transition to middle school.

3. Cognitive disengagement syndrome, social withdrawal, and academic enablers

Cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS) refers to a distinct set of attentional difficulties that include slowed behavior/thinking, excessive daydreaming, seeming to be in a fog, and mental confusion (Becker, 2025; Becker & Barkley, 2018; Becker et al., 2016). Until recently, CDS was referred to as sluggish cognitive tempo (Becker et al., 2023). The overall prevalence of CDS is approximately 5 % (Barkley, 2013), with about 25–40% of youth with ADHD exhibiting co-occurring CDS symptoms (Barkley, 2013; Burns et al., 2024; Burns & Becker, 2021; Servera et al., 2018). Although CDS symptoms are strongly associated with ADHD symptoms, and ADHD-inattentive symptoms in particular, there are now dozens of studies as well as meta-analytic findings that indicate CDS to be empirically distinct from ADHD as well as other mental health symptoms (Becker et al., 2016; Becker et al., 2023). There is also evidence from nationally representative samples that not all children with clinically-elevated CDS symptoms also have elevated ADHD symptoms, and vice versa (Barkley, 2013; Burns et al., 2024; Burns & Becker, 2021). These findings have pointed to the need for studies that directly enroll children with and without CDS, irrespective of the potential co-occurrence of ADHD (Barkley, 2013; Becker et al., 2023).

3.1. CDS and social withdrawal

There is also growing indication that CDS and ADHD are differentially associated with functional outcomes (Becker et al., 2023). Of note, social withdrawal is a key feature of the social functioning of youth with CDS (see Fredrick & Becker, 2023a). Research suggests CDS symptoms across childhood and adolescence are uniquely associated with parent-reported (Lee et al., 2017; Willcutt et al., 2014) and teacher-reported (Becker et al., 2019) social withdrawal behaviors after accounting for ADHD symptoms (Willcutt et al., 2014). Additionally, youth ages 6 to 12 with high levels of CDS symptoms have been found to display significantly more parent-reported withdrawn behavior compared to those with low to no levels of CDS symptoms (Yung et al., 2021). In a group-based design, Marshall et al. (2014) similarly found that children and adolescents with ADHD predominantly inattentive type and high levels of CDS symptoms demonstrated significantly higher levels of parent-reported social withdrawal compared to those with ADHD with low to no CDS symptoms. Similar findings were more recently reported by Rondon et al. (2020). In examining more specific aspects of social withdrawal among elementary to middle school students, several studies have found CDS symptoms to be independently associated with conflicted shyness, a construct that refers to conflict between having social interest and fear/anxiety about doing so (e.g., having a desire to play with other children but hesitant or nervous to do so) (Burns & Becker, 2021; Servera et al., 2018), as well as social disinterest (Becker et al., 2024) and loneliness (Becker et al., 2015, 2024; Sáez et al., 2019). Although most studies to date have been cross-sectional, Becker et al. (2018) found CDS symptoms in childhood to predict higher social withdrawal in adolescence, above and beyond childhood ADHD inattentive symptoms.

Despite documented associations, the mechanisms underlying the link between CDS and social withdrawal are not well understood (Fredrick & Becker, 2023a). Various explanations for the association between CDS and social withdrawal have been proposed. Some researchers have posited that social withdrawal occurs because youth with CDS feel overwhelmed in demanding social situations and respond by withdrawing inward and getting lost in their thoughts (Becker & Barkley, 2021; Willcutt et al., 2014). It has also been suggested that the association exists due to difficulties sustaining attention and selecting appropriate social information to attend to in social interactions (Yung et al., 2021). This may be especially the case for individuals with both CDS and ADHD, as the overlap in CDS and ADHD-inattentive symptoms may contribute to both internal and external distractibility which lead some youth to withdraw from the peer group. Further, these proposed explanations for the occurrence of social withdrawal among youth with CDS (i.e., withdrawing and getting lost in thoughts, difficulties sustaining and selecting attention to social information) may represent a qualitative difference in social withdrawal for youth with and without CDS.

3.2. CDS and academic enablers

In addition to associations with social withdrawal, CDS may be associated with poorer academic functioning, though findings are mixed particularly when simultaneously considered ADHD inattentive symptoms (see Fredrick & Becker, 2023). However, very few studies have examined CDS in relation to academic enabler behaviors which are related to academic performance. ADHD symptoms are strongly correlated with academic enablers (see Volpe et al., 2006), and one study using a portion of the current sample in this study found students with CDS to have lower total Academic Enablers compared to youth without CDS symptoms after controlling for ADHD symptoms, including in the domains of Engagement, Motivation, Study Skills, and Interpersonal Skills (Becker et al., 2022). However, how social withdrawal may be implicated in this association has yet to be studied. Social withdrawal may be proximally associated with academic enablers because youth with CDS may appear less engaged in class compared to students without CDS (Becker et al., 2022) that may then limit their interactions with peers, resulting in less developed academic enablers and academic skills. Nevertheless, mixed findings regarding the academic functioning of youth with CDS (see Fredrick & Becker, 2023) despite high levels of social withdrawal on average leaves open the question as to whether social withdrawal confers enhanced risk for low academic enablers for these youth. Thus, it may be social withdrawal specifically that is associated with academic enablers, and social withdrawal may be qualitatively distinct among youth with CDS compared to youth without CDS. Thus, it is important to understand if such an association is unique to youth with CDS, particularly after controlling for the effects of ADHD given its links to both CDS and academic enablers.

4. Current study

The purpose of the current study is to examine associations between social withdrawal and academic enablers and social withdrawal and homework performance, and to evaluate whether associations are unique to students with CDS compared to students without CDS. Using a sample of youth ages 7 to 11 years, we examined cross-sectional associations between social withdrawal and academic enablers after controlling for ADHD symptom severity and demographic variables. Further, we explored whether CDS status moderated these associations.

We hypothesized that social withdrawal would be uniquely associated with each of the academic enablers (i.e., interpersonal skills, engagement, motivation, and study skills) and homework performance. Second, we expected CDS status would exert a significant moderating effect on these associations. Due to a dearth of prior studies examining associations between social withdrawal and enablers specifically among students with CDS, we did not hypothesize directional associations.

5. Method

5.1. Participants

Participants were 257 children in 2nd-5th grades (ages 7–11 years) with approximately half (n = 129) being in a high CDS group and the other half (n = 128) in a comparison group without elevated CDS symptoms. Further description of the sample and comparisons between the CDS and comparison groups can be found in Table 1. As expected given the design of the study to match both groups on grade and sex, the groups did not differ on sex, grade, or age. The CDS group had lower family income, higher rate of ADHD diagnosis, higher current medication use, higher rate of having an IEP, and lower IQ than the comparison group.

Table 1.

Sample characteristics.

Total Sample (N = 257) CDS Group (n = 129) Comparison Group (n = 128) Difference between CDS and Comparison
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) t p
Age 8.79 (1.17) 8.80 (1.22) 8.77 (1.12) t(255) = −0.17 .864
IQ 105.00 (14.19) 102.63 (15.08) 107.39 (12.86) t(255) = 2.72 .007
N (%) n (%) n (%) χ2 p
Sex χ2(1) = 0.09 .759
 Female 94 (36.6%) 46 (35.7%) 48 (37.5%)
 Male 163 (63.4%) 83 (64.3%) 80 (62.5%)
Race χ2(4) = 6.22 .184
Asian 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0%)
 Black 13 (45.1%) 10 (7.8%) 3 (2.3%)
 Native Asian/Pacific Islander 1 (0.4%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.8%
 White 216 (84.0%) 104 (80.6%) 112 (87.5%)
 Multiracial 26 (10.1%) 14 (10.9%) 12 (9.4%)
Hispanic/Latinx 18 (7.0%) 10 (7.8%) 8 (6.3%) χ2(1) = 0.22 .637
Family Income χ2(6) = 18.77 .005
 Up to $20,000 26 (10.1%) 22 (17.1%) 4 (3.1%)
 $20,001 – $40,000 37 (14.4%) 18 (14.0%) 19 (14.8%)
 $40,001 – $60,000 39 (15.2%) 21 (16.3%) 18 (14.1%)
 $60,001 – $80,000 30 (11.7%) 17 (13.2%) 13 (10.2%)
 $80,001 – $100,000 37 (14.4%) 16 (12.4%) 21 (16.4%)
 $100,001 – $120,000 39 (15.2%) 13 (10.1%) 26 (20.3%)
 Over $120,000 49 (19.1%) 22 (17.1%) 27 (21.1%)
Grade χ2(3) = 0.24 .971
 2nd 72 (28.0%) 38 (29.5%) 34 (26.6%)
 3rd 72 (28.0%) 35 (27.1%) 37 (28.9%)
 4th 64 (24.9%) 31 (24.0%) 33 (25.8%)
 5th 49 (19.1%) 25 (19.4%) 24 (18.8%)
Psychiatric diagnoses
 ADHD 155 (60.3%) 97 (75.2%) 58 (45.3%) χ2(1) = 23.97 <.001
 ODD/CD 35 (13.6%) 21 (16.3%) 14 (10.9%) χ2(1) = 1.56 .212
 Anxiety 38 (14.8%) 24 (18.6%) 14 (10.9%) χ2(1) = 3.00 .083
 Mood 6 (2.3%) 5 (3.9%) 1 (0.8%) χ2(1) = 2.70 .100
Services received
 Prescribed medication use 83 (32.3%) 55 (42.6%) 28 (21.9%) χ2(1) = 12.66 <.001
 Has IEP in place 34 (13.2%) 24 (18.6%) 10 (7.8%) χ2(1) = 6.52 .011
 Has 504 Plan in place 12 (4.7%) 8 (6.2%) 4 (3.1%) χ2(1) = 1.37 .242
Open in a new tab

Note. With the exception of IQ, all sample characteristics are based on parent-report. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. CDS = cognitive disengagement syndrome. IEP = Individualized Education Program. ODD/CD = oppositional defiant disorder/conduct disorder. For anxiety = presence of generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, specific phobia, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For mood = presence of major depression, dysthymia, and/or disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.

For eligibility in the study, teachers completed the CDS scale of the Child and Adolescent Behavior Inventory (CABI; described below) via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a secure, web-based application (Harris et al., 2009). Teachers only completed the survey for students who 1) did not have significant uncorrected visual, hearing, or speech impairments, 2) were not known to be on the autism spectrum, and 3) did not spend the majority of the day outside of the general classroom. CABI data were collected for 9,324 participants. For purposes of the larger study (see Becker et al., 2022, 2024), the CABI CDS data from the seven cohorts recruited for this study were combined, and a CDS T-score was calculated to establish high and low CDS groups. Children with a T-score > 70 were considered to be clinically elevated on the CDS scale (n = 571) and children with a T-score in the 47–53 range were considered as potential comparison participants (n = 1,731); the remaining children (n = 7,022) had screening scores outside both the clinical and comparison ranges and were not considered further. After identifying potentially eligible participants in both groups based on teacher screening, a school liaison asked parents if they were willing to be contacted by the study team to learn more about the full study and interested families attended an in-person study visit. Families of youth with elevated CDS were recruited first and, if eligible following the in-person visit, a comparison sample approximately matched on grade and sex was recruited from the larger pool of potential comparison participants (see additional details below). As part of these procedures, 142 individuals with clinically elevated CDS consented to participate in the full study and 129 participants met inclusion criteria, and 140 comparison families consented to participate in the full study and 132 met inclusion criteria (total N = 261). Teacher-report data on social withdrawal was missing for four participants (all in the comparison group), resulting in the sample size of 257 students (from 167 classrooms) used in this study.

5.2. Procedures

All procedures were approved by the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Institutional Review Board. Study participants completed an in-person visit in which parents provided informed consent and children provided assent. Children were recruited from 33 elementary schools in three school districts in the Midwestern United States. All teachers of 2nd to 5th grade classrooms were invited to participate in the project. Approximately 494 teachers agreed to participate, and parents of all children in their classroom (n = 13,197) were sent an opt-out letter which indicated that their school was participating in a study to learn more about how children’s concentration at school impacts academic and behavioral functioning. In the opt-out letter, parents were informed that their child’s teacher would be completing a brief screening scale regarding their child’s behavior in the classroom setting, and if the parent did not want the teacher to complete this screening the parent could return the opt-out letter indicating that was their preference. The research team created surveys for each teacher based on the teacher’s classroom roster, with any students whose parents opted out from the screening survey removed. After the screening survey was completed, a school liaison at each school (e.g., school counselor) was provided with a list of those students who were potentially eligible (i.e., meeting screening criteria for the CDS or comparison group) and served as the contact between the school and the research team. The school liaison attempted to contact caregivers of students in the CDS and comparison groups to obtain permission to share contact information with the study team so the family could learn more about the study if interested. After the school liaison contacted and identified families willing to be contacted by the research team, participants in the clinically elevated CDS group were invited by the research team to participate on a first-come, first-serve basis. Once a parent of a child with a clinically elevated CDS score agreed to participate, the research staff then matched the child with a comparison child of the same sex and in the same grade. This recruitment procedure occurred given the primary study aims involving an in-person research visit in addition to longitudinal follow-up visits (which are still ongoing) with a goal of recruiting 252 students; 261 students ultimately enrolled. As reported elsewhere (Becker et al., 2022, 2024), students with teacher screening T-scores >70 who participated in the study did not differ on their CDS T-score from those who did not participate; likewise, students with a screening T-score in the 47–53 range who participated in the study did not differ on their CDS T-score from those who did not.

Inclusion criteria for both groups were being in 2nd-5th grades, receiving education in a general education classroom for the majority of the day, and a standardized score >75 for overall intelligence on the KBIT-2. In addition, children were excluded if the parent reported a previous diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder or the child met threshold for an autism symptom on the K-SADS autism module screener given that students with autism have distinct educational challenges and needs. Other mental health disorders (i.e., ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder/conduct disorder, anxiety, depression) were not exclusionary in either group to promote generalizability and to avoid concerns with recruiting a “supernormal” comparison group. See Becker et al. (2022, 2024) for additional details.

5.3. Measures

5.3.1. Demographic characteristics and medication use

Parents completed a demographic form to gather the information reported in Table 1 regarding their child’s sex, age, race, and ethnicity, and family income. A clinician administered an adaptation of the Services Use in Children and Adolescents – Parent Interview (SCA-PI; Hoagwood et al., 2004) to assess any current medication use and whether their child currently had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 Plan.

5.3.2. Child Behavior Scale (CBS)

The CBS (Ladd & Profilet, 1996) is a teacher-report measure of child behaviors and peer relationships in the school setting. Teachers rate on a three-point scale how applicable the item is for the child (1 = doesn’t apply, 2 = applies sometimes, 3 = certainly applies). The Asocial with Peers (withdrawn behavior) was used in the present study. The Asocial with Peers subscale measures the degree to which a child chooses solitary rather than social activities in the peer context (six items; e.g., “prefers to play alone,” “keeps peers at a distance,” “withdraws from peer activities”). Average responses to items within each subscale were created with higher scores indicating greater asociality, exclusion, and prosocial behaviors. The CBS demonstrates adequate reliability and validity, and scores from the CBS are significantly correlated with observational ratings of children’s behavior (Ladd, Herald-Brown, & Andrews, 2009; Ladd & Profilet, 1996). In the present study, Asocial α = 0.92.

5.3.3. Academic CompetenceSEvaluation scales (ACES)

The ACES is a norm-referenced teacher-report measure assessing a wide range of academic behaviors (DiPerna & Elliott, 2000). The 73-item ACES has two scales: Academic Skills (33 items) and Academic Enablers (40 items). The Academic Enablers scale includes four subscales which were used in this study: Interpersonal Skills (e.g., communicative and cooperative behaviors necessary to interact with other students or adults in the classroom, such as working effectively in small and large groups and being responsive to teacher suggestions), Engagement (e.g., student’s level of active participation in classroom instruction such as asking questions, volunteering answers, and leading in groups), Motivation (e.g., student’s initiative and persistence regarding academic subjects, such as preference for challenging tasks and goal-directed behavior), and Study Skills (e.g., behaviors and skills that facilitate the processing of new information, including work preparation, work completion, and work review). Internal consistency (ranging from 0.92 to 0.98) and test-retest stability (ranging from 0.70 to 0.92) were high for the ACES, and correlational analyses with measures of academic (rs ranging from 0.71 to 0.82) and social skills (rs ranging from 0.49 to 0.74) indicated that scores from the ACES are valid indicators of student academic competence (DiPerna & Elliott, 2000, 2002).

5.3.4. HomeworkPerformance Questionnaire (HPQ)

The teacher-report HPQ (Power et al., 2015) is a 22-item scale of students’ homework performance. The HPQ-T generates separate factors of student homework self-regulation and student competence. HPQ factors are derived from factor analysis and scores correlate with measures of homework behavior and academic skills, as well as academic achievement (Power et al., 2015). In the present study, internal consistency scores were: total homework performance (α = 0.94), homework self-regulation (α = 0.89), and student competence (α = 0.88).

5.3.5. Child and AdolescentIBehavior inventory (CABI)

Teacher ratings of CDS and ADHD symptoms were assessed using the CDS and ADHD scales on the CABI (Burns, Lee, Servera, McBurnett, & Becker, 1997). The scores from the 15-item CDS module have shown well-documented internal consistency, discriminative validity from ADHD and other psychopathology symptoms, and test-retest reliability (e.g., Burns & Becker, 2021; Burns et al., 2024; for a review, see Becker, 2021). The 9-item ADHD inattentive scale and 9-item ADHD hyperactive-impulsive scale correspond to the 18 DSM-5 items for assessing ADHD. Items were rated on a 6-point scale for the past month (almost never, seldom, sometimes, often, very often, and almost always). In the present study, total ADHD mean score using all 18 items was used as a covariate in analyses (α = 0.94).

5.4. Analytic approach

IBM SPSS Statistics Version 29 statistical software was used for all analyses (IBM Corp., 2019). Because only 38% of students in the sample came from the same classroom, and of these most commonly only two students came from the same classroom, a nested data structure would not be expected to fit the data well (e.g., Bauer et al., 2020). Specifically, given a large number of clusters (i.e., 167 classrooms, or 167 unique teacher ratings) made of very few cases (i.e., modal number of one student in each classroom, or modal number of one student’s behavior rated by each teacher) there is not expected to be dependence between cases.1 Thus, we do not utilize a nested model due to a lack of expected dependence between cases. Given a dearth of studies examining relations between academic enablers and social withdrawal among students with CDS, zero-order correlations were conducted first to examine associations between social withdrawal, academic enablers, and CDS status. A correlation of 0.10 is generally considered a small effect, 0.30 is considered a medium effect, and 0.50 is considered a large effect (Cohen, 1988). Second, linear regression models were used to examine whether any associations between asocial behavior and academic enablers differed for children with or without CDS. The PROCESS macro (Version 4.2; Hayes, 2018) using bootstrapped sampling (5000 iterations) was used to test moderation models (see Hayes, 2022). Asocial behavior with peers, CDS group status, and their interaction, were the primary independent variables in each model. A separate regression model was conducted for each outcome variable (i.e., academic enablers and homework performance domains) as the dependent variable. CDS group status was tested as a potential moderator of the relation between asocial behaviors and academic enablers/homework performance (a total of six regression models). The interaction tests whether the association between asociality and academic enablers/homework performance differs for students with or without elevated CDS symptoms. Teacher-reported ADHD symptom severity, family income, and medication status were included as covariates in the regression models (sex and age/grade were not included as the CDS and comparison groups were matched on these characteristics). Any significant interaction would be probed via simple slopes analyses by testing the relation between asocial behavior and the outcome variable separately for children with or without CDS; consistent with prior research (e.g., Johnston et al., 2018; Mikami & Hinshaw, 2003), we examined simple slopes of interaction effects at p < .10 given the exploratory nature of the interaction analyses.

6. Results

6.1. Bivariate correlations

Table 2 provides the intercorrelations and descriptive statistics of the study variables. Being in the CDS (vs. comparison) group was correlated with being more asocial with peers (r = 0.24, p < .001). Higher asocial scores were associated with significantly lower academic enabler behaviors and poorer homework performance, with effects in the small-to-medium range (rs = −0.13 to −0.32, all ps < .05). Being in the CDS group was moderately associated with significantly lower academic enabler behaviors (rs = −0.18 to −0.42, all ps < .01) and poorer homework performance (rs = −0.34 and 0.37, both ps <.001). Higher ADHD symptom severity was moderately-to-strongly associated with lower academic enabler behaviors (rs = −0.18 to −0.62, all ps <.01) and poorer homework performance (rs = −0.49 and 0.28, both ps <.001).

Table 2.

Intercorrelations and descriptive statistics of study variables.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Family income –
2. Medication use 0.07 –
3. ADHD symptoms −0.07 0.08 –
4. CDS group −0.20** 0.22*** 0.21*** –
5. CBS asocial 0.02 0.17** 0.05 0.24*** –
6. ACES interpersonal 0.004 −0.09 −0.62*** −0.18** −0.23*** –
7. ACES engagement 0.09 −0.07 −0.18** −0 39*** −0.32*** 0.40*** –
8. ACES motivation 0.19** −0.07 −0.53*** −0.40*** −0.16* 0.60*** 0.67*** –
9. ACES study skills 0.21*** −0.07 −0.61*** −0.42*** −0.21*** 0.58*** 0.54*** 0.75*** –
10. HPQ self-regulation 0.24*** −0.07 −0.49*** −0.34*** −0.20** 0.44*** 0.33*** 0.48*** 0.79*** –
11. HPQ competence 0.27** 0.01 −0.28*** −0 37*** −0.13* 0.27*** 0.40*** 0.48*** 0.53*** 0.51*** –
M – – 2.04 – 1.48 3.66 2.95 2.46 3.15 3.74 4.16
SD – – 1.12 – 0.52 0.80 0.94 0.90 0.91 1.56 1.33
Open in a new tab

Note. For CDS group, 0 = comparison, 1 = CDS (cognitive disengagement syndrome). For medication, 0 = not taking a prescribed psychiatric medication, 1 = taking a prescribed psychiatric medication. ACES = Academic Competence Evaluation Scales. ACES responses range from ‘1’ = Never to ‘5’ = Almost Always. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. CBS = Child Behavior Scale. CBS responses range from ‘1’ = Doesn’t apply to ‘3’ = Certainly applies. HPQ = Homework Performance Questionnaire. HPQ responses range from ‘0’ = Never/Rarely to ‘6’ = Almost always/ Always.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

6.2. Regression analyses examining asocial behaviors, CDS, academic enablers, and homework performance

6.2.1. Main effects

Results of the regression analyses examining asocial behaviors with peers, CDS group status, and their interaction in relation to academic enablers are summarized in Table 3. In analyses controlling for family income, medication use, and ADHD symptom severity, higher asocial with peers behaviors were independently associated with lower interpersonal skills (b = −0.30, p = .016), and being in the CDS group was independently associated with lower academic motivation (b = −0.59, p = .038). Both asocial behaviors (b = −0.48, p = .005) and being in the CDS group (b = −0.67, p = .046) were significantly independently associated with lower engagement.

Table 3.

Asocial behavior and cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS) in relation to academic enablers.

Coefficient (SE) t p 95% CI
ACES Interpersonal Skills F(6,250) = 30.53, p < .001, R2 = 0.42
 Family income −0.02 (0.02) −0.82 .412 [−0.055, 0.023]
 Medication use −0.004 (0.09) −0.05 .960 [−0.173, 0.165]
 ADHD symptoms −0.44 (0.04) −12.31 <.001 [−0.505, −0.366]
 CBS asocial with peers −0.30 (0.12) −2.43 .016 [−0.543, −0.057]
 CDS group −0.04 (0.24) −0.14 .886 [−0.514, 0.444]
 Asocial × CDS 0.01 (0.16) 0.04 .966 [−0.306, 0.319]
ACES Engagement F(6,250) = 11.49, p < .001, R2 = 0.22
 Family income 0.01 (0.03) 0.32 .748 [−0.044, 0.062]
 Medication use 0.09 (0.12) 0.78 .434 [−0.139, 0.323]
 ADHD symptoms −0.09 (0.05) −1.77 .078 [−0.181, 0.010]
 CBS asocial with peers −0.48 (0.17) −2.84 .005 [−0.812, −0.147]
 CDS group −0.67 (0.33) −2.01 .046 [−1.320, −0.012]
 Asocial × CDS −0.05 (0.22) 0.25 .804 [−0.373, 0.480]
ACES Motivation F(6,249) = 25.64, p < .001, R2 = 0.38
 Family income 0.04 (0.02) 1.94† .053 [−0.0006, 0.089]
 Medication use 0.06 (0.10) 0.57 .570 [−0.139, 0.252]
 ADHD symptoms −0.37 (0.04) −9.01 <.001 [−0.448, −0.287]
 CBS asocial with peers −0.17 (0.14) −1.20 .232 [−0.451, 0.110]
 CDS group −0.59 (0.28) −2.09 .038 [−1.138, −0.033]
 Asocial × CDS 0.07 (0.18) 0.36 .717 [−0.294, 0.427]
ACES Study Skills F(6,250) = 19.50, p < .001, R2 = 0.50
 Family income 0.05 (0.02) 2.49 .014 [0.011, 0.093]
 Medication use 0.09 (0.09) 0.99 .325 [−0.089, 0.269]
 ADHD symptoms −0.44 (0.04) −11.67 <.001 [−0.512, −0.364]
 CBS asocial with peers −0.03 (0.13) −0.20 .842 [−0.284, 0.232]
 CDS group −0.03 (0.26) −0.10 .919 [−0.535, 0.482]
 Asocial × CDS −0.32 (0.17) −1.88 .061 [−0.648, 0.015]
Open in a new tab

Note. Bootstrap samples = 5,000. For CDS group, 0 = comparison, 1 = CDS (cognitive disengagement syndrome). For medication, 0 = not taking a prescribed psychiatric medication, 1 = taking a prescribed psychiatric medication. ACES = Academic Competence Evaluation Scales. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. CBS = Child Behavior Scale.

Results of the regression analyses examining asocial behaviors with peers, CDS group status, and their interaction in relation to homework performance are summarized in Table 4. Above and beyond family income, medication use, and ADHD symptom severity, neither asocial behaviors (b = 0.15, p = .560) nor CDS status (b = −0.11 p = .818) were independently associated with homework self-regulation. Similarly, above and beyond family income, medication use, and ADHD symptom severity, neither asocial behaviors (b = 0.15, p = .524) nor CDS status (b = −0.11, p = .818) were independently associated with homework competence.

Table 4.

Asocial behavior and cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS) in relation to homework performance.

Coefficient (SE) t 95% CI
HPQ Self-regulation F(6,244) = 22.90, p < .001, R2 = 0.36
 Family income 0.13 (0.04) 3.21 .002 [0.051, 0.211]
 Medication use 0.03 (0.18) 0.20 .845 [−0.314, 0.383]
 ADHD symptoms −0.58 (0.07) −7.89 <.001 [−0.723, −0.434]
 CBS asocial with peers 0.15 (0.25) 0.58 .560 [−0.351, 0.647]
 CDS group 0.76 (0.50) 1.51 .132 [−0.231, 1.751]
 Asocial × CDS −0.92 (0.33) −2.83 .005 [−1.566, −0.282]
HPQ Competence F(6,244) = 22.90, p < .001, R2 = 0.36
 Family income 0.06 (0.04) 1.53 .128 [−0.017, 0.136]
 Medication use 0.29 (0.17) 1.71 .088 [−0.043, 0.620]
 ADHD symptoms −0.24 (0.07) −3.42 .001 [−0.375, −0.101]
 CBS asocial with peers 0.15 (0.24) 0.64 .524 [−0.320, 0.626]
 CDS group −0.11 (0.48) −0.23 .818 [−1.050, 0.830]
 Asocial × CDS −0.49 (0.31) −1.60 .111 [−1.103, 0.115]
Open in a new tab

Note. Bootstrap samples = 5000. For CDS group, 0 = comparison, 1 = CDS (cognitive disengagement syndrome). For medication, 0 = not taking a prescribed psychiatric medication, 1 = taking a prescribed psychiatric medication. ACES = Academic Competence Evaluation Scales. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. HPQ = Homework Performance Questionnaire.

Finally, higher ADHD symptoms were significantly associated with lower Interpersonal Skills (b = −0.44, p < .001), Motivation (b = −0.37, p < .001), Study Skills (b = −0.44, p < .001), and poorer homework self-regulation (b = −0.58, p < .001) and homework competence (b = −0.24, p < .001). There was no independent association between ADHD symptom severity in relation to Engagement (b = −0.09, p = .078).

6.2.2. Moderating effects of CDS

None of the asocial × CDS interactions were significant in relation to interpersonal skills, engagement, or motivation academic enablers (all ps > .10). However, the asocial × CDS interaction was significant at the p < .10 level in the model predicting study skills (b = −0.32, p = .061; see Table 3). As shown in Fig. 1, above and beyond ADHD symptom severity, family income, and medication use, conditional effect analyses indicated that asocial behaviors were associated with significantly lower study skills for students with CDS (b = −0.34, t = −3.23, p = .001) but not for students without CDS (b = −0.03, t = −0.84, p = .842).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Open in a new tab

This figure depicts the association between CBS Asocial Behaviors with Peers (i.e., social withdrawal) scores and ACES Study Skills scores for students with CDS symptoms and students without CDS. The association between asocial behaviors with peers and study skills is present for students with elevated CDS symptoms, but not students without CDS. Specifically, for students with elevated CDS symptoms, higher levels of asocial behaviors with peers are associated with lower study skills. For students without CDS, there is no significant association between asocial behaviors with peers and study skills.

Note. CBS = Child Behavior Scale. Higher CBS Asocial with Peers scores reflect higher levels of teacher-reported asocial behavior with peers. ACES = Academic Competence Evaluation Scales. Higher ACES Study Skills scores reflect higher levels of teacher-reported study skills. CDS = Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome.

Regarding homework performance, the asocial × CDS interaction was significant in the model predicting homework self-regulation (b = −2.83, p = .005; see Table 4). As shown in Fig. 2, above and beyond covariates, conditional effect analyses indicated that asocial behaviors were associated with significantly lower homework self-regulation for students with CDS (b = −0.77, t = −3.23, p = .001) but not for students without CDS (b = 0.15, t = −0.20, p = .842).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Open in a new tab

This figure depicts the association between CBS Asocial Behaviors with Peers (i.e., social withdrawal) scores and HPQ Homework Self-Regulation scores for students with CDS symptoms and students without CDS. The association between asocial behaviors with peers and homework self-regulation performance is present for students with elevated CDS symptoms, but not students without CDS. Specifically, for students with elevated CDS symptoms, higher levels of asocial behaviors with peers are associated with lower homework self-regulation. For students without CDS, there is no significant association between asocial behaviors with peers and homework self-regulation.

Note. CBS = Child Behavior Scale. Higher CBS Asocial with Peers scores reflect higher levels of teacher-reported asocial behavior with peers. HPQ = Homework Performance Questionnaire. Higher HPQ Homework Self-Regulation scores reflect higher levels of teacher-reported homework self-regulation. CDS = Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome.

7. Discussion

The present study suggests that social withdrawal is independently associated with some academic enablers (i.e., interpersonal skills and engagement) but not with homework performance. Greater teacher-reported social withdrawal was uniquely associated with lower teacher-reported interpersonal skills and engagement, with each one unit increase in asocial behaviors being associated with about a 0.3 and 0.5 unit decrease in each enabler, respectively. CDS status was also uniquely associated with teacher-reported lower academic motivation and engagement, with CDS group membership being associated with approximately a 0.6 and 0.7 unit decrease in each enabler, respectively. Results also suggest that some associations between social withdrawal and academic enablers are unique to students with CDS compared to students without CDS, specifically in relation to poorer teacher-reported homework self-regulation (each one unit increase in social withdrawal associated with about a 0.8 unit decrease in homework self-regulation) and lower teacher-reported study skills (each one unit increase in social withdrawal associated with about a 0.3 unit decrease in homework self-regulation). These findings extend research finding links between student social behavior and academic enablers to social withdrawal. In addition, these results suggest some of these associations between social withdrawal in relation to homework performance and academic enablers may be unique to students with CDS compared to students without CDS. Thus, these findings implicate potential unique educational and intervention considerations to support students’ academic functioning, particularly for those students displaying elevated CDS symptoms.

7.1. Associations between social withdrawal and academic enablers and between social withdrawal and homework performance

The pattern of results suggests that social withdrawal may be more important for some academic enablers (i.e., interpersonal skills, engagement) than others (i.e., motivation, study skills, homework skills). These findings indicate that social withdrawal may be specifically related to academic enabler domains involving students’ interactions with peers and teachers. These results are consistent with other research that has found connections between higher levels of social withdrawal and lower levels of prosocial behavior with peers (Coplan et al., 2004) and extend findings suggesting links between social withdrawal and academic achievement (Stenseng et al., 2022) to proximal academic skills that may help explain such a connection.

Evidence from this study did not support independent associations between social withdrawal in relation to study skills or homework skills. Such associations may be hypothesized to exist given previous research findings links between literacy skills and social withdrawal (Hall et al., 2016). However, it may be that study and homework skills do not as strongly pull for social interaction for successful skill development compared to those skills influenced by peer interaction, like subject-specific learning skills. It may be that other behaviors, such as problem solving, may be more robustly associated with study skills and homework skills than social withdrawal. Recent evidence suggests positive associations between CDS symptoms and maladaptive problem solving among college students (Miller et al., 2024). Thus, it may be that for youth with CDS, a tendency to select ineffective strategies to solve problems related to homework or studying more strongly accounts for difficulties with these enablers compared to social withdrawal. Nevertheless, future research is needed to evaluate the role of problem solving in these associations for youth with CDS. Even though results of this study did not suggest independent associations between social withdrawal and study and homework skills, these results underscore the importance of continued attention to social withdrawal and its effect on student functioning. Because these students may not stand out in the classroom as struggling in terms of homework and study skills, they may be less likely to be identified by teachers or other school staff as students in need of intervention, despite displaying struggles with other important aspects of academic functioning, like interpersonal skills and engagement.

7.2. The role of CDS in understanding social withdrawal, academic enablers, and homework performance

In considering other academic enabler domains and homework performance, findings indicate that social withdrawal may be related to study skills and homework self-regulation in students displaying a unique set of attentional symptoms. Specifically, we found that social withdrawal was associated with significantly lower study skills and homework self-regulation for students with elevated CDS symptoms but not among students without CDS. As we did not find a significant conditional effect of CDS on associations between social withdrawal and other academic enablers, including engagement, interpersonal skills, and motivation, the pattern of findings suggests that the associations social withdrawal has with academic enabler domains may be nuanced, in some instances relevant to all students and in other instances specific to students displaying a unique pattern of attentional difficulties.

Fredrick and Becker (2023a) proposed that task unrelated thought (e.g., mind wandering), a unique feature of CDS (Barkley, Willcutt, & Jacobson, 2022; Becker & Barkley, 2021), may be a key mechanism that accounts for links between social withdrawal and outcomes for youth with CDS specifically. It may be that task unrelated thought experienced by students with CDS interferes with active social engagement that facilitates the development of study and homework skills. In addition, it has been hypothesized that CDS may be associated with social withdrawal in part because individuals with elevated CDS symptoms experience complex social situations to be overwhelming and difficult to navigate (Becker et al., 2024; Taylor et al., 2020; Willcutt et al., 2014). It is possible that the rapid influx of socially-relevant information in peer and classroom settings contributes to withdrawal behaviors in students with CDS, in turn impacting the development of study and homework skills gained through repeated interactions with peers and teachers. It will be important for future studies to test these possibilities to understand the mechanisms by which social withdrawal may be related to study and homework skills in students with CDS.

On the other hand, the absence of a unique conditional effect of CDS on associations between social withdrawal and engagement and between social withdrawal and motivation suggests social withdrawal and CDS do not interact in their associations with these enablers. In other words, when a student, regardless of their CDS symptoms, exhibits high levels of social withdrawal, they also experience low levels of engagement and interpersonal skills. Both engagement and interpersonal skills academic enablers capture students’ behaviors to actively engage with peers and interact appropriately with peers. Thus, it makes sense that for all students who exhibit high levels of social withdrawal, engagement with peers and interpersonal interactions with peers will be low. Interestingly, social withdrawal was weakly negatively correlated with motivation in our analyses, and social withdrawal was not significantly independently associated with motivation in our regression model. Peer relationships are thought to serve as motivational contexts for development of academic enablers (see Wentzel & Watkins, 2002). Therefore, social withdrawal would be thought to result in an absence of a peer motivational context. However, our findings suggest this is not the case. Motivation is multifaceted and influenced by a variety of factors (see Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002), and thus it may be that social withdrawal is one piece of a large puzzle that accounts for motivation as an academic enabler.

7.3. Limitations and future directions

The findings of this study must be viewed considering several limitations. First, teacher ratings were used for measures of the main variables of interest in regression models (i.e., CDS, social withdrawal, and enablers). Even though teachers are reliable and valid reporters of the behaviors of interest in the current study, relying solely on teacher-report and not multi-informant ratings may have increased the likelihood of significant findings due to informant bias. Second, this study was cross-sectional; thus, inferences about causality and directionality cannot be made. Future studies should longitudinally examine if social withdrawal predicts academic enablers, and whether such an association is unique to students with CDS compared to students without CDS. Longitudinal studies will also be needed to test potential mechanisms discussed above that can identify potential intervention targets to enhance enablers for students with and without CDS. Future research should also examine how interventions may effectively target these key mechanisms explaining the association between social withdrawal and academic enablers among students with CDS. Additionally, approximately 75% of the students in the study sample who had CDS also had ADHD. CDS and ADHD are distinct but often overlap (see Becker & Barkley, 2018), which makes it important to distinguish the effects of ADHD from the effects of CDS in research. We controlled for ADHD in study analyses to parse out the effects of ADHD and focus on the effects of CDS. Nevertheless, the large percentage of students in the CDS group who also had ADHD may cloud results. Finally, most of the participants in the study sample were White and all were from the Midwestern United States. It is important to evaluate associations of focus in this study in a representative sample of elementary-aged students from a wider geographic area to ensure generalizability of results.

7.4. Implications

Even though results from this study should be replicated prior to informing school psychology practice, study findings may inform important assessment and intervention considerations for students who exhibit social withdrawal and/or CDS. In school-based practice, CDS symptoms and social withdrawal do not regularly determine placement and intervention decisions. However, results from this study suggest both CDS symptoms and social withdrawal have important associations with academic enablers and homework performance. In other words, these results suggest measuring students’ CDS symptoms and social withdrawal and taking these measures into consideration for placement and intervention decisions may be crucial for enhancing students’ academic outcomes. For example, students with CDS are generally not disruptive and may be less likely to be identified by teachers or other school personnel as in need of either behavioral or academic supports (Becker et al., 2022, 2024). However, students with CDS may be especially likely to have difficulty gaining skills related to specific academic enabler domains (e.g., study and homework skills), which can have negative downstream effects on learning and academic achievement. Thus, school practitioners are encouraged to attend to and assess students who exhibit social withdrawal in the classroom to support their academic functioning.

In addition, study findings may implicate the importance of intervention targeting social withdrawal and/or CDS to improve academic enablers to support students’ academic functioning. Results from interventions targeting similar behaviors may highlight promising avenues for targeting social withdrawal for students with CDS. For example, the Turtle Program (Chronis-Tuscano et al., 2022) uses parent coaching of pre-school aged children in peer interactions to target behavioral inhibition accounting for social withdrawal, which may suggest the utility of in-the-moment coaching as a potential intervention approach for elementary-aged students. Social skills training has evidenced improvement in peer relations in youth with social anxiety and socially withdrawn behaviors (Kingery et al., 2010; Rubin et al., 2009); thus, evidence of a skill deficit accounting for social withdrawal may suggest benefits of this approach. Home-School Behavioral treatment that includes social skills and parent training has been found to reduce CDS symptoms and improve social functioning among elementary-aged students (Pfiffner et al., 2007). As such, this intervention may have benefits for reducing CDS symptoms that may then improve academic enablers and reduce social withdrawal. Some universal social and emotional learning programs evidence small effects on social withdrawal across all students (see Durlak et al., 2011) and may also warrant evaluation specifically among students with CDS. Finally, interventions that target anxiety and related behaviors across tiered systems of support (see Jones et al., 2019) may also hold promise for reducing social withdrawal among students with CDS.

It may also be useful to consider interventions or classroom instructional and/or behavior management practices that focus on encouraging peers and teachers to appropriately engage and interact with students who exhibit social withdrawal, including those with CDS (e.g., small vs. large group opportunities for skills development). Peer mentoring may be one beneficial approach to encourage peers to actively engage these students. Additionally, teacher strategies that communicate students’ value to peers and enhance student-teacher relationships (e.g., Mikami et al., 2021) may be another beneficial approach to promote students’ academic enablers (see Owens et al., 2021) and actively engage students with high levels of social withdrawal and CDS.

8. Conclusion

In this study, we examined associations between social withdrawal and academic enablers, associations between social withdrawal and homework performance, and whether these associations were unique to students with CDS compared to students without CDS. Results from this study suggest social withdrawal is significantly associated with some academic enablers, whereby higher levels of social withdrawal were associated with lower levels of some academic enablers. Importantly, we found evidence that associations between social withdrawal and study skills and social withdrawal and homework self-regulation is unique to students with CDS compared to students without CDS. These findings highlight important areas for future study to enhance the academic functioning and outcomes of students with CDS.

Funding

This research was supported by award numbers R305A160064 and R305A200028 from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES; U. S. Department of Education) and a Cincinnati Children’s Research Foundation (CCRF) Endowed Scholar Award. When data reported in this study were collected, Stephen Becker was supported by award number K23MH108603 from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the IES, NIH, or the CCRF.

Footnotes

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this article.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

R. Elizabeth Capps: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. Stephen P. Becker: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Software, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.

1

The sample was composed of 257 students in 167 classrooms. With a large number of clusters made of one to two students, we do not expect there to be a high level of dependence between cases and thus do not use nested models in these analyses (see, e.g., Bauer et al., 2020).

References

  1. Anthony CJ, Ogg J, & Jenkins LN (2021). Academic enablers as dynamic moderators: Exploring academic enablers and achievement across elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 86, 15–31. 10.1016/j.jsp.2021.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bandura A (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. [Google Scholar]
  3. Barkley RA (2013). Distinguishing sluggish cognitive tempo from ADHD in children and adolescents: Executive functioning, impairment, and comorbidity. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 42(2), 161–173. 10.1080/15374416.2012.734259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barkley RA, Willcutt E, & Jacobson LA (2022). What is the cognitive deficit in sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT)? A review of neuropsychological research. The ADHD. Report, 30(2), 1–10. 10.1521/adhd.2022.30.2.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bauer DJ, McNeish DM, Baldwin SA, & Curran PJ (2020). Analyzing nested data: Multilevel modeling and alternative approaches. In Wright AGC, & Hallquist MN (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 426–443). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Becker SP (2021). Systematic review: Assessment of sluggish cognitive tempo over the past decade. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 60(6), 690–709. 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.10.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Becker SP (2025). Cognitive disengagement syndrome: A construct at the crossroads. American Psychologist. Advance online, publication., 1–23. 10.1037/amp0001517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Becker SP, & Barkley RA (2018). Sluggish cognitive tempo. In Banaschewski T, Coghill D, & Zuddas A (Eds.), Oxford textbook of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (pp. 147–153). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Becker SP, & Barkley RA (2021). Field of daydreams? Integrating mind wandering in the study of sluggish cognitive tempo and ADHD. JCPP Advances, 1(1). Article e12002 10.1111/jcv2.12002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Becker SP, Burns GL, Leopold DR, Olson RK, & Willcutt EG (2018). Differential impact of trait sluggish cognitive tempo and ADHD inattention in early childhood on adolescent functioning. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(10), 1094–1104. 10.1111/jcpp.12946. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Becker SP, Epstein JN, Burns GL, Mossing KW, Schmitt AP, Fershtman CEM, … Tamm L (2022). Academic functioning in children with and without sluggish cognitive tempo. Journal of School Psychology, 95, 105–120. 10.1016/j.jsp.2022.10.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Becker SP, Garner AA, Tamm L, Antonini TN, & Epstein JN (2019). Honing in on the social difficulties associated with sluggish cognitive tempo in children: Withdrawal, peer ignoring, and low engagement. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 48(2), 228–237. 10.1080/15374416.2017.1286595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Becker SP, Leopold DR, Burns GL, Jarrett MA, Langberg JM, Marshall SA, … Willcutt EG (2016). The internal, external, and diagnostic validity of sluggish cognitive tempo: A meta-analysis and critical review. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(3), 163–178. 10.1016/j.jaac.2015.12.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Becker SP, Luebbe AM, & Joyce AM (2015). The Child Concentration Inventory (CCI): Initial validation of a child self-report measure of sluggish cognitive tempo. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 1037–1052. 10.1037/pas0000083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Becker SP, Vaughn AJ, Zoromski AK, Burns GL, Mikami AY, Fredrick JW, … &Tamm L (2024). A multi-method examination of peer functioning in children with and without cognitive disengagement syndrome. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 54(3), 389–404. 10.1080/15374416.2024.2301771. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Becker SP, Willcutt EG, Leopold DR, Fredrick JW, Smith ZR, Jacobson LA, … Barkley RA (2023). Report of a work group on sluggish cognitive tempo: Key research directions and a consensus change in terminology to cognitive disengagement syndrome. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 62(6), 629–645. 10.1016/j.jaac.2022.07.821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Birch SH, & Ladd GW (1998). Children’s interpersonal behaviors and the teacher-child relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 934–946. 10.1037/0012-1649.34.5.934. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Buhs ES, Ladd GW, & Herald SL (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 1–13. 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Burns GL, & Becker SP (2021). Sluggish cognitive tempo and ADHD symptoms in a nationally representative sample of US children: Differentiation using categorical and dimensional approaches. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 50(2), 267–280. 10.1080/15374416.2019.1678165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Burns GL, Becker SP, Montaño JJ, & Servera M (2024). Clinical distinction between cognitive disengagement syndrome and ADHD presentations in a nationally representative sample of Spanish children and adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 65(12), 1601–1611. 10.1111/jcpp.14005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Burns GL, Lee S, Servera M, McBurnett K, & Becker SP (1997–2021). Child and Adolescent Behavior Inventory—Teacher.
  22. Chronis-Tuscano A, Novick DR, Danko CM, Smith KA, Wagner NJ, Wang CH, … Rubin KH (2022). Early intervention for inhibited young children: A randomized controlled trial comparing the Turtle Program and Cool Little Kids. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 63(3), 273–281. 10.1111/jcpp.13475. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Cohen J (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  24. Cooper H, Robinson JC, & Patall EA (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1–62. 10.3102/00346543076001001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Coplan RJ, Prakash K, O’Neil K, & Armer M (2004). Do you “want” to play? Distinguishing conflicted shyness and social disinterest in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 244–258. 10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Crozier WR, & Hostettler K (2003). The influence of shyness on children’s test performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 317–328. 10.1348/000709903322275858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Deci EL, & Ryan RM (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. DiPerna J, & Elliott SN (2000). Academic Competence Evaluation Scales. Harcourt Assessment. [Google Scholar]
  29. DiPerna JC, & Elliott SN (2002). Promoting academic enablers to improve student achievement: An introduction to the mini-series. School Psychology Review, 31 (3), 293–297. 10.1080/02796015.2002.12086156. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. DiPerna JC, Volpe RJ, & Elliott SN (2002). A model of academic enablers and elementary reading/language arts achievement. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 298–312. 10.1080/02796015.2002.12086157. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Durlak JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, Taylor RD, & Schellinger KB (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Fredrick JW, & Becker SP (2023a). Cognitive disengagement syndrome (sluggish cognitive tempo) and social withdrawal: Advancing a conceptual model to guide future research. Journal of Attention Disorders, 27(1), 38–45. 10.1177/10870547221114602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Fredrick JW, & Becker SP (2023b). Sluggish cognitive tempo (cognitive disengagement syndrome) and academic functioning: A systematic review and agenda for future research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 26(1), 82–120. 10.1007/s10567-022-00411-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Garcia E (2014). The need to address noncognitive skills in the education policy agenda (Briefing Paper No. 386). Economic Policy Institute. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hall CM, Welsh JA, Bierman KL, & Nix R (2016). Kindergarten social withdrawal and reaching achievement: A cross-lagged path model for at-risk learners. Psychology in the Schools, 53(7), 751–759. 10.1002/pits.21939. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, & Conde JG (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 377–381. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hayes AF (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. 10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hayes AF (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hoagwood KE, Jensen PS, Arnold LE, Roper M, Severe J, Odbert C, … the MTA Cooperative Group. (2004). Reliability of the Services for Children and Adolescents – Parent Interview. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43(11), 1345–1354. 10.1097/01.chi.0000139558.54948.1f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hutton JB (1985). What reasons are given by teachers who refer problem behavior students? Psychology in the Schools, 22(1), 79–82. 10.1002/1520-6807(198501)22:1<79::AID-PITS2310220116>3.0.CO;2-F. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. 2019 IBM Corp. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 29.0) [Computer software]. Armonk, NY: IB. [Google Scholar]
  42. Johnston C, Williamson D, Noyes A, Stewart K, & Weiss MD (2018). Parent and child ADHD symptoms in relation to parental attitudes and parenting: Testing the similarity-fit hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47(S1), S127–S136. 10.1080/15374416.2016.1169538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Jones AM, West KB, & Suveg C (2019). Anxiety in the school setting: A framework for evidence-based practice. School Mental Health, 11, 4–14. 10.1007/s12310-017-9235-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Kingery JN, Erdley CA, Marshall KC, Whitaker KG, & Reuter TR (2010). Peer experiences of anxious and socially withdrawn youth: An integrative review of the developmental and clinical literature. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 13, 91–128. 10.1007/s10567-009-0063-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Kiuru N, Aunola K, Lerkkanen M-K, Pakarinen E, Poskiparta E, Ahonen T, … Nurmi J-E (2015). Positive teacher and peer relations combine to predict primary school students’ academic skill development. Developmental Psychology, 51(4), 434–446. 10.1037/a0038911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Ladd GW, Herald-Brown SL, & Andrews RK (2009). The Child Behavior Scale (CBS) revisited: A longitudinal evaluation of CBS subscales with children, preadolescents, and adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 325–339. 10.1037/a0016205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ladd GW, & Profilet SM (1996). The Child Behavior Scale: A teacher-report measure of young children’s aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 1008–1024. [Google Scholar]
  48. Laursen B, & Veenstra R (2021). Toward understanding the functions of peer influence: A summary and synthesis of recent empirical research. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 889–907. 10.1111/jora.12606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Lee S, Burns GL, & Becker SP (2017). Can sluggish cognitive tempo be distinguished from ADHD inattention in very young children? Evidence from a sample of Korean preschool children. Journal of Attention Disorders, 21(8), 623–631. 10.1177/1087054716680077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Linnenbrink EA, & Pintrich PR (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313–327. 10.1080/02796015.2002.12086158. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Lloyd JW, Kauffman JM, Landrum TJ, & Roe DL (1991). Why do teachers refer pupils for special education? An analysis of referral records. Exceptionality, 2 (3), 115–126. 10.1080/09362839109524774. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Malecki CK, & Elliott SN (2002). Children’s social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(1), 1–23. 10.1521/scpq.17.1.1.19902. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Marshall SA, Evans SW, Eiraldi RB, Becker SP, & Power TJ (2014). Social and academic impairment in youth with ADHD, predominantly inattentive type and sluggish cognitive tempo. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 77–90. 10.1007/s10802-013-9758-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Mikami AY, & Hinshaw SP (2003). Buffers of peer rejection among girls with and without ADHD: The role of popularity with adults and goal-directed solitary play. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31(4), 381–397. 10.1023/A:1023839517978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Mikami AY, Owens JS, Evans SW, Hudec KL, Kassab H, Smit S, … Khalis A (2021). Promoting classroom social and academic functioning among children at risk for ADHD: The MOSAIC program. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 51(6), 1039–1052. 10.1080/15374416.2021.1929250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Miller MC, Shapiro SK, & Becker SP (2024). Examining cognitive disengagement syndrome in relation to problem solving in young adults. Journal of Attention Disorders, 28(9), 1–10. 10.1177/10870547241247176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Ollendick TH, Greene RW, Weist MD, & Oswald DP (1990). The predictive validity of teacher nominations: A five-year followup of at-risk youth. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18(6), 699–713. 10.1007/BF01342755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Owens JS, Qi H, Himawan LK, Lee M, & Mikami AY (2021). Teacher practices, peer dynamics, and academic enablers: A pilot study exploring direct and indirect effects among children at risk for ADHD and their classmates. Frontiers in Education, 5, 1–15. 10.3389/feduc.2020.609451. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Pfiffner LJ, Mikami AY, Huang-Pollock C, Easterlin B, Zalecki C, & McBurnett K (2007). A randomized, controlled trial of integrated home-school behavioral treatment for ADHD, predominantly inattentive type. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(8), 1041–1050. 10.1097/chi.0b013e318064675f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Power TJ, Watkins MW, Mautone JA, Walcott CM, Coutts MJ, & Sheridan SM (2015). Examining the validity of the Homework Performance Questionnaire: Multi-informant assessment in elementary and middle school. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(2), 260–275. 10.1037/spq0000081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Rondon AT, Hilton DC, Jarrett MA, & Ollendick TH (2020). Sleep, internalizing problems, and social withdrawal: Unique associations in clinic-referred youth with elevated sluggish cognitive tempo symptoms. Journal of Attention Disorders, 24(4), 524–534. 10.1177/1087054718756197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Rubin KH, Bukowski WM, & Bowker JC (2015). Children in peer groups. In Lerner RM (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (pp. 1–48). Wiley. 10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy405. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Rubin KH, & Burgess KB (2001). Social withdrawal. In Vasey MW, & Dadds MR (Eds.), The developmental psychopathology of anxiety (pp. 407–434). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  64. Rubin KH, & Chronis-Tuscano A (2021). Perspectives on social withdrawal in childhood: Past, present, and prospects. Child Development Perspectives, 15(3), 160–167. 10.1111/cdep.12417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Rubin KH, Coplan RJ, & Bowker JC (2009). Social withdrawal in childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 141–171. 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Sáez B, Servera M, Burns GL, & Becker SP (2019). Advancing the multi-informant assessment of sluggish cognitive tempo: Child self-report in relation to parent and teacher ratings of SCT and impairment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 47(1), 35–46. 10.1007/s10802-018-0436-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Servera M, Sáez B, Burns GL, & Becker SP (2018). Clinical differentiation of sluggish cognitive tempo and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127(8), 818–829. 10.1037/abn0000375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Stenseng F, Tingstad EB, Wichstrøm L, & Skalicka V (2022). Social withdrawal and academic achievement, intertwined over years? Bidirectional effects from primary to upper secondary school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 1354–1365. 10.1111/bjep.12504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Taylor SG, Siceloff ER, Roberts AM, Bradley WJ, Bridges RM, Lorch EP, … Flory K (2020). Emotion dysregulation and sluggish cognitive tempo as moderators of cortisol responsivity in children with ADHD. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 4, 227–240. 10.1007/s41252-020-00156-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Urdan T, & Schoenfelder E (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 331–349. 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Volpe RJ, DuPaul GJ, DiPerna JC, Jitendra AK, Lutz G, Tresco K, & Junod RV (2006). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and scholastic achievement: A model of mediation via academic enablers. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 47–61. 10.1080/02796015.2006.12088001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Vygotsky LS (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  73. Wentzel KR (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 357–364. 10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.357. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Wentzel KR, & Watkins DE (2002). Peer relationships and collaborative learning as contexts for academic enablers. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 366–377. 10.1080/02796015.2002.12086161. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Willcutt EG, Chhabildas N, Kinnear M, Defries JC, Olson RK, Leopold DR, … Pennington BF (2014). The internal and external validity of sluggish cognitive tempo and its relation with DSM–IV ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(1), 21–35. 10.1007/s10802-013-9800-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Yung TWK, Lai CYY, Chan JYC, Ng SSM, & Chan CCH (2021). Examining the role of attention deficits in the social problems and withdrawn behavior of children with sluggish cognitive tempo symptoms. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 1–12. 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.585589. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES