Table 1.
| Citation | LI n | TD n | Age Range, LI group |
Age Range, TD group |
ADHD exclusiona |
Modality | Stimuli | Stimuli Duration |
Percentage Targets |
Accuracy Dependent Variable |
Significance and Effect Sizeb |
RT Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arboleda-Ramírez et al. (2007) | 51 | 49 | 6–16 | 6–16 | No | Auditory | -- | -- | -- | Errors | 0.59** | NA |
| Bishop & Norbury (2005) | 17 | 18 | 6–10 | 6–10 | No | Auditory | Tones | -- | 6–67% | Scaled Score1 |
1.39*** | NA |
| Buiza-Navarrete et al. (2007) | 37 | 37 | 5;0–12;11 | 5;0–12;11 | No | Visual | -- | -- | -- | Hits | 1.20*** | NS |
| Visual | -- (sequences) |
-- | -- | Hits | 0.65** | NS | ||||||
| Das & Äystö (1994) | 60 | 163 | 7;7–19;2 | 8;4–19;0 | No | Auditory | Words, gender of speaker |
-- | -- | Hits – False Alarms |
0.58**c | NA |
| Auditory | Words, gender of speaker |
-- | -- | Hits – False Alarms |
0.90***c | NA | ||||||
| Dodwell & Bavin (2008) | 16 | 25 | 6;1–7;0 | 6;0–7;2 | No | Auditory | Words | 1 syllable | 20% | Errors | 0.69* | NA |
| Visual | Pictures | 2 sec. | 17% | Errors | 0.33 NS | NA | ||||||
| Finneran et al. (2009) | 13 | 13 | 4;5–6;10 | 4;6–6;11 | Yesd | Visual | Shapes | 400ms | 40% | d’ | 1.06*** | NS |
| Greyerbiehl (1981) | 32 | 16 | 7;2–9;2 | 7;2–9;3 | Yese | Auditory | Syllables in Quiet |
250ms | 50% | Percent Correct |
0.87** | NA |
| Auditory | Syllables in noise, 40ms formant transition |
250ms | 50% | Percent Correct |
1.15** | NA | ||||||
| Auditory | Syllables in noise, 80 ms formant transition |
250ms | 50% | Percent Correct |
1.26** | NA | ||||||
| Hanson & Montgomery (2002) | 12 | 12 | 6–10 | 6–10 | No | Auditory | Words | 1 syllable | 20% | Hits | 0.25 NS | NA |
| Lum et al. (2006)f | 26 | 14 | -- | -- | No | Visual | Digits | 80ms | 7–13% | Hits | 0.52*** | NA |
| McArthur & Bishop (2004) | 16 | 16 | 12–20 | 12–21 | No | Auditory | Noises | 345ms | -- | Scaled Scoreg |
−0.04 NS | NA |
| Montgomery (2008) | 36 | 36 | 6;10–10;8 | 6;7–10;5 | Yesh | Auditory | Words | 1 syllable | 20% | d’ | 1.31*** | NA |
| Montgomery et al. (2009) | 26 | 26 | 7;1–10;6 | 7;0–10;5 | Yesh | Auditory | Words | 1 syllable | 20% | d’ | 1.43*** | NA |
| Noterdaemei et al. (2001) | 17 | 19 | 7;0–20;0 | 7;0–20;6 | No | Auditory | Tones | -- | -- | Omission errors |
** | NS |
| Auditory | Tones | -- | -- | Omission errors in last 5 minutes – omission errors in first 5 minutes |
*** | ** | ||||||
| Visual | Symbols, screen location |
-- | -- | Omission errors |
NS | NS | ||||||
| Visual | Symbols, screen location |
-- | -- | Omission errors in last 5 minutes – omission errors in first 5 minutes |
NS | NS | ||||||
| Redey-Nagy (2009) | 11 | 10 | 5;0–10;3 | 5;5–10;11 | No | Auditory | Tones | -- | 6–67% | Scaled Scoreg |
0.60 NS | NA |
| Spaulding et al. (2008) | 23 | 23 | 4;1–5;7 | 4;0–5;7 | Yesj | Auditory | Words | 1 sec. | 16.7% | d’ | 0.19 NS | NS |
| Auditory | Words, degraded |
1 sec. | 16.7% | d’ | 1.04** | NS | ||||||
| Auditory | Noises | 1 sec. | 16.7% | d’ | 0.18 NS | NS | ||||||
| Auditory | Noises, degraded |
1 sec. | 16.7% | d’ | 0.69** | NS | ||||||
| Visual | Animated pictures |
1 sec. | 16.7% | d’ | 0.07 NS | NS | ||||||
| Visual | Animated pictures, degraded |
1 sec. | 16.7% | d’ | 0.04 NS | NS | ||||||
| Townsend & Tallal (1989) | 18 | 14 | 9–11 | 9–11 | No | Auditory | Tones | 75 ms. | 10% | Hits | 0.22* | NA |
| Auditory | Tone sequences |
75 ms. | 10% | Hits | 1.18** | NA | ||||||
| Visual | Figures | 75 ms. | 10% | Hits | 0.27 NS | NA | ||||||
| Visual | Figure sequences |
75 ms. | 10% | Hits | 0.49 NS | NA | ||||||
| Wiig & Austin (1972)k |
13 | 13 | 6;4– 7;11 |
-- | No | Visual | Pictures | 1 sec. | 10% | Errors | 3.41** | NA |
Note. Consistent with the review’s goal of comparing children with LI to typically developing peers, only typically developing comparison groups are included in the table. LI groups that were subdivided in the original study (Greyerbiehl, 1981; Lum et al., 2006) are unified here. All ages are reported as years; months, or in years only when the source did not report months. A single dependent variable was chosen from each study to prevent redundancy. Thus each line in the table represents data from a unique task. Dashed lines (--) indicate that the relevant information was not reported in the manuscript.
Study reports a method for explicitly excluding individuals with clinical attention deficit. Studies that report participants had “no known neurological deficits” or the equivalent, but do not explicitly mention attention deficits, are marked “No” in this column.
Effect size reflects the comparison between language-impaired and typically developing participants only. A negative effect size indicates that the LI group outperformed the TD group.
Typically developing children in the Däs & Äystö (1994) study were significantly younger than their language-impaired counterparts, thus potentially underestimating effect size. The difference between the two tasks listed is in the conditions required for a target response.
Typical scores on Connor’s ADHD/DSM-IV Scales – Parent.
Per teacher report.
Lum et al. (2006) do not report an age range for participants but report an average age of 17;1 for the LI group and of 17;0 for the TD group, with a standard deviation of 0.4 years for both groups. Participants were required to report the value of the digit detected.
From the Test of Everyday Attention for Children.
By parent report.
Authors do not report enough information to accurately calculate effect size; study was excluded from the meta-analysis.
Did not have an ADD or ADHD diagnosis.
Wiig & Austin (1972) report only that the TD group was age-matched to the LI group. This study was also excluded from the meta-analysis because it was an outlier.
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01,
p < 0.001.