Table 3.
Key study characteristics of included papers
| Author(s), year of publication | ADHD Sample size (% female) | Age of participants (M [SD], range) | Population setting | Literacy domain(s) and measure(s) | Cognitive domain(s) and measure(s) | Key findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alloway (2011) | 50 (14%) | 9.15 years (12 months) | Community (recruited from schools) |
Reading composite (word reading, spelling, reading comprehension);The WechslerObjective Reading Dimensions (WORD; Wechsler, 1993) |
Verbal STM, Visuospatial STM, Verbal WM, Visusospatial WM;Automated Working Memory Assessment (AWMA; Alloway, 2011) |
Significant positive correlations between reading composite and all STM/WM measures |
| Åsberg Johnels et al. (2014) |
30 (100%)19 ‘poor spellers’, 11 ‘typical spellers’ |
10–16 years | Clinical referrals |
Spelling;Stanving (9–12 year olds, Rockberg & Johansson, 1994) and LS Test (12 years and above, Johanson, 1992) |
Working memory, inhibition;Digit Span subtest – WISC‐III (Wechsler, 1991), Continuous Performance Test (Complex Reaction Time; Frisk, 1999) |
Working memory and inhibition were both moderately correlated with spelling. Children with better verbal STM and stronger inhibitory control had better spelling scores |
| Çelik et al. (2016) | 48 (23%) | 13.66 years (1.96), 6–14 years | Clinical referrals |
Reading speed, reading comprehension, reading error, reading fluency;Oral Reading Skill and Reading Comprehension Test (ORCT; Erden, 2012) |
Working memory (WMI), processing speed (PSI);Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC‐IV; Wechsler, 2003) |
Working memory significantly correlated with reading comprehension, error and fluency but not reading speed. Processing speed was not significantly correlated with any reading measures |
| Mano et al. (2017) | 187 (38%) |
Males: 9 years, grades 2–5Females: 9.5 years, grades 2–5 |
Community and clinical |
Basic reading, reading comprehension;Wechsler Individual Attainment Test, Third Edition (WIAT‐III; Wechsler, 2009) |
Rapid Automatized Naming of letters (RAN);Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999) |
For boys, there were significant correlations between both reading measures and RAN. For girls, there were no significant correlations |
| Mayes and Calhoun (2007) | Total: 678 WISC‐III: 586 (26%), WISC‐IV: 92 (36%) | 9 years (2–2.5), 6–16 years | Clinical referrals |
Basic word reading, reading comprehension, written expression;WIAT and WIAT‐II (Psychological Corporation, 1992, 2002) |
Working memory (WMI), freedom from distractibility (FDI), processing speed (PSI);WISC‐III (Wechsler, 1991), WISC‐IV (Wechsler, 2003) |
Working memory moderately correlated with all literacy measures. Processing speed moderately correlated with word reading but relationship with both reading comprehension and written expression was weaker |
| Tamm et al. (2014) | 65 (40%) | 9.1 years (1.3) | Community and clinical |
Basic reading, word reading efficiency, reading comprehension;Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement – Third Edition(WJ‐III; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001), WIAT‐III (Wechsler, 2009), Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999) |
Executive attention (reaction time variability; SDRT), response inhibition (stop signal reaction time; SSRT), processing speed (mean reaction time; MRT);Stop Signal Task (SST; Logan & Cowan, 1984) |
Executive attention significantly correlated with all reading measures (small effect size). Inhibition was only related to basic word reading. Processing speed was not significantly correlated with any of the reading measures |