The Wiley Handbook of Developmental Psychopathology

Luna C. Centifanti, David M. Williams, Luna C. Centifanti, David M. Williams

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781118554555
• eBook ISBN: 9781118554531
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Clinical Psychology
• Index: Psychology

The Wiley Handbook of Developmental Psychopathology offers a concise, up-to-date, and international overview of the study of developmental psychopathology.

• Examines the cognitive, neurobiological, genetic, and environmental influences on normal and abnormal development across the lifespan
• Incorporates methodology, theory, and the latest empirical research in a discussion of modern techniques for studying developmental psychopathology
• Considers the legal, societal, and policy impacts of changes to diagnostic categories in the light of the transition to DSM-5
• Moves beyond a disorder-based discussion to address issues that cut across diagnostic categories

Section II
Cognitive, Neurobiological, and Genetic Influences

Part 1
Cognition/ Socioemotional Factors

5
Profiles of Executive Control in Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Tourette’s Syndrome: Performance‐Based versus Real‐World Measures

Cynthia S. Peng and Gregory L. Wallace

Introduction

Executive function (EF) is broadly defined as a set of cognitive processes that subserve behavioral and cognitive regulation in goal‐directed processes. As an umbrella term, it encompasses working memory, flexibility, generativity, monitoring, planning, and inhibition (Rogers & Bennetto, 2000). In measuring EF, performance‐based tasks (PB) and real‐world (RW) measures are commonly used as complementary approaches.

PB tasks are often designed to increase experimental control and to isolate one specific domain of EF, though many measures remain multifactorial in their cognitive demands. In essence, they aim for specificity by controlling the conditions under which data are collected and tapping into one domain at a time, with outcome variables such as accuracy or reaction time to be the dependent measure that distinguish between groups and highlights any potentially clinically relevant deficits. Though traditionally administered by an experimenter in a highly structured setting, there has been a more recent movement for computerized administration, homogenizing results by taking away the social demands and variability inherent in person‐to‐person testing (Kenworthy et al., 2008).

RW assessment tools prioritize ecological validity or the “representativeness” of the measure as well as its “generalizability” to everyday situations (Burgess et al., 2006; Kvavilashvili & Ellis, 2004). In other words, this approach seeks to maximize external validity while often sacrificing some degree of experimental control and/or EF domain specificity. RW EF measures are broadly divided into two categories: questionnaire‐based approaches, such as the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), and task‐based approaches, the most well‐known of which is the Behavioral Assessment of Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS). Executive functions are, by their nature, hard to capture in a controlled setting (e.g. the laboratory); with RW comes less directive and structured tasks or demands when EF is most taxed. Overall, the resemblance to everyday demands and the scope of those everyday demands they encompass give a broader picture of a given individual’s EF over a wide range of experiences and in contexts representative of real‐world functioning demands. Thus, when impairments are noted, there is added confidence that these deficits could be representative of real‐world functioning, though isolating the exact cognitive demands that lead to that breakdown can be challenging.

Though previous studies have traditionally utilized either PB or RW measures alone, there are now a growing number of studies that employ both. When both PB and RW EF measures are used they often do not correlate strongly. Therefore, they provide a complementary approach to evaluating intact and impaired EF domains because they appear to be measuring different aspects of EF. (In the case of some RW questionnaires, behavior as it relates to EF.) As is consistent with their methodological approaches, PB EF tasks are thought to assess discrete cognitive functions, while RW measures tap into the multifactorial demands placed on individuals in their everyday decision‐making. Here, we offer a comparison of disorder‐specific EF impairments as a function of EF measurement approach. Historically, there has been a lack of consensus on the definition and component processes of EF. One of the as yet unresolved debates is whether EF is a unitary or fractionated construct in development (Isquith, Gioia, & Espy, 2004; Kenworthy et al., 2008; Miyake et al., 2000). Broadly, while some authors consider EF as a singular entity not unlike a general intelligence factor, g, most others in the field subscribe to the idea that there exist relatively independent subfunctions within the umbrella term of EF (Lehto, Juujarvi, Kooistra, & Pulkkinen, 2003).

While PB tasks aim to pinpoint categorical deficits by sampling different component processes, RW measures aim to contextualize those EF deficits in daily living across situations and with highly diverse demands. The investigation of both will aid in elucidating a comprehensive profile of EF in relation to everyday function. We recognize that PB tasks and RW tasks provide complementary information about EF; however, noting similarities and dissimilarities is crucial in determining profiles of intact and impaired EF across disorders.

Generally speaking, EF is crucial to everyday functioning for us all. Therefore, it is important to elucidate divergent EF profiles (and constituent deficits) across a range of neurodevelopmental disorders to determine how EF deficits manifest in the context of various forms of developmental psychopathology. Different EF profiles and their constituent deficits might uniquely impact behavioral, cognitive, and social functioning and require distinct intervention approaches.

Methods

In focusing primarily on EF deficits across three neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), we input the search terms “autism,” “autism spectrum disorder,” “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,” and “Tourette’s syndrome” in tandem with “executive function” or “executive dysfunction” in PubMed. We chose these particular neurodevelopmental disorders, because executive dysfunction has been implicated in each of them on a frequent basis. Studies selected for inclusion in the review were determined using the following criteria: they included a comparison group of typically developing (TD) participants and they included sufficient quantifiable metrics (such as number of participants, age ranges, etc.). Because widespread utilization of RW EF measures is a relatively recent phenomenon, and because of the size of the extant literature, papers for consideration were studies published from 2010 to 2015, an apt period that picks up shortly after Kenworthy et al.’s (2008) review of this topic (in ASD only) leaves off.

In order to objectively evaluate past research by accounting for sample sizes employed in prior studies, study weights were computed via noting if the given measure in the study elicited differences between groups (“Yes” for significantly different; “No” for failing to reach the threshold for significant difference), multiplied by the number of subjects included in the sample. With this weight appropriately placed in each column (Tables 5.1–5.6), the total weighted sum of studies that found significant group differences and studies that did not can be computed for each EF assessment approach by domain and by measure, and they can be compared across and between disorders. This simple method prevents small studies from having an undue influence on conclusions drawn from this survey of the literature. Our classification of significant group differences is in accordance with each study authors’ pre‐existing methodology of determini...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Contributors
• Section I: Developmental Psychopathology: An up‐to‐date Historical and Methodological Overview
• Section II: Cognitive, Neurobiological, and Genetic Influences
• Section III: Environmental Influences
• Section IV: DSM‐5 and the Future of Developmental Psychopathology Research
• Index
• End User License Agreement