The Comparison of KEDI- WISC and TOVA Response on Children within ADHD with or without Comorbidity.
- Author:
Bomoon CHOI
1
;
Deug Im JEUN
Author Information
1. Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
ADHD;
TOVA-auditory;
TOVA-visual
- MeSH:
Child*;
Classification;
Comorbidity*;
Comprehension;
Diagnosis;
Humans;
Reaction Time
- From:Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association
2003;42(2):246-253
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to make a comparison of KEDI-WISC and TOVA response in children with ADHD only (group 1), ADHD with comorbidity (group 2) and non-ADHD (in children with clinical diagnoses other than ADHD:group 3). And the clinical utility of auditory TOVA was examined. METHODS: Subjects of this research were children who were diagnosed as ADHD without comorbidity (n=19), ADHD with comorbidity (n=29) and non-ADHD (n=37). Cognitive characteristics among three groups were evaluated by FIQ, VIQ, PIQ, 11 subtests of KEDI-WISC and variables of visual and auditory TOVA. In order to determine the variables of visual and auditory TOVA effectively discrinating these three groups well, discriminant analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The results indicated that three groups in FIQ, VIQ and PIQ as well as information, comprehension, digit span, picture completion and block design were differentiated. With visual TOVA, group 1 was significantly slower than group 2 and group 3 in response time. And group 1 vs group 3 differed in the variability for Q1. With auditory-TOVA, group 1 was significantly more impaired than group 3 in D prime for the high response demand mode ("frequent" mode), response time for Q3, commission errors for Q4 and in the variability for Q2. As a result of discriminant analysis, it was Q1 and Q4 of RT in visual TOVA and Q4 of CE in auditory TOVA. And overall percentage of correct classification to identify possible presence of attention deficit was 60.0% in visual TOVA, 61.2% in auditory TOVA and 61.2% in both. CONCLUSION: The results indicated that FIQ, VIQ and PIQ of group 2 were lower than group 1 and group 3. TOVA response differentiated among three groups and the responses in attention deficit children varied according to the situations and the characteristics of task. For the economy of time and expenses down either of them is good enough to indicate the possible presence of attention deficit. The clinical implications and limitations of the present study were discussed.
