Unpacking the overlap between Autism and ADHD in adults: A multi-method approach

The overlap between Autism and Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is widely observed in clinical settings, with growing interest in their co-occurrence in neurodiversity research. Until relatively recently, however, concurrent diagnoses of Autism and ADHD were not possible. This has limited the scope for large-scale research on their cross-condition associations, further stymied by a dearth of open science practices in the neurodiversity field. Additionally, almost all previous research linking Autism and ADHD has focused on children and adolescents, despite them being lifelong conditions. Tackling these limitations in previous research, 5504 adults - including a nationally representative sample of the UK (Study 1; n = 504) and a large pre-registered study (Study 2; n = 5000) - completed well-established self-report measures of Autism and ADHD traits. A series of network analyses unpacked the associations between Autism and ADHD at the individual trait level. Low inter-item connectivity was consistently found between conditions, supporting the distinction between Autism and ADHD as separable constructs. Subjective social enjoyment and hyperactivity-impulsivity traits were most condition-specific to Autism and ADHD, respectively. Traits related to attention control showed the greatest Bridge Expected Influence across conditions, revealing a potential transdiagnostic process underlying the overlap between Autism and ADHD. To investigate this further at the cognitive level, participants completed a large, well-powered, and pre-registered study measuring the relative contributions of Autism and ADHD traits to attention control (Study 3; n = 500). We detected age- and sex-related effects, however, attention control did not account for the covariance between Autism and ADHD traits. We situate our findings and discuss future directions in the cognitive science of Autism, ADHD, and neurodiversity, noting how our open datasets may be used in future research.

The validity of general cognitive ability predicting job-specific performance is stable across different levels of job experience

Decades of research in industrial-organizational psychology have established that measures of general cognitive ability (g) consistently and positively predict job-specific performance to a statistically and practically significant degree across jobs. But is the validity of g stable across different levels of job experience? The present study addresses this question using historical large-scale data across 31 diverse military occupations from the Joint-Service Job Performance Measurement/Enlistment Standards Project (N = 10,088). Across all jobs, results of our meta-analysis find near-zero interactions between Armed Forces Qualification Test score (a composite of math and verbal scores) and time in service when predicting job-specific performance. This finding supports the validity of g for predicting job-specific performance even with increasing job experience and provides no evidence for diminishing validity of g. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, along with directions for personnel selection research and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Modality matters: Three auditory conflict tasks to measure individual differences in attention control

Early work on selective attention used auditory-based tasks, such as dichotic listening, to shed light on capacity limitations and individual differences in these limitations. Today, there is great interest in individual differences in attentional abilities, but the field has shifted towards visual-modality tasks. Furthermore, most conflict-based tests of attention control lack reliability due to low signal-to-noise ratios and the use of difference scores. Critically, it is unclear to what extent attention control generalizes across sensory modalities, and without reliable auditory-based tests, an answer to this question will remain elusive. To this end, we developed three auditory-based tests of attention control that use an adaptive response deadline (DL) to account for speed-accuracy trade-offs: Auditory Simon DL, Auditory Flanker DL, and Auditory Stroop DL. In a large sample (N = 316), we investigated the psychometric properties of the three auditory conflict tasks, tested whether attention control is better modeled as a unitary factor or modality-specific factors, and estimated the extent to which unique variance in modality-specific factors contributed incrementally to the prediction of dichotic listening and multitasking performance. Our analyses indicated that the auditory conflict tasks have strong psychometric properties and demonstrate convergent validity with visual tests of attention control. Auditory and visual attention control factors were highly correlated (r = .81)-even after controlling for perceptual processing speed (r = .75). Modality-specific attention control factors accounted for unique variance in modality-matched criterion measures, but the majority of the explained variance was modality-general. The results suggest an interplay between modality-general attention control and modality-specific processing.

Explaining the Validity of the ASVAB for Job-Relevant Multitasking Performance: The Role of Placekeeping Ability

Scores on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) predict military job (and training) performance better than any single variable so far identified. However, it remains unclear what factors explain this predictive relationship. Here, we investigated the contributions of fluid intelligence (Gf) and two executive functions-placekeeping ability and attention control-to the relationship between the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score from the ASVAB and job-relevant multitasking performance. Psychometric network analyses revealed that Gf and placekeeping ability independently contributed to and largely explained the AFQT-multitasking performance relationship. The contribution of attention control to this relationship was negligible. However, attention control did relate positively and significantly to Gf and placekeeping ability, consistent with the hypothesis that it is a cognitive "primitive" underlying the individual differences in higher-level cognition. Finally, hierarchical regression analyses revealed stronger evidence for the incremental validity of Gf and placekeeping ability in the prediction of multitasking performance than for the incremental validity of attention control. The results shed light on factors that may underlie the predictive validity of global measures of cognitive ability and suggest how the ASVAB might be augmented to improve its predictive validity.

Nature and measurement of attention control

Individual differences in the ability to control attention are correlated with a wide range of important outcomes, from academic achievement and job performance to health behaviors and emotion regulation. Nevertheless, the theoretical nature of attention control as a cognitive construct has been the subject of heated debate, spurred on by psychometric issues that have stymied efforts to reliably measure differences in the ability to control attention. For theory to advance, our measures must improve. We introduce three efficient, reliable, and valid tests of attention control that each take less than 3 min to administer: Stroop Squared, Flanker Squared, and Simon Squared. Two studies (online and in-lab) comprising more than 600 participants demonstrate that the three "Squared" tasks have great internal consistency (avg. = .95) and test-retest reliability across sessions (avg. r = .67). Latent variable analyses revealed that the Squared tasks loaded highly on a common factor (avg. loading = .70), which was strongly correlated with an attention control factor based on established measures (avg. r = .81). Moreover, attention control correlated strongly with fluid intelligence, working memory capacity, and processing speed and helped explain their covariation. We found that the Squared attention control tasks accounted for 75% of the variance in multitasking ability at the latent level, and that fluid intelligence, attention control, and processing speed fully accounted for individual differences in multitasking ability. Our results suggest that Stroop Squared, Flanker Squared, and Simon Squared are reliable and valid measures of attention control. The tasks are freely available online: https://osf.io/7q598/. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The ACT Predicts Academic Performance-But Why?

Scores on the ACT college entrance exam predict college grades to a statistically and practically significant degree, but what explains this predictive validity? The most obvious possibility is general intelligence-or psychometric "g". However, inconsistent with this hypothesis, even when independent measures of g are statistically controlled, ACT scores still positively predict college grades. Here, in a study of 182 students enrolled in two Introductory Psychology courses, we tested whether pre-course knowledge, motivation, interest, and/or personality characteristics such as grit and self-control could explain the relationship between ACT and course performance after controlling for g. Surprisingly, none could. We speculate about what other factors might explain the robust relationship between ACT scores and academic performance.

Do growth mindset interventions impact students' academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices

According to mindset theory, students who believe their personal characteristics can change-that is, those who hold a growth mindset-will achieve more than students who believe their characteristics are fixed. Proponents of the theory have developed interventions to influence students' mindsets, claiming that these interventions lead to large gains in academic achievement. Despite their popularity, the evidence for growth mindset intervention benefits has not been systematically evaluated considering both the quantity and quality of the evidence. Here, we provide such a review by (a) evaluating empirical studies' adherence to a set of best practices essential for drawing causal conclusions and (b) conducting three meta-analyses. When examining all studies (63 studies, N = 97,672), we found major shortcomings in study design, analysis, and reporting, and suggestions of researcher and publication bias: Authors with a financial incentive to report positive findings published significantly larger effects than authors without this incentive. Across all studies, we observed a small overall effect: d¯ = 0.05, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.09], which was nonsignificant after correcting for potential publication bias. No theoretically meaningful moderators were significant. When examining only studies demonstrating the intervention influenced students' mindsets as intended (13 studies, N = 18,355), the effect was nonsignificant: d¯ = 0.04, 95% CI = [-0.01, 0.10]. When examining the highest-quality evidence (6 studies, N = 13,571), the effect was nonsignificant: d¯ = 0.02, 95% CI = [-0.06, 0.10]. We conclude that apparent effects of growth mindset interventions on academic achievement are likely attributable to inadequate study design, reporting flaws, and bias. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Reconsidering the Use of the Mindset Assessment Profile in Educational Contexts

The Mindset Assessment Profile is a popular questionnaire purportedly designed to measure mindset-an individual's belief in whether intelligence is malleable or stable. Despite its widespread use, the questionnaire appears to assess an individual's need for cognition and goal orientation more than mindset. We assessed the reliability, construct validity, and factor structure of the Mindset Assessment Profile in a sample of 992 undergraduates. The reliability of the Mindset Assessment Profile was questionable (α = .63) and significantly lower than the reliability of the Implicit Theories of Intelligence Questionnaire (α = .94), an established measure of mindset. The Mindset Assessment Profile also lacked convergent and discriminant validity. Overall scores on the Mindset Assessment Profile correlated significantly more strongly with need for cognition than with mindset. Item-level analyses supported this finding: most items correlated weakly or not at all with mindset, and correlated significantly more strongly with need for cognition and learning goal orientation. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that three factors were underlying scores on the Mindset Assessment Profile: need for cognition, mindset, and performance goal orientation. Based on its questionable reliability and poor construct validity, we do not recommend that researchers and educators use the Mindset Assessment Profile to measure mindset.

Attention Control: A Cornerstone of Higher-Order Cognition

For years, psychologists have wondered why people who are highly skilled in one cognitive domain tend to be skilled in other cognitive domains, too. In this article, we explain how attention control provides a common thread among broad cognitive abilities, including fluid intelligence, working memory capacity, and sensory discrimination. Attention control allows us to pursue our goals despite distractions and temptations, to deviate from the habitual, and to keep information in mind amid a maelstrom of divergent thought. Highlighting results from our lab, we describe the role of attention control in information maintenance and disengagement and how these functions contribute to performance in a variety of complex cognitive tasks. We also describe a recent undertaking in which we developed new and improved attention-control tasks, which had higher reliabilities, stronger intercorrelations, and higher loadings on a common factor than traditional measures. From an applied perspective, these new attention-control tasks show great promise for use in personnel selection assessments. We close by outlining exciting avenues for future research.

Mitochondrial Functioning and Its Relation to Higher-Order Cognitive Processes

One of the most replicated findings in psychology is the positive manifold between cognitive ability measures (Jensen 1998; Spearman 1904) [...].

How Firm Are the Foundations of Mind-Set Theory? The Claims Appear Stronger Than the Evidence

Mind-set refers to people’s beliefs about whether attributes are malleable ( growth mind-set) or unchangeable (  fixed mind-set). Proponents of mind-set theory have made bold claims about mind-set’s importance. For example, one’s mind-set is described as having profound effects on one’s motivation and achievements, creating different psychological worlds for people, and forming the core of people’s meaning systems. We examined the evidentiary strength of six key premises of mind-set theory in 438 participants; we reasoned that strongly worded claims should be supported by equally strong evidence. However, no support was found for most premises. All associations ( rs) were significantly weaker than .20. Other achievement-motivation constructs, such as self-efficacy and need for achievement, have been found to correlate much more strongly with presumed associates of mind-set. The strongest association with mind-set ( r = −.12) was opposite from the predicted direction. The results suggest that the foundations of mind-set theory are not firm and that bold claims about mind-set appear to be overstated.

The Impact of Domain-Specific Experience on Chess Skill: Reanalysis of a Key Study

How important are training and other forms of domain-relevant experience in predicting individual differences in expertise? To answer this question, we used structural equation modeling to reanalyze data from a study of chess by Charness, Tuffiash, Krampe, Reingold, and Vasyukova (2005). Latent variables reflecting serious chess activity and formal instruction, along with a manifest variable indexing serious starting age, accounted for 63% of the variance in peak rating. Serious starting age had a significant negative effect on peak rating (β = –.15), even after we controlled for domain-specific experience, indicating an advantage for starting earlier. We also tested the prediction that formal instruction increases the effectiveness of serious study (Ericsson & Charness, 1994) using moderated regression. This claim was not supported. Overall, the results affirm that serious study and other forms of domain-specific experience are important pieces of the expertise puzzle, but other factors must matter too.

Supplemental materials are available at https://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/ajp/media/chess_skill

To What Extent and Under Which Circumstances Are Growth Mind-Sets Important to Academic Achievement? Two Meta-Analyses

Mind-sets (aka implicit theories) are beliefs about the nature of human attributes (e.g., intelligence). The theory holds that individuals with growth mind-sets (beliefs that attributes are malleable with effort) enjoy many positive outcomes-including higher academic achievement-while their peers who have fixed mind-sets experience negative outcomes. Given this relationship, interventions designed to increase students' growth mind-sets-thereby increasing their academic achievement-have been implemented in schools around the world. In our first meta-analysis ( k = 273, N = 365,915), we examined the strength of the relationship between mind-set and academic achievement and potential moderating factors. In our second meta-analysis ( k = 43, N = 57,155), we examined the effectiveness of mind-set interventions on academic achievement and potential moderating factors. Overall effects were weak for both meta-analyses. However, some results supported specific tenets of the theory, namely, that students with low socioeconomic status or who are academically at risk might benefit from mind-set interventions.

Toward a multifactorial model of expertise: beyond born versus made

The debate over the origins of individual differences in expertise has raged for over a century in psychology. The "nature" view holds that expertise reflects "innate talent"-that is, genetically determined abilities. The "nurture" view counters that, if talent even exists, its effects on ultimate performance are negligible. While no scientist takes seriously a strict nature-only view of expertise, the nurture view has gained tremendous popularity over the past several decades. This environmentalist view holds that individual differences in expertise reflect training history, with no important contribution to ultimate performance by innate ability ("talent"). Here, we argue that, despite its popularity, this view is inadequate to account for the evidence concerning the origins of expertise that has accumulated since the view was first proposed. More generally, we argue that the nature versus nurture debate in research on expertise is over-or certainly should be, as it has been in other areas of psychological research for decades. We describe a multifactorial model for research on the nature and nurture of expertise, which we believe will provide a progressive direction for future research on expertise.