Attention Deficit Predicts Intellectual Functioning in Children with Neurofibromatosis Type 1
Table 1
Sample characterization of patients with NF1ADHD, NF1control, and ADHDcontrol.
Corrected means (standard error)
NF1ADHD (A)
NF1control (B)
ADHDcontrol (C)
(all groups)a
values (all groups)
Post-hoc comparisonsa
Number
53
28
30
—
—
—
—
Sex (female/male)
20/33
18/10
8/22
—
—
0.010c
—
Age
8.87 (0.20)
8.36 (0.28)
8.96 (0.27)
1.454
2.175
0.238d
—
SES (Winkler-index)b
12.02 (0.64)
13.39 (0.86)
11.13 (0.80)
1.88
18.99
0.159d
—
Familial type of NF1 (familial/spontaneous)
25/28
9/19
—
—
—
0.240c
—
Asymptomatic optic nerve glioma (N)
10
3
—
—
—
0.358c
—
Subtype (ADHD-C/ADHD-I)f
33/20
—
16/14
—
—
0.490c
—
Methylphenidate prior to T1 (N)
7
—
2
—
—
0.292c
—
Conners 3® ADHD-index (T-scores)
62.48 (0.86)
52.93 (1.27)
66.05 (1.07)
31.29
33.58
<0.001e
A<B; C<B; C<A
Conners 3® global-index (T-scores)
60.22 (1.16)
49.61 (1.72)
65.03 (1.46)
23.17
61.78
<0.001e
A<B; C<B; C<A
Allowed comorbidities
Number of patients
values (all groups)
Post-hoc comparisonsa
Previous language disorder
14
4
7
—
—
.415c
—
Unspecific learning disabilities
9
1
1
—
—
.108 c
—
Dyslexia
8
1
6
—
—
.188 c
—
Dyscalculia
5
0
3
—
—
.519 c
—
Depression
0
0
1
—
—
.538 c
—
Anxiety disorders
1
1
1
—
—
.457 c
—
Oppositional defiant disorder
4
0
3
—
—
.325 c
—
Conduct disorder
2
0
2
—
—
.325 c
—
Note: a< = “worse than”, even if the score is higher in numbers; ;;;bThe socio-economic status was measured with the Winkler-Index (3–8 = low, 9–14 = middle, 15–21 = high).cData was analyzed with χ2-tests; dData was analyzed with analyses of variance (ANOVA); eData was analyzed with multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA). fADHD-C = combined type of ADHD, ADHD-I = inattentive type of ADHD.