Re-Examining the Stop-Signal Task to Test Competing Theories of AD/HD

The current study tested two competing models of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD), the inhibition and state regulation theories, by conducting fine-grained analyses of the Stop-Signal Task and another putative measure of behavioral inhibition, the Gordon Continuous Performance Test (G-CPT), in a large sample of children and adolescents. The inhibition theory posits that performance on these tasks reflects increased difficulties for AD/HD participants to inhibit prepotent responses. The model predicts that putative stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) group differences on the Stop-Signal Task will be primarily related to AD/HD participants requiring more warning than control participants to inhibit to the stop-signal and emphasizes the relative importance of commission errors, particularly "impulsive" type commissions, over other error types on the G-CPT. The state regulation theory, on the other hand, proposes response variability due to difficulties maintaining an optimal state of arousal as the primary deficit in AD/HD. This model predicts that SSRT differences will be more attributable to slower and/or more variable reaction time (RT) in the AD/HD group, as opposed to reflecting inhibitory deficits. State regulation assumptions also emphasize the relative importance of omission errors and "slow processing" type commissions over other error types on the G-CPT. Overall, results of Stop-Signal Task analyses were more supportive of state regulation predictions and showed that greater response variability (i.e., SDRT) in the AD/HD group was not reducible to slow mean reaction time (MRT) and that response variability made a larger contribution to increased SSRT in the AD/HD group than inhibitory processes. Examined further, ex-Gaussian analyses of Stop-Signal Task go-trial RT distributions revealed that increased variability in the AD/HD group was not due solely to a few excessively long RTs in the tail of the AD/HD distribution (i.e., tau), but rather indicated the importance of response variability throughout AD/HD group performance on the Stop-Signal Task, as well as the notable sensitivity of ex-Gaussian analyses to variability in data screening procedures. Results of G-CPT analyses indicated some support for the inhibition model, although error type analyses failed to further differentiate the theories. Finally, inclusion of primary variables of interest in exploratory factor analysis with other neurocognitive predictors of AD/HD indicated response variability as a separable construct and further supported its role in Stop-Signal Task performance. Response variability did not, however, make a unique contribution to the prediction of AD/HD symptoms beyond measures of motor processing speed in multiple deficit regression analyses. Results have implications for the interpretation of the processes reflected in widely-used variables in the AD/HD literature, as well as for the theoretical understanding of AD/HD.

Validation of the Item-Attribute Matrix in TIMSS-Mathematics Using Multiple Regression and the LSDM

The purposes of this study were (1) to validate of the item-attribute matrix using two levels of attributes (Level 1 attributes and Level 2 sub-attributes), and (2) through retrofitting the diagnostic models to the mathematics test of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), to evaluate the construct validity of TIMSS mathematics assessment by comparing the results of two assessment booklets. Item data were extracted from Booklets 2 and 3 for the 8th grade in TIMSS 2007, which included a total of 49 mathematics items and every student's response to every item. The study developed three categories of attributes at two levels: content, cognitive process (TIMSS or new), and comprehensive cognitive process (or IT) based on the TIMSS assessment framework, cognitive procedures, and item type. At level one, there were 4 content attributes (number, algebra, geometry, and data and chance), 3 TIMSS process attributes (knowing, applying, and reasoning), and 4 new process attributes (identifying, computing, judging, and reasoning). At level two, the level 1 attributes were further divided into 32 sub-attributes. There was only one level of IT attributes (multiple steps/responses, complexity, and constructed-response). Twelve Q-matrices (4 originally specified, 4 random, and 4 revised) were investigated with eleven Q-matrix models (QM1 ~ QM11) using multiple regression and the least squares distance method (LSDM). Comprehensive analyses indicated that the proposed Q-matrices explained most of the variance in item difficulty (i.e., 64% to 81%). The cognitive process attributes contributed to the item difficulties more than the content attributes, and the IT attributes contributed much more than both the content and process attributes. The new retrofitted process attributes explained the items better than the TIMSS process attributes. Results generated from the level 1 attributes and the level 2 attributes were consistent. Most attributes could be used to recover students' performance, but some attributes' probabilities showed unreasonable patterns. The analysis approaches could not demonstrate if the same construct validity was supported across booklets. The proposed attributes and Q-matrices explained the items of Booklet 2 better than the items of Booklet 3. The specified Q-matrices explained the items better than the random Q-matrices.