eyes up, down, all around: mind wandering and reading in
TRANSCRIPT
University of Calgary
PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository
Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations
2016
Eyes Up, Down, All Around: Mind Wandering and
Reading in Adolescents with ADHD
Gray, Christina Maria
Gray, C. M. (2016). Eyes Up, Down, All Around: Mind Wandering and Reading in Adolescents with
ADHD (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
doi:10.11575/PRISM/26136
http://hdl.handle.net/11023/3261
master thesis
University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their
thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through
licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under
copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.
Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
Eyes Up, Down, All Around: Mind Wandering and Reading in Adolescents with ADHD
by
Christina Maria Gray
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
CALGARY, ALBERTA
SEPTEMBER, 2016
© Christina Maria Gray 2016
GRADUATE PROGRAM IN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
ii
Abstract
The current study explored the relationships between reading skills and self-reported mind
wandering tendencies in adolescents between 13 to 17 years of age with Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD; n = 14) in comparison to a control group (n = 19). Each
adolescent participant completed reading-based tasks, a measure of attention, and self-report
measures addressing mind wandering tendencies. Results indicated statistically significant
differences in mind wandering tendencies on the Mind Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ)
between adolescents with ADHD compared to controls. No statistically significant analyses were
yielded between the self-report mind wandering measures and the measure of attention, or
between the self-report mind wandering measures and measures of reading skills between
groups. These results suggest that additional research investigating the relationships between
mind wandering tendencies and reading skills is necessary in order to gain a comprehensive
understanding of both constructs in ADHD populations.
Keywords: mind wandering tendencies, reading skills, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder, adolescents
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Emma Climie, for all
of her guidance and support over the course of this master’s thesis project. Emma, you have been
an incredible mentor to me over the years. Thank you for introducing me to the field of school
psychology and supporting my longstanding dream of becoming a child psychologist. I am very
grateful for all of your time and effort supporting my learning through your supervision. Thank
you to my thesis committee members, Dr. Meadow Schroeder and Dr. Kim Lenters, for your
effort, time, and support. I appreciate your willingness to be members of my defense committee
and foster growth in my learning through this process. Thank you to the Carlson Family
Foundation for their grant support towards research being conducted in the Strengths in ADHD
Lab. Thank you to the Social Sciences Humanities and Research Council for their grant support
during my graduate study years. I would also like to thank my fellow students and lab mates in
the Strengths in ADHD Lab for their encouragement with this project.
Thank you to each of the families that expressed interest in the present study and gave
their time to be involved and participate. Without these families, the present study could not have
been conducted.
Thank you to my family and close friends who have provided valuable support and
encouragement throughout this project: my sister Bernadette Gray, Regina Huh, Chelsea
Mueller, Kaitlyn Amoroso, Jenna Young, and Serena Smygwaty.
Thank you to the Zekulin family: Catherine, Mike, Xavier, and Lillian. Your family
inspires me and reminds me of why I continue to pursue my dreams each day.
Thank you to Lynne and Riley Boyle for your support and encouragement throughout the
data collection phase of this study. A good portion of my sample is thanks to your recruitment
iv
efforts, lovely Lynne, through sharing information about this research project. Thank you very
much, I appreciate your friendship and unconditional kindness.
Finally, I would like to thank the love of my life: my handsome, intelligent, wise, and
generous fiancé Nelson Leong. You have provided endless support and encouragement
throughout the entirety of my master’s degree and over the course of this thesis. You have
provided me with encouragement and strength to continue during challenging moments and have
helped me realize that I could in fact move beyond my perceived limits. I love you so much my
sweetheart.
v
Dedication
This thesis is dedicated in loving memory of my sweet friend Regina Huh. I have been
blessed with twelve years of a beautiful friendship with you; a friendship that transcends life
itself. We have shared many highs and lows, from laughter to tears, jumping across life’s
milestones. Throughout our junior high, high school, undergraduate years, and the previous
couple of years, you have provided encouragement, support, and wisdom that has enlightened
my life. Regina, you inspire me to continue to discover my dreams and have the courage and
strength to follow them, no matter the challenges life can surprise me with. Thank you for our
many coffee dates over the course of this thesis project and my graduate school years. Thank you
for always being there for me. Although we did not get to finish everything on “Ree and Chrii’s
List of Adventures”, I will hold all of the memories that we have shared together in my heart,
always.
In the words of a wise and silly old bear named Winnie the Pooh, “If there ever comes a
day where we can’t be together, keep me in your heart. I’ll stay there forever”. Regina, I love
you sweet friend, and I miss you very much.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii
Dedication ............................................................................................................................v
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................x
List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................1
Chapter 2: Literature Review ...............................................................................................3 Reading: A Complex Process ..........................................................................................3
Phonemic Awareness. .................................................................................................5 Vocabulary .................................................................................................................6 Comprehension ...........................................................................................................8
Fluency .....................................................................................................................10 Oral Reading Fluency ........................................................................................10
Silent Reading Fluency. .....................................................................................11
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder ......................................................................13
Diagnostic Descriptions ............................................................................................14 Predominantly Inattentive.. ................................................................................14
Predominantly Hyperactive/Impulsive ..............................................................14
Combined Presentation ..................................................................................... 15
Prevalence .................................................................................................................16
Theoretical Foundations ...........................................................................................16 Executive Functions and ADHD ..............................................................................17 Executive Functions, ADHD, and Learning .............................................................18 Associated Challenges ..............................................................................................19
ADHD and Reading Challenges ...............................................................................20 Mind Wandering ............................................................................................................23
Differences Between Mind Wandering and Daydreaming ......................................24
Differences Between Mind Wandering and Distractibility ......................................25 Differences Between Mind Wandering and Sustained Attention ………………... 25
Mind Wandering and Theories of Executive Control ........................................26 Executive-Resource Theory ..............................................................................27
Executive-Failure Theory ..................................................................................28 Comparing Theories ..........................................................................................30
Measuring Mind Wandering ......................................................................................33
Mind Wandering Questionnaire ........................................................................33
vii
Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale ..........................................................35
Current Study .................................................................................................................37
Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................................41 Participants .....................................................................................................................41
Measures ........................................................................................................................42 Demographics Questionnaire. ..................................................................................42 Conners 3rd Edition Parent Rating Scales (Conners 3-P; Conners, 2008). ...............43 Conners Continuous Performance Test 3rd Edition (Conners CPT 3; Conners, 2014)
.................................................................................................................................44
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT-III; Wechsler, 2009) …………… 45
Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency-2nd Edition (TOSCRF-2; Hammil,
Wiederholt, & Allen, 2006) …………………………………………………........ 46
Mind Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ; Mrazek et al., 2013) …………………... 47
Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale-Adolescents (Brown et al., 2011) ……... 48
Procedure .......................................................................................................................49
Chapter 4: Results ..............................................................................................................51 Research Question One ..................................................................................................52
Research Question Two .................................................................................................52 Research Question Three ...............................................................................................54
Chapter 5: Discussion ........................................................................................................57
Research Question One ..................................................................................................57 Research Question Two .................................................................................................59
Research Question Three ...............................................................................................63
Implications ...................................................................................................................66
School Administrators. .............................................................................................68 Teachers. ...................................................................................................................69
School Psychologists. ...............................................................................................69 Limitations .....................................................................................................................70 Directions for Future Research ......................................................................................72
References ..........................................................................................................................75
Appendix A: Mind-Wandering Questionnaire ...................................................................93
Appendix B: Demographics Questionnaire .......................................................................94
Appendix C: Mindful Attention And Awareness Scale For Adolescents .......................100
Appendix D: Recruitment Email Script ...........................................................................102
Appendix E: Recruitment Poster .....................................................................................103
Appendix F: Pre-Screening Questionnaire ......................................................................104
Appendix G: Informed Consent Form .............................................................................107
viii
Appendix H: Verbal Assent Script ..................................................................................110
Appendix I: Debrief Form ...............................................................................................111
Appendix J: Gift Card Receipt Form ...............................................................................112
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Information ...................................................................................42
Table 2: Results of Attention and Mind Wandering Correlation Analyses for ADHD Group
............................................................................................................................................53
Table 3: Results of Attention and Mind Wandering Correlation Analyses for Control Group
............................................................................................................................................53
Table 4: Results of Reading and Mind Wandering Correlation Analyses for ADHD Group
............................................................................................................................................55
Table 5: Results of Reading and Mind Wandering Correlation Analyses for Control Group
............................................................................................................................................55
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Overview of Components of Literacy Development …………………………………3
xi
List of Abbreviations
ACRES Attention Related Cognitive Errors Scale
ADHD Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Conners 3-P Conners, 3rd Edition, Parent rating scale
CPT 3 (Conners) Continuous Performance Test, 3rd
Edition
DDFS Daydream Frequency Scale
DSM-5 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, 5th Edition
EF Executive Function
EFD Executive Function Deficit
MAAS-A Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale for
Adolescents
MAAS Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale
MWQ Mind Wandering Questionnaire
ODD Oppositional Defiant Disorder
PIB Positive Illusory Bias
SLD Specific Learning Disability
SLD-Math Specific Learning Disability in Math
TOSCRF Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency
TOSWRF Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency
TUT Task-Unrelated Thought
WIAT-III Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 3rd Edition
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Children are often required to remain focused on academic material for lengthy periods
of time while in classroom settings. Mind wandering occurs when thoughts drift to off-task
musings (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006). Students who experience mind wandering may miss
important details, consequently impacting their learning. This shift in attention processes often
occurs when one’s cognitive focus is drawn to the most salient or engaging experience. In the
classroom, academic material often has low saliency (i.e., it is not always interesting) and
children’s minds wander to other, more engaging topics. For some children, attentional focus
and remaining on task in the classroom is especially challenging, and vulnerability to mind
wandering is greater.
Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) often face difficulties
with remaining focused and are highly susceptible to mind wandering (Shaw & Giambra, 1993).
As a result, these children may be increasingly vulnerable to academic struggles due to their lack
of focus and mind wandering tendencies. Mind wandering has the potential to significantly
impact functioning in a variety of academic areas, including mathematics, writing, and reading
(Reichle et al., 2010). Of particular interest for this study is the relationship between mind
wandering and reading. When children have underdeveloped literacy skills, they may experience
increased stress as they are presented with cognitively challenging reading that increases across
grade levels (Tatum & Fisher, 2008). Given the connection between increased mind wandering
tendencies in children with ADHD and impairment in their reading abilities, there is a need for
greater understanding of this link between reading abilities and mind wandering tendencies.
Through better understanding the link between these variables, interventions can be targeted to
better assist children with earlier identification of when they are mind wandering while reading.
2
The purpose of the present study is to explore the relationship between self-reported
occurrences of mind wandering and reading skills in adolescents with ADHD. The following
paper provides a review of the processes involved with reading, followed by an overview of
ADHD with a focus on the reading challenges present for individuals with this diagnosis.
Additionally, an overview of mind wandering and how the construct has been empirically
studied will be presented. Finally, this paper will examine results from the present study and
provide a discussion of the meaning, concluding with the implications of the findings.
3
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Reading: A Complex Process
Reading is a complex process that requires coordination across a number of component
tasks centered on understanding written language (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Ziegler
& Goswami, 2005). Through reading, one gains access to meaning expressed in written
language. Broadly, reading performance encompasses two skill components: word reading and
comprehension (Stothard & Hulme, 1995). The reading process requires the development of
distinct reading-related skills which include decoding, visual word recognition, and reading
comprehension. Furthermore, reading is dependent on the reader’s language comprehension and
overall metalinguistic ability (i.e., the ability to conceptualize language as an object of thought).
To attain success as a reader, proficiency in a range of foundational and interrelated skills is
required, where knowledge of syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and phonology are applied (Van
Kleeck & Schuele, 1987). See Figure 1 for a visual outline of the components of literacy skill
development.
Figure 1. Overview of the components of literacy development. This figure illustrates the
overarching domains of literacy development that contribute to overall reading ability.
Reading
Fluency
Reading Comprehension
Vocabulary Knowledge
Phonemic Awareness & Decoding
4
Initial stages of literacy development require one to learn the relationship between visual
symbols and units of sound, developing a foundation of phonology (Ziegler & Goswami, 2005).
Developing acquisition and mastery of mapping sound-symbol associations, contributing to
decoding skills, are the initial stages that allow for the development of literacy skills (Ziegler &
Goswami, 2005). Phonological recoding, or the process of learning and applying phonological
knowledge of sound-symbol associations, allows early readers to successfully recode words that
have been previously heard but not seen (Ziegler & Goswami, 2005). Although decoding and
visual word recognition are foundational components of reading, the end goal of the process is
comprehension (Stothard & Hulme, 1995). Reading comprehension involves coordination of
multiple reading processes (e.g., word reading and oral language comprehension), allowing for
understanding of a text passage (Joshi & Aaron, 2000). When learning to read, children are faced
with the task of mastering the components that contribute to reading, ultimately allowing for
understanding and comprehension of a written passage.
Several pervasive theories of reading development propose that literacy skills unfold in a
sequential, stepwise progression, where mastery of earlier skills contributes to subsequent
acquisition of later, more complex skills (Marsh, Friedman, Welch, & Desberg, 1981; Seymour
& MacGregor, 1984). These stage theories of reading development assume that all developing
readers pass through specific stages in the same order over the course of reaching competency in
literacy (Stuart & Coltheart, 1988). There has been criticism and debate focused on the
directionality of the discrete stages of skill development with stepwise models of literacy
development (Stuart & Coltheart, 1988). Specifically, debate regarding whether preceding stages
in stepwise literacy models are truly precursors to subsequent abilities, or whether skills in each
stage develop simultaneously, continues to investigated in research (Stuart & Coltheart, 1988).
5
Although stage theories of literacy development differ in terms of the number of phases and
specific steps contributing to reading acquisition (Stuart & Coltheart, 1988), a four-stage model
of literacy development has been adopted as the selected model for the present thesis. This four-
stage model has been adopted due to the prominent trend in reading literature supporting
stepwise models to conceptualize literacy development. Furthermore, the primary reading
measure selected for use in this study (i.e., the WIAT-III, see Chapter 3: Methodology) was
constructed based on a stage theory of reading development. The four-stage model adopted to
conceptualize literacy development in the present thesis includes the stages of: phonemic
awareness, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency (Ellery, 2004).
Phonemic awareness. The understanding that speech consists of a series of individual
abstract sound units, or phonemes, is referred to as phonemic awareness (Yopp, 1992; Yopp &
Yopp, 2000). For example, the word “cat” is composed of a series of phonemes, /k/, /a/, and /t/
(Yopp, 1992). Phonemes themselves lack physically definable boundaries and are influenced by
phonological context (Yopp, 1992; Yopp & Yopp, 2000). Children who enter kindergarten
generally have a foundational vocabulary and simple syntax; however, they tend to lack
phonemic awareness (Yopp, 1992; Yopp & Yopp, 2000). This lack of knowledge in phonemic
awareness is evident in young children generally understanding words as a whole, such as
knowing literally what a “cat” is, while being unaware that the word itself consists of a series of
individual phonemes (Yopp, 1992). Identifying whether an individual has a sense of phonemic
awareness can be done by orally presenting separate sounds and having the individual blend the
series of sounds together to form a single word (e.g., if presented with the separate sounds /k/-
/a/-/t/, the correct word response would be the word “cat”; Yopp, 1992; Yopp & Yopp, 2000).
Alternatively, phonemic awareness can be determined by asking an individual what sound they
6
hear at the beginning, middle, or end of a spoken word (e.g., what sound is at the beginning of
the word “dog”?), or by having the individual segment a word into its separate, component
sounds (e.g., if given the word “cat”, the segmenting response should be the sounds /k/-/a/-/t/;
Yopp, 1992). Phonemic awareness tasks are cognitively demanding, requiring the ability to
analyze and manipulate speech-sound units and disregard the context and meaning of the words.
Phonemic awareness is an important foundational building block contributing to reading
development. As one learns to read, they are faced with the task of understanding relationships
between letters in a writing system and phonemes in the corresponding language. Understanding
relationships between letters and phonemes requires one to recognize that speech consists of
smaller units, and when the recognition of speech segmentation is achieved, a sense of phonemic
awareness has been established (Yopp, 1992). The importance of phonemic awareness in relation
to reading acquisition has been continuously supported through research studies. Findings from
several studies support that phonemic awareness is, at some level, a requirement for learning to
read (Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988; Yopp, 1988; Yopp & Yopp 2000), and that
phonemic awareness results from formal reading instruction and exposure to language in the
form of print (Read, Yun-Fei, Hong-Yin, & Bao-Qing, 1986; Yopp, 1992; Yopp & Yopp, 2000).
Furthermore, correlational studies have found phonemic awareness and letter knowledge to be
salient school-entry predictors of how well children will learn to read over the first initial years
of instruction (Share, Jorm, Maclean, & Matthews, 1984; Tunmer et al., 1988; Ball & Blachman,
1991). Following the acquisition of phonemic awareness skills, vocabulary building becomes an
important next step in the reading process.
Vocabulary. Reading development is a linguistic skillset that is predominantly learned
after children acquire proficiency in oral language (Rack, Hulme, & Snowling, 1993; Muter,
7
Hulme, & Snowling, 2004). Skill levels in oral language at school entry serve as predictors of
reading ability development over the first years of formal education (Muter et al., 2004). Oral
language skills encompass grammar and phonological knowledge as well as vocabulary skills
(Muter et al., 2004). The term vocabulary knowledge refers to understanding the meanings of
individual words (Muter et al., 2004). Vocabulary knowledge is theorized to be essential for
learning how to recognize printed words in text (Tunmer, 1989) in addition to comprehension of
a text passage (Bowey, 1986). Both depth of vocabulary knowledge as well as breath of oral
vocabulary are distinct facets of oral vocabulary, contributing to reading acquisition and
development (Ouellette, 2006). The mental lexicon is an organized vocabulary storage of
phonology or sound patterns of words and semantic representations of word meaning (Levelt,
Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999). During early language development, children begin to store word
forms in their lexicon, building vocabulary breadth, while lacking complete understanding of
word meanings (Lahey, 1988; Ouellette, 2006). Word meanings are understood and refined over
time, which then contributes to a child’s depth of vocabulary knowledge (Lahey, 1988; Ouellette,
2006). Development of vocabulary knowledge involves adding and refining phonological
representations to one’s lexicon in addition to the accompanying semantic knowledge (Ouellette,
2006).
Vocabulary is associated with a number of distinct reading skills, including decoding,
visual word recognition, and reading comprehension (Ouellette, 2006). The association between
vocabulary and decoding stems from the role of vocabulary growth in promoting phoneme
awareness (Ouellette, 2006; Walley, Metsala, & Garlock, 2003). As more word forms are added
to one’s lexicon and phonemic awareness further develops, one becomes more sensitive to sub-
lexical details of words (Ouellette, 2006). Depth of vocabulary knowledge contributes to
8
promoting the development of efficient visual word recognition skills, which in turn furthers
reading development (Ouellette, 2006). Children with low vocabulary depth have been posited to
experience challenges in associating characters with verbal labels, a skill required for visual
word recognition (Vellutino, Scanlon, & Spearing; 1995). With respect to reading
comprehension, oral vocabulary knowledge has been found to have a longitudinal and predictive
role for later emerging reading comprehension abilities (Roth et al., 2002; Share & Leiken, 2004;
Muter et al., 2004; Ouellette, 2006).
Comprehension. Reading comprehension is the ability to extract meaning from text, and
requires many cognitive processes, including decoding and language comprehension skills (Cain,
Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004; Hulme & Snowling, 2011). Gough and Tunmer (1986) proposed that in
order to successfully understand a text passage, one must have accurate bottom-up identification
of words along with top-down analyses of syntactic and semantic relationships between words. If
bottom-up skills lack development, words may be misidentified and fewer cognitive resources
may be available to aid with processing meaning (Shankweiler, 1999; Torgesen, 2000; Cutting &
Scarborough, 2006). If top-down skills lack development, this may lead to unknown word
meanings and word relationships that impede coherent reading comprehension of a text passage,
despite correct word decoding skills (Scarborough, 1990; Catts & Hogan, 2002; Cutting &
Scarborough, 2006). In addition to these bottom-up and top-down skills that contribute to
reading comprehension, there are a range of lower and higher level cognitive skills that impact
successful comprehension.
Lower level language skills also impact reading comprehension, and these skills include
word recognition, word reading accuracy, and knowledge of semantics (Juel, Griffith, & Gough,
1986; Ouellette, 2006). Additionally, higher level language skills, such as knowledge of text
9
structure, integration, and comprehension monitoring, are required for the reader to integrate
ideas across sentences (Cain et al., 2004). These higher level skills contribute to reading
comprehension because they allow the reader to build an integrated model of a text passage’s
meaning (Cain et al., 2004). One’s reading comprehension skills allow for the formation of a
mental or situational model of a text passage, which is a meaning-based representation of the
passage contents (Kintsch, 1998; Cain et al., 2004). The reader’s working memory abilities allow
them to hold information retrieved from long term memory and integrate this information with
the active parts of the text (Cook, Halleran, & O’Brien, 1998). Thus, reading comprehension
requires multiple interacting lower and higher level cognitive skills, each contributing to the
reader’s proficiency in comprehension.
Given the complex nature of reading comprehension, success with this component of
reading may be challenging for children developing literacy skills. Children who have
difficulties with reading comprehension may be able to read fluently and accurately as expected
for their age; however, they may be unable to understand the content of the passage they are
reading (Ouellette, 2006). Children with reading comprehension difficulties may read passages
aloud without challenges in classroom settings, and their difficulties tend to be unnoticed by
teachers until they are asked questions relating to the meaning of what they have read (Ouellette,
2006). Between 10 to 25% of struggling readers (approximately 3% of school-aged children
overall) display poor reading comprehension abilities while having unimpaired decoding and
word recognition skills (Aaron, Joshi, & Williams, 1999; Catts, Hogan, Adlof, & Barth, 2003;
Cutting & Scarborough, 2006). It is evident that reading comprehension is a foundational
component to literary development given the association between difficulties in reading
comprehension and weaknesses in oral language, particularly syntactic and vocabulary skills
10
(Cain, Oakhill, Barnes, & Bryant, 2001; Cutting & Scarborough, 2006). In order for a reader to
retain information from a passage in their short term memory, and subsequently comprehend the
content of the read sentences, proficient reading fluency is necessary.
Fluency. Reading fluency consists of three components: reading with appropriate
accuracy, rate, and prosody (Hudson, Mercer, & Lane, 2000; Torgesen & Hudson, 2006).
Accuracy refers to the ability to recognize or decode words correctly (Torgesen & Hudson,
2006). Reading rate consists of individual word identification as well as the fluidity and speed in
which a reader is able to move through a text passage (Torgesen & Hudson, 2006). Prosody
describes the tonal and rhythmic elements of speech, including intonation (pitch variations),
duration, and syllable prominence (stress patterns), each contributing to expressive reading
(Torgesen & Hudson, 2006). Thus, reading fluency can be defined as a developed skill where the
reader is able to read text accurately, quickly, and with appropriate expression, allowing for
attention to be given to comprehension of the text (Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2009). This effortless
skill of reading fluency can be manifested in two forms, which include oral reading fluency and
silent reading fluency (Denton et al., 2011).
Oral reading fluency. The most salient characteristic that denotes skillful reading is the
speed at which a written text is reproduced in oral language (Adams, 1990; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp,
& Jenkins, 2001). This ability to orally translate connected text with speed and accuracy is
referred to as oral reading fluency (Adams, 1990; Fuchs et al., 2001; Kim, Park, & Wagner,
2013). Oral reading fluency is measured in a number of different ways. Most commonly, oral
reading fluency is measured by having an individual read text passages aloud for up to 2
minutes, and an oral reading fluency score is calculated by adding the total number of words that
were read during the time span, subtracting error words, and calculating the number of words
11
that were correctly read per minute (Hasbrouck & Tindall, 2006; Denton et al, 2011).
Alternatively, oral reading fluency can be measured by having the individual read isolated lists
of words rather than a cohesive text (Denton et al., 2011). Fuchs and colleagues (2001) proposed
that text fluency may be more strongly related to reading comprehension than word list fluency.
More specifically, word list fluency may be more representative of word recognition proficiency
whereas passage reading fluency may represent how efficiently an individual is able to process
information beyond word level alone (Fuchs et al., 2001; Denton et al., 2011).
Silent reading fluency. Reading fluency has often been considered to be an oral
phenomenon (Pikulski & Chard, 2005). However, Pikulski and Chard (2005) argue that silent
reading abilities may be considered significantly more important than the oral aspects of
readings, given that readers frequently spend a majority of time engaging in silent reading rather
than oral reading.
As with oral reading fluency, there are a number of ways to measure silent reading
fluency. Two standardized measures assessing silent reading fluency include the Test of Silent
Word Reading Fluency (TOSWRF; Mather, Hammill, Allen, & Roberts, 2004) and the Test of
Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (TOSCRF; Hammill, Wiederholt, & Allen, 2006). Both
measures involve presenting a string of words without spaces to an examinee who is asked to
draw lines to separate the words. The scores for both of these measures is the number of words
that were correctly identified over the span of 3 minutes. The difference between measures is that
the TOSWRF consists of a string of unrelated words without spaces, whereas the TOSCRF
consists of text passages with all words printed in uppercase letters and no punctuation between
sentences. Both oral and silent reading fluency have a complex relationship, especially as
different comprehension levels have been exhibited by students when they read silently and
12
orally (Miller & Smith, 1990). Despite limited and ambiguous research in this area, this
differential effect on reading comprehension may also vary depending on reading level (Miller &
Smith, 1990; Denton et al., 2011). Without making distinctions between oral and silent reading
fluency, it has been found that reading fluency, broadly, is strongly related to both decoding as
well as reading comprehension (Fuchs et al., 2001).
With respect to reading comprehension, oral reading fluency has a predictive and
concurrent relationship (Stecker, Roser, & Martinez, 1998; Fuchs et al., 2001). Text reading
fluency, specifically, is related to reading comprehension over and above word reading fluency
(Adams, 1990). This unique relationship between text reading fluency and reading
comprehension is the result of text reading fluency capturing foundational skills (i.e., word
reading and language comprehension; Adams, 1990). Given that reading comprehension requires
one to exert cognitive resources to coordinate a number of processes, automaticity with word
reading is foundational (Logan, 1988; Kim, Park, & Wagner, 2013). Proficiency with automatic
word reading allows for spreading cognitive resources for language comprehension and other
components contributing to overall reading comprehension (Logan, 1988; Logan, 1997; Kim et
al., 2013). Thus, the ability to conduct word reading in an effortless and rapid manner, without
conscious awareness while reading a connected text passage, is a central part of reading fluency
(Logan, 1997; Logan, 1988; Kim et al., 2013).
Although reading fluency is not solely sufficient to ensure proficiency with reading
achievement, it is necessary for reading development, as it is both dependent on and reflects
reading comprehension abilities (Pikulski & Chard, 2005). If reading fluency is underdeveloped,
then word decoding requires the majority of the readers’ attention processes, thus restricting the
amount of attention necessary for constructing meaning from a text passage (Pikulski & Chard,
13
2005). Empirical research and theory suggests that reading fluency functions as an overall
indicator of reading development and competence (Kim et al., 2013).
Notably, overall academic success is often dependent on a child’s ability to read. As a
result, struggles with reading may contribute to difficulties across academic areas, as well as later
social or economic challenges (Hulme & Snowling, 2011). Specifically, successful mastery of
accuracy, fluency, and comprehension with reading is a critical goal of early education (Hulme
& Snowling, 2011). Development and growth in phonemic awareness, vocabulary,
comprehension, and fluency are critical for proficiency in reading (Ellery, 2004) and children
who lack early reading and literacy skills are at greater risk of experiencing later reading
difficulties in comparison to children who make developmentally-appropriate gains (Scanlon &
Vellutino, 1996). Although mastery of reading skills has been found to be an area of difficulty
for many children, those with ADHD may be particularly at-risk (Brock & Knapp, 1996).
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental
disorder that is defined by persistent impairments in inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity
(American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Inattention is manifested behaviorally in ADHD, and
refers to frequently losing items, the inability to remain focused on a task, and appearing to not
be listening, in a way that is developmentally inappropriate or inconsistent with the individual’s
age (APA, 2013). Hyperactivity describes excessive, inappropriate motor activity, such as
running, fidgeting, restlessness or talkativeness (APA, 2013). Impulsivity refers to actions that
occur in the moment and lack forethought, having the potential to result in harm, such as running
across the street without looking to ensure it is safe to do so (APA, 2013). Impulsive behaviors
may be fueled by wanting immediate rewards or struggling with delayed gratification (APA,
14
2013). In addition to displaying symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, ADHD
is also characterized by deficits in executive functions (EF; Barkley, 2014; Nigg & Barkley,
2014).
Diagnostic descriptions. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th
Edition (DSM-5; APA, 2013) outlines diagnostic criteria based on symptom presentations that
are required in order to receive an ADHD diagnosis. A minimum of six inattentive symptoms
(e.g., often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities, often does not seem to
listen when spoken to directly) and/or a minimum of six hyperactive-impulsive symptoms (e.g.,
often unable to play or engage in leisure activities quietly, often talks excessively) must be
present for children and adolescents under 17 years of age (APA, 2013). These symptoms must
persist for a minimum duration of six months, must be inconsistent for the individual’s
developmental level, and must result in negative impacts in daily functioning (APA, 2013).
Depending on the presentation of symptoms, a diagnosis of ADHD may be accompanied by
specifying whether the ADHD diagnosis falls under predominantly inattentive presentation,
predominantly hyperactive/impulsive, or combined presentation (APA, 2013).
Predominantly inattentive. A diagnosis of ADHD with predominantly inattentive
presentation is given if six or more inattentive symptoms have been present for the span of a six-
month minimum duration (APA, 2013). For this presentation type, a child would not present
with enough hyperactive-impulsive symptoms to satisfy diagnostic criteria.
Predominantly hyperactive/impulsive. A diagnosis of ADHD with predominantly
hyperactive/impulsive presentation is given if six or more hyperactive-impulsive symptoms have
been present over a minimum six-month duration while inattention criteria have not been
15
diagnostically met (APA, 2013). To be diagnosed with this presentation type, a child must not
present with enough inattentive symptoms to satisfy diagnostic criteria.
Combined presentation. A diagnosis of ADHD with combined presentation is given if
both inattentive criteria (i.e., minimum of six inattentive symptoms present over the previous six
months) and hyperactive-impulsive symptom criteria (i.e., minimum of six hyperactive/
impulsive symptoms present over the previous six months) are met over the previous six months
(APA, 2013).
A diagnosis of ADHD may also be accompanied by an indication of the severity of
symptom presentation. Symptom severity is specified as mild (i.e., few symptoms in excess of
the diagnostic requirements are present and minor impairments in functioning), moderate (i.e.,
symptoms or functional impairment fall between the mild and severe classifications), and severe
(i.e., many symptoms in excess of diagnostic requirements, or several symptoms are severe, or
symptoms result in marked functional impairment; APA, 2013). Furthermore, if full diagnostic
criteria for ADHD have been previously met, yet less than full criteria has been present over the
past six months and there are minor functional impairments present, the diagnosis will be noted
as being in partial remission (APA, 2013).
To meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD under the DSM-5, symptoms must be present in
more than one setting, such as both in the home and at school (APA, 2013). Symptom
confirmation across settings requires consultation with informants who see the individual in the
respective setting, such as teachers reporting on symptoms observed in the classroom/school
setting and parents reporting on behaviours at home. ADHD generally has onset during
childhood (Scahill & Schwab-Stone, 2000; APA, 2013; Barkley, 2014). Individuals with ADHD
16
are affected throughout their life with the disorder, often having comorbid diagnoses in addition
to developmental and social difficulties (APA, 2013; Barkley, 2002; Barkley, 2014).
Prevalence. From reviews on community-based studies on the prevalence of ADHD in
children and adolescents, there is an estimated prevalence of 5 to 10% in school-aged children in
Canada (Scahill & Schwab-Stone, 2000). A recent US study estimated ADHD prevalence among
students in grades one to five to be as high as 15.5% (Rowland et al., 2015). Between 70 to 80%
of individuals with ADHD continue to present with symptoms from childhood into adolescence,
with 30 to 50% of children with ADHD continuing to be faced with challenges into adulthood
(Barkley, 2014).
Theoretical foundations. Barkley’s (1997) unifying model of ADHD posits that
behavioral inhibition allows for proficiency in four EF abilities: working memory (the ability to
manipulate mental information), reconstitution/behavioral analysis and synthesis (the ability to
reflect on one’s actions), internalization of speech (the ability to “talk” oneself through a task),
and self-regulation of affect-motivation-arousal (the ability to manage ones’ emotions; Barkley,
1997). Each of these EFs are linked to response inhibition (i.e., the ability to inhibit the initial
pre-potent response to an event) and depend on inhibition to function effectively (Barkley,
1997). Together, these functions bring behavior under the control of self-directed actions and
internally represented information. Youth with ADHD lack proficiency in carrying out these EF
skills, as demonstrated through difficulties with self-regulation (e.g., planning ahead, problem
solving, self-monitoring). The ability to self-regulate and induce emotional states as needed to
aide goal-directed behavior, also may depend on one’s ability to regulate and induce drive,
motivation, and arousal states to further support behaviour (Barkley, 1997). Given the focus on
17
mind wandering tendencies in adolescents with ADHD in this study, the affect-motivation-
arousal EF is a critical theoretical underpinning that will be further explained.
The affect-motivation-arousal EF ability in Barkley’s (1997) theory suggests children
may learn how to develop positive motivational and emotional states when experiencing negative
emotional states, such as frustration, sadness, anxiety, and boredom. The process of creating a
more positive state under these experiences requires self-directed actions targeted towards affect,
which may include self-comforting actions, self-directed speech, and visual imagery (Kopp,
1989; Barkley, 1997). Furthermore, children may develop self-regulation skills for arousal levels
to attain goal accomplishment (Barkley, 1997). To attain goal accomplishment, a number of
subfunctions are required (e.g., emotional self-regulation, objectivity and social perspective, self-
regulation of drive/motivational states, and self-regulation of arousal) that service goal-directed
actions (Barkley, 1997). When children with ADHD struggle with self-regulation of affect-
motivation-arousal, they may engage in behavioral manifestations indicative of this struggle
(e.g., inattentiveness, hyperactivity-impulsivity).
Executive functions and ADHD. Neuropsychological functioning broadly encompasses
a number of mental processes. Specifically, the set of higher order cortical abilities that stem
from the frontal lobes are referred to as EFs (Barkley, 2001; Biederman et al., 2004; Barkley,
2014). Executive functioning refers to a set of higher-order mental processes that allow for
planning, memory, organization, and flexibility with thought and cognitive functioning (Barkley,
2001; Barkley, 2014; Nigg & Barkley, 2014). Furthermore, executive functioning includes self-
directed behaviours that alter later actions, such as inhibiting responses, resisting interference,
and the development of strategies and implementation of their use (Denckla, 1996; Barkley,
2001). EFs are essential for complex human behavior, as they allow for attaining future goals
18
(e.g., planning, organizing, and remembering academic material to allow for successfully passing
a final exam in a course; Barkley, 2001; Biederman et al., 2004). Experiencing a breakdown in
EFs contributes to behavioral and cognitive impairments, which are characteristic of individuals
with ADHD (Biederman et al., 2004; Barkley, 2014).
Executive functions, ADHD, and learning. EF challenges experienced by youth with
ADHD tend to become apparent in functioning in educational settings, particularly because
children and adolescents spend the majority of their time in these environments. In an
investigation of executive function deficits (EFDs) and functional outcomes in children and
adolescents with ADHD, Biederman and colleagues (2004) found the presence of EFDs
increased the risk for lower overall academic achievement and grade retention. It is well
documented in literature that ADHD is associated with academic deficits and challenges
(Biederman et al., 2004; Barkley, 2014; Nigg & Barkley, 2014) and that EFs are essential for
academic and social success in school settings. Academically, EFs are involved with learning
processes including memory of previously learned material (e.g., basic vocabulary knowledge),
integrating new concepts into one’s existing schema or mental representation of a concept (e.g.,
learning unfamiliar/more complex words and adding these words to one’s vocabulary set), and
the integration of processes involved with presenting successful growth of learning (e.g.,
displaying one’s vocabulary knowledge through writing an essay on an assigned English
literature topic). For example, EFs are required to organize one’s thought processes when
reading assignment and test questions, plan how to respond, maintain attention on the question or
assignment, and follow through with steps to provide an appropriate answer to the presented
question. Furthermore, given that EFs play a role with self-directed behaviours and inhibition of
one’s actions, deficits with these abilities may influence one’s academic and social functioning in
19
school settings. For example, if children with ADHD are unable to engage in appropriate self-
regulation strategies (e.g., taking a movement break, deep breathing, etc.), they may engage in
behaviours that are disruptive to their learning and that of their peers (e.g., shuffling loudly in
one’s desk while completing a silent assignment, interrupting the teacher during a lesson without
raising their hand first). Socially, these behaviours may result in stigmatization and/or frustration
from peers, which can have a negative influence on interpersonal relationship development.
Thus, the EFDs experienced by youth with ADHD may contribute to difficulties with learning
processes that also impact both academic performance and social interactions in school settings.
These EF challenges contribute to the inattentive, hyperactive, and impulsive behavioural
manifestations displayed by individuals with ADHD, which are commonly observed in their
classroom learning environments. Inattentive behaviours commonly presented in the classroom
include disorganization and losing materials (e.g., assignments, handouts), difficulties with
remaining on-task (e.g., struggling with remaining focused to complete a math worksheet), and
appearing as if one is not listening (e.g., appearing distracted and providing an off-topic response
to a question posed by a teacher; APA, 2013). Hyperactive-impulsive behaviours may include
overactive physical behaviours in the classroom, such as frequent fidgeting, difficulties
remaining seated, interrupting peers’ activities, and difficulties with waiting (e.g., such as when
lining up as a class to transition to another school room and activity; APA, 2013). These
inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive behaviours are indicative of a diagnosis of ADHD when
they exceed behaviours that are typically displayed by individuals of a comparable chronological
age (APA, 2013).
Associated challenges. Children with ADHD experience developmentally-inappropriate
levels of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity that contribute to difficulties with daily
20
functioning, and contribute to social emotional and adaptive difficulties. These children are more
likely to develop increasingly significant behavioural problems during adolescence and into
adulthood (APA, 2013). ADHD is associated with social rejection from peers, elevated
interpersonal conflict, and substance use risk (APA, 2013). Challenges in school are frequently
associated with ADHD, and these difficulties often draw clinical attention to better address a
child’s needs (Loe & Feldman, 2007). The inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive behaviours
displayed by children with ADHD are particularly challenging in classroom environments. In
classroom settings, a lack of focus and attention may result in poor academic outcomes. For
example, children with ADHD are often unable to sit still, struggle with staying on task, and talk
at inappropriate times (Nigg & Barkley, 2014). This lack of control over crucial EFs (e.g.,
inhibitory control, problem solving, planning) has the potential to interrupt a child with ADHD
from learning materials being presented by teachers as well as disrupt the learning of their peers
within their classroom. As a result, ADHD is frequently associated with low grades in school
courses, increased grade level retention, and poor scores on standardized reading and math tests
relative to same-age peers without the diagnosis (Loe & Feldman, 2007). Some children and
adolescents with ADHD experience continued educational difficulties throughout their academic
schooling, and these difficulties may subsequently impact adaptive functioning areas, such as
employment, driving skills, and relationships (Barkley, 2002). Overall, ADHD is associated with
reduced academic attainment and school performance, and challenges relating to reading skills
are present for some children with ADHD (Brock & Knapp, 1996; APA, 2013).
ADHD and reading challenges. As a complex process, reading requires effort and
sustained attention. Children with ADHD are faced with challenges that impact their attention
and impulsivity. Given that these behavioural outcomes stem from EF difficulties characteristic
21
of the disorder, it is unsurprising that reading may be a challenging task for those with ADHD
(Brock & Knapp, 1996). EF skills are foundational for the process of reading skill development.
For example, working memory skills are required for decoding unfamiliar words, recalling
previous text, and anticipating the storyline (Sesma, Mahone, Levine, Eason, & Cutting, 2009).
Planning and problem-solving skills are essential when encountering unfamiliar words and for
critical analysis of passages, while organization is needed to understand the flow of a passage
(Sesma et al., 2009). Processing speed is integral to the development of reading fluency
(Jacobson et al., 2011). Given these links between EF skills and components of reading, children
with ADHD may face challenges with developing foundational reading skills (i.e., fluency,
comprehension) as a result of their EF difficulties.
There is limited research exploring the relationships between ADHD, reading fluency,
and reading comprehension, particularly among children without deficits in decoding (Jacobson
et al., 2011). Despite limited existing research, children with ADHD, including those without
comorbid reading or language related disorders, have been found to often present weaker reading
fluency in comparison to typically developing peers (Ghelani, Sidhu, Jain, & Tannock, 2004;
Willcutt, Pennington, Olson, & DeFries, 2007; Jacobson et al., 2011).
Of note, deficits in processing speed and working memory presented by children with
ADHD are similar to those presented by children with reading difficulties (Willcutt, Doyle,
Nigg, Faraone, & Pennington, 2005; Jacobson et al., 2011). Reading fluency can be influenced
by processing speed deficits that impact reading efficiency, even when word recognition and
decoding accuracy is intact (Jacobson et al., 2011). Processing speed refers to the completion
speed of a task with reasonable accuracy (Jacobson et al., 2011). Children with ADHD have been
found to display slow processing speed relative to typically developing peers (Rucklidge &
22
Tannock, 2002; Willcutt et al., 2005; Shanahan et al., 2006). This neuropsychological deficit in
processing speed may contribute to reading difficulties relating to fluency for those with ADHD
(Rucklidge & Tannock, 2002; Jacobson et al., 2011). The impact of slower processing speed on
reading fluency may, in turn, further impact related reading skills including reading
comprehension (Jacobson et al., 2011).
Although research on ADHD and reading comprehension abilities is limited, there is
some evidence to suggest that children with ADHD have difficulty with reading comprehension
(Miller et al., 2012; Fienup et al., 2015; Gray & Climie, 2016). Specifically, ADHD and reading
comprehension deficits have been found to co-occur more often than expected by chance (Brock
& Knapp, 1996; Little, Hart, Schatschneider, & Taylor, 2016). Children with ADHD were found
to display lower reading comprehension scores and have more difficulty reporting the central
idea from a passage compared to peers without ADHD, potentially due to the attentional
demands of lengthy reading passages requiring more effortful processing (Brock & Knapp,
1996). Difficulties with recalling central information in a text passage have also been presented
by children with ADHD, likely due to working memory difficulties (Miller et al., 2012).
Collectively, empirical studies support the presence of some difficulties relating to reading skills
in children with ADHD, suggesting a need for remediation (Fienup et al., 2015; Gray & Climie,
2016).
Mechanisms relating to attention have been proposed to influence reading comprehension
abilities (Little et al., 2016; Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2008). In particular, previous research has
indicated that shared genetic influences between reading skills and ADHD are impacted by
inattention symptoms, while hyperactive symptoms appear to not have the same significant
influence (Willcutt et al., 2007; Little et al., 2016). Although the link between reading
23
comprehension and ADHD is not fully understood, working memory and EFDs in individuals
with ADHD may be what contributes to difficulties in reading comprehension (Ghelani et al.,
2004; Little et al., 2016). Little and colleagues (2016) suggest that ADHD may influence
behavioral practices associated with reading comprehension development, such as homework
completion and school achievement. Children with ADHD have difficulty maintaining attention
for periods of time, and as a result, their tendency to engage in mind wandering may impact their
reading skills.
Mind Wandering
A phenomenon that individuals may find themselves experiencing on a daily basis
involves the drifting of their thoughts to off-task musings during an ongoing activity or task
(Smallwood & Schooler, 2006; McVay & Kane, 2010). This interruption and shift in attention
and thought contents during an ongoing activity to unrelated internal thoughts (i.e., task-
unrelated thoughts, TUTs) or feelings is commonly referred to as mind wandering (Smallwood &
Schooler, 2006; Smallwood & Schooler, 2015; Mowlem et al., 2016). Mind wandering has been
explained as occurring due to an individual’s mental faculties being drawn to their most salient
experiences (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006; McVay & Kane, 2010). As a result, individuals may
engage in self-generated thought that increases the salience of their internal mental system in
comparison to their external environment (Smallwood, 2013).
Individuals differ in both the frequency and intention of their mind wandering
occurrences (Mowlem et al., 2016). In attempt to conceptualize different types of mind
wandering occurrences, the phenomenon has been identified as occurring in two main forms
(Mowlem et al., 2016). One form of mind wandering involves internal, self-generated thoughts
occurring deliberately (Mowlem et al., 2016). An example of this intentional form of mind
24
wandering is planning one’s afternoon schedule while waiting in line to order a morning coffee.
The other form of mind wandering involves spontaneous, unintentional drifting in thoughts
(Mowlem et al., 2016). An example of this second form of mind wandering includes thinking of
one’s upcoming evening soccer game while working through a math problem on a test.
Mind wandering has traditionally been an understudied topic in mainstream psychology,
although the construct has recently become a growing area of interest in empirical literature
(Smallwood & Schooler, 2006; McVay & Kane, 2010). Smallwood and Schooler (2006) suggest
that mind wandering may be on the margins of psychological research due to the range of
constructs within existence that relate to its occurrence, such as the terms task-unrelated thought
and zoning out, for example. The presence of a variety of separate terms to explain the
overarching phenomenon of mind wandering may contribute to undermining the propagation of
research in the area, making it difficult to determine the extent of empirical study on this topic.
Each of these constructs appears to fall under the more commonly used, familiar, everyday term
mind wandering because each term refers to a shift in attention from a primary task to other
internal information (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006).
Differences between mind wandering and daydreaming. Some terms, such as day
dreaming, have been used interchangeably with mind wandering; however, the definitions of
each are inherently different (Mrazek, Franklin, Phillips, Baird, & Schooler, 2013). The main
difference between the constructs of daydreaming and mind wandering lies in the relevance of
the task from which attention is being diverted (Mrazek et al., 2013). Specifically, daydreaming
refers to stimulus-independent thought that does not take place during a highly relevant task
(e.g., one may daydream when they are not paying close attention to a less important task, such
as when on a long bus ride or watching a TV show; Mrazek et al., 2013). In contrast, mind
25
wandering involves a redirection of attention from a primary task (Mrazek et al., 2013). It is
important to note that this differentiation between day dreaming and mind wandering is
complicated by the lack of precise criteria for what constitutes a relevant, primary task, and this
complication makes it difficult to fully operationalize the difference between both constructs
(Mrazek et al., 2013).
Differences between mind wandering and distractibility. The construct of
distractibility is commonly researched as a component of attention, and is related to the construct
of attention span; however, these terms are conceptually distinct (Erwin, 2001; Ruff & Rothbart,
1996). Distractibility is defined as the degree to which a child is able to focus attention in the
presence of extraneous events (Erwin, 2001). An event is considered to be a distractor depending
on the demands of the situation as well as the individual’s skills and goals (Erwin, 2001). For
example, consider an event where child A is writing a timed math test and her peer neighbor,
child B, bumps and spills a water bottle beside child A’s desk. In this example, the event of the
water bottle being knocked over and spilled near child A can be considered to be a distractor,
given the demands of the math test itself, the problem-solving and concentration skills exhibited
by child A, and the goal of child A to successfully complete their exam within the imposed time
constraints. Considering the definition of distractibility in comparison to that of mind wandering,
it is apparent that both terms are separate constructs, and therefore should not be used
interchangeably.
Differences between mind wandering and sustained attention. Sustained attention
refers to the ability to focus cognitive resources on stimuli (DeGangi & Porges, 1990). Sustained
attention is considered necessary for successful completion of demanding cognitive activities
(e.g., integrating details from multiple text passages to compare and contrasting themes across
26
pieces of literature) as well as sequenced actions (e.g., solving a crossword puzzle). Difficulty
arises when a distractor is introduced that may interrupt and interfere with sustained attention.
For example, if Adolescent A is making a list to compare and contrast themes across two literary
pieces and their friend, Adolescent B, interrupts to show her a cellphone text message,
Adolescent A may lose her train of thought, and completion of her list-making task will be
interrupted. Stages of sustained attention include attention-getting (i.e., initially orienting to a
stimulus), attention-holding (i.e., maintaining attention when a stimulus is novel or complex),
and attention-releasing (i.e., releasing attention from a stimulus; DeGangi & Porges, 1990).
Sustained attention is essential for information processing as well as for modification of behavior
in response to environmental demands (e.g., behavioral inhibition). The terms vigilance and
persistence are used synonymously to refer to the construct of sustained attention. Mind
wandering differs from sustained attention given that the shift in task focus to TUTs during mind
wandering is a break in attentional focus, thus a derailment from sustained attention. The nature
of mind wandering has been attempted to be better understood through empirical study that aims
to better conceptualize this phenomenon. As such, there have been two dominant theories
proposed to explain mind wandering in relation to models of executive control (Smallwood &
Schooler 2006; McVay & Kane, 2010).
Mind Wandering and theories of executive control. In the literature, it is unclear
whether mind wandering requires executive resources and thus, whether its occurrence can be
integrated into executive models of attention (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006; McVay & Kane,
2010). In an attempt to better understand and conceptualize mind wandering occurrences, two
theories have been proposed regarding the view of executive functioning resources and mind
wandering: the executive-resource theory of mind wandering (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006) and
27
the executive-failure theory of mind wandering (McVay & Kane, 2010).
Executive-resource theory. The executive-resource theory of mind wandering proposes
that mind wandering is automatically activated and is dependent on executive resources and
cognitive mechanisms linked to executive control (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006). From this
theoretical perspective, mind wandering occurrences may involve a temporary lack of meta-
awareness where one neglects to notice that their completion of an ongoing task has been
displaced by a different, temporary concern (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006). If tasks are
demanding and require greater processing of information, fewer working memory resources will
be available for mind wandering to occur, given that the process also requires resources
(Smallwood & Schooler, 2006). If a task is demanding, there is a lower likelihood that mind
wandering will occur in comparison to when a task is less demanding (i.e., simple or automatic
tasks, such as brushing one’s teeth). Additionally, on more demanding tasks, poorer performance
will likely result if mind wandering occurs given that less resources are available to successfully
complete the more complex strains of the task. During periods of mind wandering, attention is
directed inward, resulting in superficial representations of one’s external environment
(Smallwood & Schooler, 2006).
To best illustrate the executive-resource theory, consider the following scenario: A father
is filling the kitchen sink with water and dish soap, beginning to wash the stack of plates and
utensils from his children’s dinner. He begins to think about each of his children’s schedules of
activities for the following day, making a mental list coordinating what times he needs to drop-
off and pick-up each child. As he is forming his mental schedule, he reaches into the sink to
realize that he has washed everything and the sink is now empty. The simple, familiar routine
coupled with the repetitive nature of the task provided this parent with the opportunity to direct
28
his attention inward to engage in mind wandering. This engagement in mind wander was
possible given his working memory was not overloaded with the task at hand. Physical
completion of his task allowed him to redirect his thoughts to his surrounding external
environment, reconnecting his focus to his next task.
Under the executive-resource theory, mind wandering is considered to be a state where
information processing is separated from a primary task, with one having less accurate awareness
of external information during mind wandering occurrences than during periods where one is
focused on a task (Smallwood, Baracaia, Lowe, & Obonsawin, 2003; Smallwood & Schooler,
2006). When mind wandering occurs, explicit intention is often absent for the process to begin,
which suggests that mind wandering is an automatically initiated form of controlled processing,
stemming from a personal goal (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006). This theory of mind wandering
appears to best explain the type of mind wandering that occurs through deliberate/intentional
self-generated internal thoughts that interrupt task-focus during an ongoing activity.
Executive-failure theory. In contrast, McVay and Kane’s (2010) executive-failure theory
maintains that mind wandering occurs during tasks that demand attentional focus when one’s
cognitive control processes are unable to deal with interference from off-task thoughts. From this
perspective, mind wandering represents a failure of executive control to maintain attention rather
than a demand and use of executive resources to engage in mind wandering. The executive-
failure theory suggests that mind wandering is determined by the presence of automatically
generated, goal-related thoughts in response to cues from one’s internal and external
environments and the ability of one’s executive-control system to maintain focus on a primary
task. For example, consider the following scenario: An individual is looking through her pantry
to put together a grocery list. Her gaze falls upon an almost empty container of icing sugar as she
29
scans contents to prepare her grocery shopping list. This external cue of seeing the icing sugar
may trigger automatic thoughts of what she could bake at some point to make use of the
remaining icing sugar. Goal-related thoughts may subsequently follow, where plans for making a
cake are considered. In this case, the individual’s executive-control system is failing to maintain
focus on the primary task (i.e., searching the pantry for missing items to add to a grocery
shopping list), and her thoughts relating to the icing sugar and potential cake baking are forming
her engagement in mind wandering.
Stemming from the executive-failure theory is the notion that mind wandering can be
controlled and prevented using the executive control system. As such, mind wandering episodes
reflect the executive control system’s failure to control and maintain attentional focus for a
primary task, thus its failure to prevent mind wandering from occurring. The executive control
system may fail due to a lack of necessary executive resources being available for thought
control (McVay & Kane, 2010). From this theory, the executive control system has proactive and
reactive components that impact mind wandering occurrences. Mind wandering is prevented
when executive control is proactively initiated and maintained based on the demands of a task,
suggesting that an individual actively initiates executive control to suppress task-unrelated
thoughts as they become activated. Additionally, mind wandering can be prevented when
executive control is reactively initiated to block TUTs that become activated in response to cues
(McVay & Kane, 2010). Going back to the pantry-searching example, the individual’s executive
control system may be actively re-engaged to block her TUTs (relating to baking a cake after
seeing the remaining jar of icing sugar) through conscious awareness of being off-task, at which
point further mind wandering will be prevented, and she will refocus her attention on forming
her grocery shopping list. This executive-failure theory appears to best explain the
30
spontaneous/unintentional form of mind wandering that occurs when one’s thoughts drift to
TUTs during an ongoing activity.
Comparing theories. In comparing theories, both the executive-resource theory and the
executive-failure theory attempt to explain the role of executive functions in mind wandering
occurrences. Both theories differ in relation to the role that executive functioning processes are
proposed to play in the mind wandering process. Under the executive-resource theory, mind
wandering is considered to be a process that draws on executive functioning resources to occur.
In contrast, the executive-failure theory proposes that mind wandering is presented as a process
that results from one’s executive functions failing to maintain attention on a primary task. Of
note, most experimental mind wandering research is able to be interpreted from either
perspective, producing a strength for both theories (McVay & Kane, 2010). Depending on which
theory is adopted, differences in predictions on individual differences in susceptibility to mind
wandering will result (McVay & Kane, 2010).
Mind wandering theories and ADHD. For the present study, the executive-failure theory
is adopted as the theoretical perspective best explaining mind wandering occurrences in relation
to ADHD. Excessive and spontaneous mind wandering has been associated with functional
impairments present in psychopathology, including ADHD (Franklin et al., 2014; Mowlem et al.,
2016). From previous studies, ADHD has been conceptualized as being associated with
spontaneous mind wandering, rather than deliberate mind wandering (Franklin et al., 2014;
Mowlem et al., 2016), which supports the executive-failure theory as best explaining mind
wandering in those with ADHD.
Following the review of Barkley’s (1997) model of executive functioning in ADHD and
the theories of executive control in relation to mind wandering, there are links between these
31
theoretical foundations that bridge the ADHD and mind wandering fields. Both the executive-
failure and executive-control theories of mind wandering acknowledge that executive
functioning plays a role with mind wandering processes. Individuals with ADHD present
susceptibility to spontaneous mind wandering and may have core challenges with controlling
these spontaneous, unrelated thoughts that interrupt their current task/context (Mowlem et al.,
2016). The focus of this study is investigating self-reported mind wandering occurrences in
youth with ADHD. By nature of their diagnosis, adolescents in this population have challenges
with carrying out EF skills, as evident in their self-regulation difficulties. The executive-failure
theory, coupled with Barkley’s (1997) model of ADHD, explain mind wandering as occurring
for individuals with ADHD as a result of their EFs failing to maintain attention on a primary
task. Given the EF difficulties faced by those with ADHD, the executive-failure theory would
suggest that adolescents with ADHD may have a greater susceptibility for mind wandering
occurrences in light of these EFDs. From Barkley’s (1997) theory, ADHD results from
deficiencies with working memory, reconstitution, internalization of speech, and affect-
motivation-arousal. Each of these areas of deficiency are executive functioning abilities that are
linked to behavioural inhibition.
Using the executive-failure perspective, mind wandering results from the executive
control system lacking required executive functioning resources to control thought. In ADHD,
there are deficiencies in these executive functioning resources that may contribute to increasing
susceptibility to mind wandering occurrences. The executive-failure theory suggests mind
wandering is prevented through proactive initiation of executive control and maintenance of this
control based on task demands. This proactive initiation and maintenance of executive control
coupled with the affect-motivation-arousal difficulties faced by individuals with ADHD may
32
lead to struggles with self-regulation that are required to maintain focus during periods of
boredom when task saliency being considered low. As a result, mind wandering may occur when
individuals with ADHD experience a situation that leads them to feel that an on-task activity
lacks the salience required for the active maintenance of attentional focus.
During less salient tasks an individual with ADHD is required to engage executive
control to suppress any TUTs that threaten to impede task-focus. Suppressing TUTs are a
difficult feat for individuals with ADHD given that to disregard TUTs, proactively initiating and
sustaining executive control in addition to self-regulating their affect-motivation-arousal
complex is required. For example, to sustain executive control, one must maintain focus on a
primary activity by consciously redirecting any task-unrelated thoughts that occur. To self-
regulate one’s affect-motivation-arousal complex, one must have a sense of self-awareness with
respect to time demands of the task they are completing, their emotional state and how this is
influencing carrying out the task, as well as a sense of one’s motivation levels and how to
address any challenges with a lack of motivation. Suppressing TUTs is further complicated by
the executive functioning impairments that underlie both executive control and affect-
motivation-arousal for individuals with ADHD.
Accordingly, the executive-failure theory in combination with the affect-motivation-
arousal executive function piece from Barkley’s (1997) unified theory on ADHD provide an
explanation of why those with ADHD are uniquely subject to mind wandering occurrences. Both
theories additionally explain how these mind wandering occurrences are brought about through
low self-regulation abilities attempting to meet executive functioning demands. Given the role
that EFs play with mind wandering occurrences and with the symptomatology of ADHD, it is
unsurprising that mind wandering is salient to ADHD populations. In-depth understanding of the
33
underlying nature of mind wandering remains lacking in the literature, and there is a need to
accurately measure mind wandering tendencies in order to reach this more comprehensive
understanding.
Measuring Mind Wandering. Mind wandering has been empirically studied through
the use of two main approaches in experimental research. Given pervasive conceptualizations of
mind wandering as being the interruption of focus on a task by TUT (Smallwood & Schooler,
2006), the majority of empirical research measuring mind wandering has followed a common
experimental design. This experimental paradigm involves presenting individuals with a task and
periodically interrupting throughout, requiring them to report on the extent to which their
attention was on- or off-task (Mrazek et al., 2013). Findings from a broad range of studies have
validated measurement of self-reported mind wandering through behavioral thought sampling
techniques (Smallwood et al., 2004), functional magnetic resonance imaging techniques
(Christoff et al., 2009), and event-related potential (Smallwood, Beach, Schooler, & Handy,
2008), which collectively suggest that individuals are able to accurately report their mind
wandering occurrences through patterns of neural activation and task behaviour in relation to
self-reported mind wandering (Mrazek et al., 2013). Recently, researchers have begun to develop
self-report scales to measure trait levels of mind wandering (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Mrazek et al.,
2013). Development of these self-report scales have focused on validation in primarily typically
developing, adult samples and have been limited in extension of their use to younger and more
diverse populations (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Mrazek et al., 2013).
Mind wandering questionnaire. The Mind Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ) is the first
validated scale that seeks to directly measure the frequency of trait levels of mind wandering
(Mrazek et al., 2013). Until the creation of this scale, research on mind wandering has been
34
conducted without a validated tool to assess self-reported mind wandering (Mrazek et al., 2013).
The MWQ includes five items with response options that are designated along a 6-point Likert
scale ranging from 1-almost never to 6-almost always (See Appendix A). Items were
purposefully written with simple language with the aim of using the scale with adolescents in
addition to adult populations (Mrazek et al., 2013). The items were developed based on a review
of items from scales used in mind wandering and related research, including the Daydream
Frequency Scale (DDFS; Giambra, 1995), the Attention Related Cognitive Errors Scale
(ACRES; Cheyne et al., 2006), and the Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown
& Ryan, 2003) in combination with proposed novel items. The resulting items in the scale were
decided as acceptable assessments of mind wandering by the researchers prior to validation
(Mrazek et al., 2013). Following its creation, the MWQ was initially validated on a sample of six
hundred and sixty-three undergraduates (401 female, mean age = 19.48, SD = 2.29, age range =
18-58 years) from a large American university. Mrazek and colleagues’ (2013) study exploration
of the creation and validation of the MWQ found that the scale was a face-valid tool with high
internal consistency.
Mrazek and colleagues (2013) found that the MWQ predicted mind wandering tendencies
that were also assessed through a thought sampling experimental paradigm in university, high
school, and middle school populations. High scores on the MWQ were found to be associated
with lower working memory abilities in the undergraduate sample (Mrazek et al., 2013).
However, the MWQ did not predict worse reading comprehension among middle school or high
school adolescents, although the reason for this discrepancy was unclear (Mrazek et al., 2013).
A marginally significant association was found between mind-wandering on the MWQ and
higher levels of reading comprehension among high school students, although this result was not
35
found in the middle school sample (Mrazek et al., 2013). Mrazek and colleagues (2013) suggest
the MWQ may be a suitable scale for use with research specific to mind wandering rather than
using related constructs, such as the MAAS, DDFS, or ACRES (Mrazek et al., 2013).
There are several potential limitations with use of the MWQ. First, the measure does not
differentiate between deliberate or spontaneous mind wandering occurrences, which could
potentially limit research questions. Second, the creators of the MWQ have also been the only
researchers who have conducted validation studies on the scale, highlighting the need for further
exploration by impartial researchers. Third, despite the internal consistency between each of the
items on the measure, the inclusion of only five items brings into question how thoroughly the
scale is addressing the overall construct of mind wandering. A final limitation of the MWQ lies
in the lack of research on use of this scale with atypical samples, such as individuals with
ADHD. Mrazek and colleagues (2013) acknowledge that further validation of the MWQ would
be useful, especially with more heterogeneous samples including different cultures/ethnicities,
and special populations, including youth or adults with ADHD.
Despite the limitations and challenges with use of the MWQ, this scale has been chosen
for use with the adolescent ADHD population in this study. The primary reason for its use in this
study is that the MWQ is currently the only measure evaluating self-reporting mind wandering to
be used in samples of adolescents (i.e., middle school and high school-aged youth). Although the
scale has yet to be validated on non-typical youth samples, it was considered the most
appropriate measure to use for the purposes and scope of the present study.
Mindful attention and awareness scale. The Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale
(MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003) is a 15-item scale with response distributions falling along a 6-
point Likert scale from 1-almost always to 6-almost never. The MAAS was uniquely developed
36
from Buddhist scholarship relating to the nature and behavioral expression of mindfulness in
addition to clinical research on the practice of mindfulness (Brown, West, Loverich, & Biegel,
2011). Relevant to the present study, an adolescent version of the scale, the Mindful Attention
Awareness Scale for Adolescents (MAAS-A; Brown et al., 2011), was developed for use with
younger populations.
Both the MAAS and the MAAS-A are used as measures of mind wandering following
agreement between clinical and scholarly research domains that mindfulness is a fundamental
quality of attention (Brown et al., 2011; Mrazek et al., 2013). Thus, an indirect assessment
approach is taken with the measure as the items refer to the absence of mindful attention rather
than mind wandering directly (Brown et al., 2011). Mindfulness is operationally defined through
the MAAS as a receptive state of attention that is informed by an awareness of present
experience and simple observation of daily occurrences (Brown et al., 2011; Brown & Ryan,
2003). Given this definition of mindfulness, the MAAS and MAAS-A measure the presence or
absence of awareness and attention to what is presently occurring (Mrazek et al., 203). The
MAAS and MAAS-A are among the most commonly used self-report scales that measure
mindfulness in research (Brown et al., 2011).
There has been some debate among researchers regarding use of the MAAS and MAAS-
A as measures of mind wandering, with the underlying argument against use of the measure
being that mindfulness cannot simplistically be defined as the absence of mind wandering
(Grossman & Van Dam, 2011; Mrazek et al., 2013). A challenge with both the MAAS and
MAAS-A is that both measure inattention in contexts that lack a clear primary task, for example,
with the item “I find myself preoccupied with the future or the past.” (Mrazek et al., 2013). The
definition of mind wandering requires that focus on a primary task must be interrupted by a TUT
37
in order for the shift in attention to be a mind wandering occurrence. The counterargument in
favor of these measures being used in mind wandering research lies in empirical findings that
mindfulness training can reduce mind wandering (Mrazek et al., 2013) and that individuals with
higher levels of reported mindfulness on the MAAS tend to mind wander less during laboratory
tasks (Mrazek et al., 2012b). Despite the drawback of indirectly measuring the construct of mind
wandering, the MAAS and MAAS-A have been used in mind wandering research and are
considered options for use by researchers investigating mind wandering, particularly given the
limited availability of mind wandering scales to select for research purposes (Mrazek et al.,
2013).
There have been challenges with measuring the construct of mind wandering in research.
Scales that have been used in previous research to assess mind wandering often lack face validity
as they measure related but separate constructs (e.g., day dreaming, mindfulness; Mrazek et al.,
2013). This overlap in conceptualization of constructs along with the tools to measure them has
resulted in creating a grey area around experimental approaches to measuring mind wandering.
Existing literature provides support for a need to further refine and develop comprehensive mind
wandering scales, as well as experimental paradigms, to explore this phenomenon.
Current Study
The present study examined the relationships between self-reported mind wandering
tendencies and reading abilities in adolescents with ADHD. Self-reported mind wandering was
measured through the MWQ and MAAS-A scales. Baseline measures of attention were assessed
through completion of the Conners Continuous Performance Test 3rd Edition (CPT 3) task.
Reading abilities including reading comprehension, word reading, decoding, and reading fluency
were measured through the selected Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 3rd Edition (WIAT-
38
III) subtests and the TOSCRF-2. As such, this study aims to address the following research
questions:
1. Are differences present in the self-reported mind wandering tendencies of adolescents
with ADHD compared to typically developing adolescents?
2. How does self-reported mind wandering tendencies relate to more objective measures of
attention (i.e., Conners CPT 3) for adolescents with ADHD?
3. How does performance on measures of reading skills relate to self-reported mind
wandering tendencies of adolescents with ADHD?
With respect to the first research question regarding whether differences will be present
in the self-reported mind wandering tendencies of adolescents with ADHD relative to their
typically developing peers, it is hypothesized that differences will be present. Specifically, it is
predicted that adolescents with ADHD will self-respond with scores indicative of greater mind
wandering tendencies than adolescents without ADHD. This prediction may seem to contrast
with the positive illusory bias (PIB), a widely supported phenomenon where many children with
ADHD overestimate their own competence in comparison to other criteria (e.g., parent and
teacher reports) that reflect actual competence (Hoza et al., 2004; Owens, Goldfine, Evangelista,
Hoza, & Kaiser, 2007). Although the PIB has been widely documented to impact the self-
perceptions of children with ADHD, the causes and function continue to be unknown (Owens et
al., 2007). One proposed explanation for the PIB is that the phenomenon stems from cognitive
immaturity in children with ADHD (Milich, 1994; Owens et al., 2007), and is perhaps why
studies on the PIB focus on samples of children. A sample of adolescents between the ages of 13
to 17 was chosen for this study because it was speculated that during this age range, youth with
ADHD may have reached a higher level of cognitive maturity and insight toward their mind
39
wandering and attention-related challenges. Therefore, youth with ADHD in this age range may
be able to self-report their tendencies in a way that children with ADHD are developmentally
unable to do. A literature review of studies investigating the influence of the PIB across the
lifespan for individuals with ADHD, and whether changes are present from childhood to
adolescence to adulthood, was unsuccessful with shedding further light on the formation of this
hypothesis.
For the second research question regarding how self-reported mind wandering tendencies
relate to more objective measures of attention, it is hypothesized that scores on the Conners CPT
3 will correlate with the self-report responses on the MAAS-A and MWQ for both the ADHD
and control groups. Given the moderate to high validity and reliability of each of these self-
report mind wandering measures, if they are truly measuring the construct of mind wandering,
which is influenced by attention/focus, then an objective measure of attention should align with
responses from these scales.
Lastly, with respect to the third research question addressing how performance on
measures of reading skills relate to self-reported mind wandering tendencies, it is hypothesized
that lower scores across reading ability measures will be associated with higher scores on the
mind wandering measures for both the ADHD and control groups. Additionally, it is predicted
that this association will be stronger for the ADHD group than for the control group. A recent
meta-analysis reviewed research that found interrelationships between academic achievement
and attention problems (Polderman, Boomsma, Bartels, Verhulst, & Huizink, 2010). The results
of this meta-analysis revealed that attentional challenges relating to clinical and subclinical
ADHD symptoms were associated with a number of academic difficulties, including academic
achievement with reading. These findings provide support for the potential relationship between
40
self-reported mind wandering tendencies and proficiency across reading abilities (i.e., word
reading, decoding, comprehension, and fluency).
41
Chapter 3: Methodology
Participants
The current study included a total of 33 adolescents ranging from 13 to 17 years of age
(52% male, 48% female, 88% Caucasian, refer to Table 1 for demographic information) from a
large western Canadian city. Of the total sample, 14 adolescents were part of the ADHD group
(71% male, 29% female) and 19 typically developing adolescents without ADHD formed the
control group (37% male, 63% female). An independent samples t-test was conducted to
compare age across the ADHD group and control group conditions. There was no significant
differences in age for the ADHD group (M = 14.58 years, SD = 1.25) and the control group (M =
15.27 years, SD = 1.33); t(31) = -1.52, p = 0.140.
All participants were required to meet specific criteria to be eligible for this study.
Specifically, all adolescents in the ADHD group must have received a previous diagnosis of
ADHD from a psychologist or psychiatrist as reported by the adolescent’s consenting
parent/guardian. Participants in the ADHD group were instructed to follow their prescribed
medication regimen the day of their session and approximately half of the participants reported
being on regular medication for ADHD (n = 8, 57% of the ADHD group). Several participants in
the ADHD group also had a comorbid diagnosis (i.e., Specific Learning Disability (SLD): 2
participants; Specific Learning Disability in Math (SLD-Math): 3 participants; Tourette’s
Syndrome: 1 participant). None of the adolescents in the control group had a diagnosis of
ADHD. Although there were no ADHD diagnoses, several participants in the control group were
flagged at the clinically significant level for symptoms characteristic of psychopathology on the
Conners 3-Parent Report (i.e., Anxiety: 1 participant; Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD): 1
participant). The presence of these symptoms have been noted; however, as there were no
42
official diagnoses for these control participants, the clinically flagged symptoms were considered
to have negligible impact on their performance in the study.
Table 1
Demographic Information
Variable
Category
ADHD
Control
n % M SD n % M SD Age --- --- 14.58 1.25 --- --- 15.27 1.33
Gender Male
Female
10 71.40 --- ---
4 28.60 --- ---
7 36.80 --- ---
12 63.20 --- ---
Diagnosis SLD
SLD (Math)
Tourette’s
Syndrome
2 14.30 --- --- 0 0 --- ---
3 21.40 --- --- 0 0 --- ---
1 5.30 --- --- 0 0 --- ---
Ethnicity Caucasian 12 87.50 --- --- 17 89.50 --- --- Asian 0 0 --- --- 1 5.30 --- --- East Indian 1 7.10 --- --- 1 5.30 --- --- Other 1 7.10 --- --- 1 5.30 --- ---
ADHD
Medication
Status
On Medication 8 57.10 --- --- 0 0 --- ---
Vyvanse 1 7.10 --- --- 0 0 --- ---
Concerta 5 35.70 --- --- 0 0 --- ---
Biphentin 2 14.30 --- --- 0 0 --- ---
Measures
Participants independently completed measures to gain information on their reading
abilities and general mind wandering tendencies. Data was gathered through administration of a
number of measures.
Demographics questionnaire. The demographics questionnaire was completed by
parents of the adolescent participants (see Appendix B). Questions addressed general family
information (number and ages of siblings, family ethnicity), family history (immediate family
member mental health diagnoses), child physical and mental health history (medications, mental
health diagnoses), language (languages spoken at the home, reading and writing language
43
fluency), and child education (current grade, academic performance with reading). Data from
this questionnaire was collected as part of a larger project, and as a result, not all information
was included in analyses for the present study.
Conners 3rd Edition Self-Report and Parent Rating Scales (Conners 3-P; Conners,
2008). The Conners 3 is a multicomponent set of rating scales that are used to assess a wide
range of behaviours and social, emotional, and academic challenges in relation to DSM-5
diagnostic criteria (i.e., symptom scales, content scales, other clinical indicators, critical items,
impairment items; Conners, 2008; Conners, 2016). Given the incorporation of diagnostic criteria
and multiple informants with the tool, the Conners 3 is often used in clinical settings to assist
with diagnostic processes and with monitoring treatment response (Conners, 2008; Conners,
2016). The Conners 3 can be used in research settings to identify individuals for qualification
with study participation (Conners, 2008; Conners, 2016), as was the case in the present study.
The assessment age range for the self-report form is between 8 to 18 years of age and 6 to 18
years for the parent form. Individuals completing the Conners 3 rate how frequently each item
applied to themselves (self-report) or the youth of interest (parent report) over the past month
using a scale from 0- “Never/Seldom” to 3- “Very Often/Very Frequently”.
The Conners 3 was normed on a large sample across the U.S. and Canada (Conners,
2016). In terms of reliability, internal consistency coefficients for the total normative sample
ranged from .77 to .97 and test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from .71 to .98 (i.e., fair to
strong coefficients), with all correlations being significant at p < .001 (Conners, 2016). Inter-
rater reliability coefficients ranged from .52 to .94 (i.e., weak to strong ranges in reliability;
Conners, 2016). Factorial, construct and predictive validity of the Conners 3 has been strongly
supported (Conners, 2016). With the present study, the variables of interest were the t-scores for
44
inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity, learning problems, executive function,
defiance/aggression, ADHD-inattentive, ADHD-hyperactivity/impulsivity, conduct disorder, and
ODD on the parent report measure. These variables were used to flag clinical symptoms and
confirm with parents any diagnoses or potential clinical presentations in each participant.
Conners Continuous Performance Test 3rd Edition (Conners CPT 3; Conners, 2014).
The Conners CPT 3 is a neuropsychological computer-based, task-oriented assessment of
attention in individuals 8 years of age and above (Conners, 2014). The task presents 360 stimuli
trials consisting of individual letters on the computer screen with 1, 2, or 4 seconds between the
presentation of the letters. Individuals are instructed to press the computer keyboard spacebar for
any letter that appears, except for the letter “X”. The CPT 3 takes 14 minutes to administer,
following a practice test session. CPT 3 t-scores are calculated across a number of domains,
including detectability (i.e., ability to differentiate targets from non-targets), omissions (i.e., rate
of missed targets), commissions (i.e., rate of incorrect responses to non-targets), perseverations
(i.e., rate of random, repetitive responses), and variability (i.e., variability in reaction time
consistency). An individuals’ performance is matched onto indexes in the areas of
inattentiveness, sustained attention, impulsivity, and vigilance.
The CPT 3 has been shown to differentiate ADHD behaviours from those displayed in
typically developing groups (Epstein et al., 2003). This measure is used for both research as well
as clinical purposes (Advokat, Martino, Hill, & Gouvier, 2007; Riccio, Reynold, & Lowe, 2001)
and there is strong reliability and validity for the Conners CPT 3. Internal consistency was found
to be at .92 for the norm sample and at .94 for the clinical samples (i.e., strong internal
consistency), and test-retest reliability was at a median correlation of .67 (i.e., indicating weaker
reliability; Conners, 2016). Discriminant validity was found to have small to moderate effect
45
sizes (d = .10 to .49; Conners 2016). For this study, the variables of interest were the t-scores for
detectability, omissions, commissions, perseverations, and variability.
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT-III; Wechsler, 2009). The WIAT-III
is a standardized, Canadian and U.S. normed academic test for individuals between 4:0 to 50:11
years of age (Wechsler, 2009). The WIAT-III is broadly used in educational, clinical, and
research settings, and is administered one-on-one through either a paper-pencil or online format.
Subtests fall within the areas of oral language, written language, reading, and mathematics.
Internal-consistency reliabilities are over .80 across all subtests (i.e., indicating good to strong
reliabilities) except for Sentence Completion (.79) and Listening Comprehension (.75;
Lichtenberger & Breaux, 2010), neither of which were used in this study. In terms of validity,
inter-correlations range from .46 to .93 across Total Reading, Basic Reading, Reading
Comprehension and Fluency, Oral Language, Written Expression, Mathematics, and Math
Fluency composites (i.e., indicating weak to strong validity; Lichtenberger & Breaux, 2010). Of
the composites, there are stronger correlations among the reading composites while weaker
correlations have been found between other composites, such as Math Fluency (Lichtenberger &
Breaux, 2010).
The WIAT-III subtests that are relevant to this study are the Reading Comprehension,
Word Reading, Pseudoword Decoding, and Oral Reading Fluency subtests. Each of these
subtests are intended for administration with individuals between grades 1 to 12. From the scores
on these reading subtests, composite scores can be calculated that group scores across several of
the subtests. The Reading Comprehension subtest measures untimed reading comprehension
abilities for various text passages (e.g., informational text, fictional stories, advertisements;
Wechsler, 2009). The individual may read aloud or silently for this subtest, and after reading
46
each passage, is asked to orally respond to literal and inferential comprehension questions posed
by the examiner. The Word Reading subtest measures the accuracy and speed of
decontextualized word recognition. For this subtest, the individual orally reads from a list of
words that increase in difficulty. There is no time limit, and the examiner records the individual’s
progress after 30 seconds, continuing administration until discontinue criteria is met or the last
item is reached (Wechsler, 2009). The Pseudoword Decoding subtest measures one’s ability to
decode individual phonemes and blend the letter sounds together to read nonsense words
(Wechsler, 2009). This subtest is both structured and administered in the same manner as the
Word Reading subtest. The Oral Reading Fluency subtest measures accuracy, speed, fluency,
and prosody of contextualized oral reading (Wechsler, 2009). The examinee is instructed to read
passages aloud and orally respond to a comprehension question following each passage
(Wechsler, 2009). For this subtest, fluency is calculated as the average number of correctly read
words per minute, and both reading prosody and comprehension are scored qualitatively
(Wechsler, 2009).
Of interest in the present study are standard scores for each of the reading subtests
previously outlined as well as the composite standard scores of Basic Reading and Total
Reading. The Basic Reading composite combines Word Reading and Pseudoword Decoding, and
the Total Reading composite combines the Basic Reading composite and the Reading
Comprehension and Fluency composite (which is a composite of the Reading Comprehension
and Oral Reading Fluency subtest scores).
Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency-2nd Edition (TOSCRF-2; Hammill,
Wiederholt, & Allen, 2006). The TOSCRF-2 is a standardized, research-based measure to
assess silent reading ability of school-aged children from 7:0 to 18:11 years of age (Hammill,
47
Wiederholt, & Allen, 2006). The measure includes four equivalent forms (A, B, C, D), which
were randomized across participants, and provides raw scores, standard scores, percentiles, and
age/grade equivalents. Administration can be either individual or as a group, ranging up to 10
minutes in duration. The TOSCRF-2 measures the speed that the individual can recognize
individual words in a series of printed passages that increase in difficulty with content, grammar,
and vocabulary. The passages used are adapted from the Gray Oral Reading Tests-Fourth Edition
(GORT-4; Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001) and the Gray Silent Reading Tests (GSRT; Wiederholt &
Blalock, 2000). Passages are printed in uppercase font without punctuation or spaces between
words (e.g. ANORANGEBIRDWITHREDWINGSLANDEDONOURTALLTREE), and the
individuals are given 3 minutes to draw a line between as many words as possible.
The TOSCRF-2 has been found to be a reliable and valid measure of general reading and
reading fluency (Rogers, 2008). The measure was normed on a large sample considered
representative of the US population (Hammill et al., 2006). Alternate-forms reliability
coefficients for the TOSCRF-2 ranged between .84 and .96 (i.e., indicating good to strong
reliability), inter-rater reliability coefficients were found to be at .99 (i.e., indicating strong
reliability), and test-retest coefficients ranged from .86 to .89 (i.e., indicating good reliability;
Hammill et al., 2006). In terms of validity, criterion coefficients ranged from .41 to .89 for the
measure (i.e., indicating weak to strong ranges in validity; Hammill, 2006).
Mind Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ; Mrazek et al., 2013). The MWQ is a face-
valid tool used to assess trait levels of mind wandering (Mrazek et al., 2013). The MWQ is a 5-
item measure that allows individuals to respond how frequently or infrequently the statement
applies to them using a 6-point Likert scale from “1-Almost Never” to “6-Almost Always”. This
measure was developed due to the lack of tools to directly assess mind wandering, and further
48
validation across diverse populations remains a direction for future research (Mrazek et al.,
2013). Mrazek and colleagues’ (2013) reliability analysis on the MWQ indicated good internal
consistency among the measure’s items with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.850. In comparison to the
MAAS, the MWQ was found to explain a significant amount of unique variance in mind
wandering over and above the MAAS (Mrazek et al., 2013). The MWQ has been used with
undergraduate, high school, and middle school students, meanwhile special populations have yet
to be broadly researched with the measure (Mrazek et al., 2013). The present study will be
implementing the use of the MWQ with a sample of adolescents with ADHD, an area suggested
for future research by the authors of the measure.
Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale-Adolescents (MAAS-A; Brown et al., 2011).
The MAAS-A is a 14-item scale that measures the presence or absence of attention and
awareness of what is occurring in the present (Brown et al., 2011, Mrazek et al., 2013; see
Appendix C). The MAAS-A has been adapted from the MAAS (Brown & Ryan, 2003) and was
originally developed to validate the MAAS in adolescent normative and psychiatric populations
(Brown et al., 2011). The difference between the MAAS (Brown & Ryan, 2003) and the MAAS-
A (Brown et al., 2011) is the removal of one item that relates to driving, given that adolescent
populations may not engage in this activity on a daily basis the way adults tend to (Brown et al.,
2011). Individuals are instructed to read a collection of statements (e.g., “I find myself listening
to someone with one ear, doing something else at the same time”; “I find myself preoccupied
with the future or the past”) relating to their everyday experiences and indicate how frequently
they have each experience on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from “1-Almost Always” to “6-
Almost Never”. Validation studies for the MAAS-A found evidence for a single-factor structure
with the measure’s 14 items through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, which
49
parallel those found for the MAAS with normative adult samples (Brown et al., 2011). High
internal consistency (time 1 α = .85, time 2 α = .88) and test-retest reliability (t(130) = 1.12, p >
.27, time 1 mean = 3.82, time 2 mean = 3.76) were found in a normative adolescent sample of
103 youth between 14 to 18 years of age (Brown et al., 2011). The MAAS-A was also found to
have high internal consistency in a psychiatric sample of adolescents with anxiety and mood
disorders (Brown et al., 2011).
Procedure
Participants were recruited through a pre-existing database of families who indicated
interest in being contacted for future research involvement (see Appendix D for recruitment
email script). In addition, recruitment posters (see Appendix E) were placed in local coffee
shops, recreation centers, libraries and medical clinics throughout a large western Canadian city.
Interested participants completed a brief pre-screening questionnaire (see Appendix F)
administered over the phone to determine whether basic inclusion criteria for participation was
met. Upon arrival for participation in the study, parents were provided with a parking pass for the
duration of their participation session. The informed consent form (see Appendix G) was
reviewed and signed with parents, and any questions being addressed. The researcher read the
verbal assent script (see Appendix H) aloud to the adolescent with the parent present. Following
verbal assent from the adolescent and the signing of the parental consent form, the researcher
brought the participant to the testing room for their session. All aspects of this study were
approved by the Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board at the host institution.
Parents were given a demographics questionnaire to complete along with the Conners 3-
Parent Report measure following the consent procedure. Each adolescent participant worked
one-on-one with the researcher and was administered the Reading Comprehension, Word
50
Reading, Pseudoword Decoding, and Oral Reading Fluency subtests from the WIAT-III in a
randomized manner. The WIAT-III subtests were always administered first out of all of the
measures in the study so as to determine whether the participant was at their corresponding grade
level for reading. It was determined that if each participant was minimally at grade level for
reading, then this would remove a potential confound in the study (i.e., lower reading ability
level than expected relative to peers at the same grade), allowing for clearer interpretations of the
relationships between the reading and mind wandering variables. From administration, each
participant in the study performed at grade level in terms of reading across WIAT-III subtest
scores. Following administration of the WIAT-III, all participants were administered the Conners
CPT 3, MWQ, MAAS-A, and the TOSCRF-2 in a randomized order across participants.
Collectively, all of the adolescent measures were administered in a pseudo-randomized order
across participants, as the WIAT-III was always the first measure administered. Following
completion of participation, the participant was read a debrief form (see Appendix J), any
questions were addressed, and each adolescent participant was given a $25 gift certificate as an
appreciation for their time.
51
Chapter 4: Results
Data was first examined for outliers for the mind wandering variables (i.e., MWQ total
score, MAAS-A total score), attention variables (i.e., CPT 3 detectability, omissions,
commissions, and perseverations t-scores), reading variables (i.e., WIAT-III Reading
Comprehension, Word Reading, Pseudoword Decoding, Oral Reading Fluency, Total Reading,
Basic Reading standard scores; and TOSCRF-2 index score). Outliers were identified through
interpretation of the Shapiro-Wilk’s statistic at alpha level .05 and inspection of the Q-Q plots for
the ADHD and control groups across each variable. Two participants were found to have outlier
scores in some of the study variables (ADHD, n = 1; Typical, n = 1). The ADHD participant was
found to be an outlier with their Reading Comprehension and Fluency Score. The typical
participant was found to be an outlier from their CPT 3 omissions, perseverations, and variability
scores as well as their WIAT-III Oral Reading Fluency score. Subsequently, each of these
outlying scores were winsorized until the corresponding z-scores no longer exceeded 3.25.
Following data cleaning of these outliers, data was determined to be approximately normally
distributed and appropriately prepared for analysis.
A post-hoc power analysis was run with the program G*Power to determine how to
approach interpretation of the statistical analyses results. With the present sample size, the power
was determined to be 0.28, critical t(31) = 2.04. In light of this low power calculation value, the
results of the subsequent analyses should be interpreted with caution. Although the study was
underpowered, likely due to low sample size, data was approximately normally distributed across
variables for both groups, providing support for proceeding with parametric analyses.
52
Research Question One
To examine the first research question, a Pearson correlation was run to determine the
relationship between self-reported mind wandering tendencies on the MWQ and self-reported
mind wandering tendencies on the MAAS-A. There was a strong, positive and statistically
significant correlation between mind wandering tendencies reported on both measures for the
ADHD group (r = .618, n = 14, p < .05), as well as for the control group (r = .727. n = 19, p <
.05). These results indicate that the MWQ and the MAAS-A have a linear relationship. To
explore whether differences in self-reported mind wandering tendencies were present between
the ADHD and control group, an independent samples t-test was run. Results indicated that there
was a statistically significant difference for MWQ total scores between the ADHD group (M =
20.21, SD = 4.40) and control group (M = 16.16, SD = 5.01), t(31) = 2.42, p = .022. For the
MAAS-A, there was no difference in total scores between the ADHD group (M = 42.86, SD =
12.64) and control group (M = 41.84, SD = 11.43), t(31) = 0.241, p = .811.
Research Question Two
For the second research question investigating how self-reported mind wandering
tendencies relate to an objective measure of attention (i.e., CPT 3 scores) for the ADHD and
control groups, Pearson correlation analyses were run to determine the relationship between each
variable. Each analysis was conducted using the Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels of .005 per test
(.05/10) given that multiple analyses were conducted with the same dependent variables, thus
increasing the potential of finding a significant result by chance if not adjusted. Results indicated
there were no statistically significant correlations between the MWQ total score and any of the
CPT 3 scores for both the ADHD and control group (see Table 2). There were also no
53
statistically significant correlations between the MAAS-A total score and any of the CPT 3
scores for both the ADHD and control groups (see Table 3).
Table 2
Results of Attention and Mind Wandering Correlation Analyses for ADHD Group
Measure CPT 3
Detectability
CPT 3
Omissions
CPT 3
Commissions
CPT 3
Perseverations
CPT 3
Variability
MWQ r = .232
p = .425
r = .415
p = .140
r = .219
p = .451
r = -.264
p = .363
r = .447
p = .109
MAAS-A
r = .272
p = .347
r = .269
p = .353
r = .219
p = .451
r = -.264
p = .363
r = .447
p = .109
Table 3
Results of Attention and Mind Wandering Correlation Analyses for Control Group
Measure CPT 3
Detectability
CPT 3
Omissions
CPT 3
Commissions
CPT 3
Perseverations
CPT 3
Variability
MWQ r = -.097
p = .694
r = .057
p = .818
r = -.152
p = .533
r = -.057
p = .817
r = -.083
p = .736
MAAS-A
r = .000
p = .999
r = .216
p = .375
r = -.122
p = .620
r = .085
p = .728
r = .068
p = .782
To determine whether there were differences across any of the CPT 3 scores between the
ADHD and control group, independent samples t-tests were run. Each analysis was conducted
using the Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels of .01 per test (.05/5). The results indicated no
statistically significant differences between groups for any variables: detectability (ADHD: M =
48.93, SD = 7.85; Control: M = 49.79, SD = 9.78; t(31) = -0.27, p = .788), omissions, (ADHD: M
= 47.29, SD = 5.01; Control: M = 48.46, SD = 7.21; t(31) = -0.39, p = .701), commissions
(ADHD: M = 49.00, SD = 7.90; Control: M = 50.37, SD = 9.46, t(31) = -0.440, p = .663),
perseverations (ADHD: M = 52.07, SD = 8.52; Control: M = 51.89, SD = 8.31, t(31) = 0.06, p =
54
.953), and variability (ADHD: M = 53.21, SD = 9.24; Control: M = 49.37, SD = 9.29, t(31) =
1.18, p = .248).
Research Question Three
To determine whether there were differences between the ADHD and control group
across reading scores, independent samples t-tests were run using the Bonferroni adjusted alpha
levels of .0071 per test (.05/7). There were no statistically significant differences between groups
on any of the WIAT-III reading scores of reading comprehension (ADHD: M = 105.50, SD =
11.95; Control: M = 103.58, SD = 12.59; t(31) = .443, p = .661), word reading (ADHD: M =
110.14, SD = 8.28; Control: M =106.21, SD = 11.96; t(31) = 1.06, p = .299), pseudoword
decoding (ADHD: M = 107.64, SD = 13.73, Control: M = 102.42, SD = 10.48; t(31) = 1.24, p =
.224), oral reading fluency (ADHD: M = 101.00, SD = 12.12; Control: M = 100.05, SD = 11.96;
t(31) = .224, p = .824), total reading (ADHD: M = 107.00, SD = 13.36; Control: M = 102.58, SD
= 13.60; t(31) = .930, p = .360), basic reading (ADHD: M = 109.50, SD = 11.82; Control: M =
104.16, SD = 11.61; t(31) = 1.297, p = .204), as well as the TOSCRF-2 scores (ADHD: M =
97.07, SD = 10.21; Control: M = 101.63, SD = 13.19; t(31) = -1.08, p = .290).
To examine the third research question of how performance on measures of reading skills
related to self-reported mind wandering for the ADHD and control groups, partial Pearson
correlation analyses were run between the self-reported mind wandering scores and each of the
reading scores. Gender was removed as a contributing variable for these partial correlation
analyses given findings from previous literature indicating gender differences in both reading
ability and attitude to reading across typically developing school-aged youth (Coles & Hall,
2002; Sainsbury & Schagen, 2004; Logan & Johnston, 2009). Each analysis was conducted using
the Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels of .0035 per test (.05/14). Results of the analysis indicated
55
that there were no statistically significant correlations for the ADHD group between the MWQ
total score and any of the reading scores as well as between the MAAS-A total score and any of
the reading scores (see Table 4). Similarly, there were no statistically significant correlations
between the MWQ and the reading scores or for the MAAS-A total score and the reading scores
for the control group (see Table 5).
Table 4
Results of Reading and Mind Wandering Correlation Analyses for ADHD Group
Measure WIAT Reading
Comprehension
WIAT
Word
Reading
WIAT
Pseudoword
Decoding
WIAT
Oral
Reading
Fluency
WIAT
Total
Reading
WIAT
Basic
Reading
TOSCRF-
2 Index
Score
MWQ r = .205
p = .481
r = .244
p = .401
r = .356
p = .211
r = .288
p = .318
r = .338
p = .237
r = .348
p = .223
r = .372
p = .190
MAAS-A
r = .170
p = .561
r = .038
p = .898
r = .103
p = .726
r = .196
p = 502
r = .184
p = .528
r = .105
p = .722
r = -.060
p = .840
Table 5
Results of Reading and Mind Wandering Correlation Analyses for Control Group
Measure WIAT Reading
Comprehension
WIAT
Word
Reading
WIAT
Pseudoword
Decoding
WIAT
Oral
Reading
Fluency
WIAT
Total
Reading
WIAT
Basic
Reading
TOSCRF-
2 Index
Score
MWQ r = -.152
p = .534
r = -.318
p = .184
r = -.406
p = .084
r = -.194
p = .427
r = -.360
p = .130
r = -.390
p = .099
r = -117
p = .634
MAAS-A
r = -.072
p = .769
r = -.288
p = .233
r = -.264
p = .276
r = -.055
p = .823
r = -.203
p = .405
r = -.276
p = .252
r = .004
p = .988
To further explore the relationships between performance on measures of reading skills
and self-reported mind wandering, additional analyses were conducted. A multiple regression
analysis was run using the MWQ score and MAAS-A score to predict the WIAT-III total reading
score (i.e., a composite score considered to be a comprehensive indicator of overall reading
56
ability relative to the reading scores used in this study). However, counter to what was predicted,
these variables did not statistically significantly predict total reading scores for the ADHD group
F(2, 11) = 0.718, p = .509 , R2 = .115, or for the control group F(2, 16) = 1.268, p = .308 , R2 =
.137.
57
Chapter 5: Discussion
The purpose of this research study was to explore the relationships between the reading
abilities and self-reported mind wandering tendencies of adolescents with ADHD in comparison
to a control group. The present study was intended to expand existing literature on adolescent
populations with ADHD with respect to the variables of interest. Through use of an exploratory
study design focusing on relationships between variables, it was the researcher’s intention that
results would provide a framework for designing subsequent studies in the research area of mind
wandering and reading in ADHD populations. Participants in the present study completed
reading-based activities and questionnaires addressing their experiences of mind wandering.
Specifically, three research questions were investigated through the study. Findings for each of
these questions must be interpreted with caution, particularly given the low overall sample for
the study, the unequal and low sample sizes for the ADHD and control groups, the gender
differences between the ADHD and control group, and the overall underpowered nature of the
study (refer to the limitations section for more details on these areas). Each of these
characteristics of the study sample limit the generalizability of findings and stress the need to
consider results from all data analyses with a critical lens.
Research Question One
The first research question addressed differences between the ADHD and control group
with self-reported mind wandering tendencies. Data analyses to investigate this research question
revealed that the two measures of mind wandering used in the study were significantly
correlated. This finding provides support for existing literature indicating that both the MWQ
and MAAS-A measures are related, and given their significant linear correlation relationship,
both measures may be used to evaluate self-reported mind wandering tendencies with adolescent
58
ADHD populations. Considering there was a statistically significant difference on the MWQ
between the ADHD and control group, and no differences on the MAAS-A, the MWQ may be
the stronger of the two measures tapping into the construct of mind wandering for this
population. The notion that the MWQ may better evaluate mind wandering than the MAAS-A
has also been suggested in mind wandering literature (e.g., Mrazek et al., 2013) and aligns with
the nature of the MAAS-A including items to evaluate the broader, but related, construct of
mindfulness (Brown et al., 2011). The finding of differences in self-reported mind wandering
between both groups provides support for the hypothesis that adolescents with ADHD may have
greater cognitive maturity than during earlier ages, and thus greater insight into their mind
wandering tendencies despite the PIB that is characteristic of the disorder.
Difficulty with maintaining attention, particularly in school, is challenging for
adolescents. The primary symptom of inattention that is characteristic of ADHD has been found
to persist long-term for those with the diagnosis, while hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms may
decrease with age (Advokat et al., 2007). As such, adolescents with ADHD may experience
greater difficulties with attention and mind wandering than their typically developing peers, and
these attentional challenges tend to persist throughout adulthood. The present study’s results
expand existing literature through indicating there are significant differences in self-reported
mind wandering between adolescents with ADHD and controls. Additionally, findings from the
present study support the potential of the MWQ as being a useful measure to detect these
differences in the frequency of mind wandering occurrences. The MWQ is intended to measure
the frequency of self-reported mind wandering (Mrazek et al., 2013). Currently, this measure is
the only scale in mind wandering literature that has preliminary validity and reliability for use
with young adult populations (Mrazek et al., 2013). The present findings suggest the MWQ
59
could be a useful, valid, and reliable tool for adolescent populations with ADHD, and is an area
that requires further investigation with an ADHD sample more representative of the broader
ADHD population (i.e., ethnically diverse, larger sample size) to further validate the measure.
Research Question Two
The data analyses for the second and third research questions yielded less salient findings
than anticipated. With respect to the second research question regarding the relationship between
self-reported mind wandering tendencies and tracked attention scores on the CPT 3, there were
no statistically significant or trending correlation relationships between scores on either the
MWQ or the MAAS-A with any of the CPT 3 scores. An individual’s capacity to maintain
attention has the potential to impact one’s tendency to engage in mind wandering, and this
relationship was generally predicted to correlate for the present study. A possible reason for the
lack of findings supporting the predicted relationship between these variables may be that self-
reported mind wandering and attention as measured by the CPT 3 are not linear, as would be the
case if the Pearson correlations between each variable came out statistically significant. If the
relationship between variables is not linear, then this suggests that one or both variables may
have a curvilinear relationship.
With a curvilinear relationship, both variables increase together and at some point, one
variable will continue to increase while the other decreases (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
Graphically, a curvilinear relationship is represented with either a U-shape curve
(i.e., as one variable increases, the other variable decreases up to a point, followed by both
variables increasing together) or an inverted U-shape curve (i.e., both variables increase to a
point then as one variable increases, the other decreases). As there is no existing literature on the
relationship between objective measures of attention and self-reported mind wandering
60
tendencies, it may be the case that a curvilinear relationship exists between both variables. A
curvilinear relationship between mind wandering and attention could potentially be explained by
one’s interest in the task they are engaging in. If an individual is initially not very interested in a
task, she may have high levels of mind wandering early on (i.e., low levels of attention).
Subsequently, if the individual finds the task increasing in difficulty, she may then engage in less
mind wandering so as to have more focus/attention to complete the task. As she approaches
completing the task and the demands in difficulty decline, she may become less interested and
return to high levels of mind wandering and low levels of attention. Despite this proposed
explanation for a curvilinear relationship, it remains difficult to ascertain the true relationships
between attention and mind wandering. As a result, an area for further empirical investigation is
thus highlighted.
The CPT 3 is a frequently administered test of attention that is relevant with
identification of ADHD. Generally, abnormal performance on the CPT 3 has been found in
samples of children and adults with ADHD in comparison to typically developing control groups
(Losier, McGrath, & Klein, 1996; Epstein, Conners, Sitarenios, & Erhardt, 1998; Advokat et al.,
2007). There is general agreement in existing literature that the CPT differentiates children with
ADHD from typically developing controls; however, studies on CPT performance in adults have
not consistently yielded differences between ADHD and control groups (Epstein et al., 1998;
Advokat et al., 2007). Proposed reasons for the inconsistent findings in adult samples have
included different methodologies across studies involving the CPT and limited sample sizes
(Epstein et al., 1998; Advokat et al., 2007). In the present study, no statistically significant
differences were found between the ADHD and control groups across any of the CPT 3 scores,
mirroring the inconsistent differences found in adult samples in existing literature. In Advokat
61
and colleagues’ (2007) research with an undergraduate sample, participants with an ADHD
diagnosis performed more poorly on the CPT compared to experimental groups (i.e., no
diagnosis, a psychiatric disorder, or cognitive/learning deficits). Interestingly, this difference was
not statistically significant using parametric techniques; however, the differences across groups
were significant when analyzed using non-parametric techniques. It may be the case that for this
study, use of nonparametric statistical analyses may be more sensitive to detect meaningful
differences between groups, especially considering the low sample size, than the parametric
statistical analyses used. For the present study, given that the distribution of the data met the
assumptions for running parametric analyses by being approximately normally distributed,
proceeding with parametric tests was considered appropriate.
The ability to detect potential differences in attention between the ADHD and control
groups in the present study may have been complicated by medication effects influencing the
attentional focus of 57% of the ADHD sample (i.e., the participants in the ADHD sample on
medication during the study). Both stimulant and non-stimulant medications target
neurotransmitters in the brain, improving concentration and thus alleviating the primary
symptom of inattention in ADHD (Grizenko, Bhat, Schwartz, Ter-Stepanian, & Joober, 2006;
Shaywitz, Williams, Fox, & Wietecha, 2014). The unanticipated lack of hypothesized
relationships between attention and responses on the mind wandering measures in the study’s
findings bring into question whether attention, as measured by the CPT 3, is conceptualized as a
skill or as a performance deficit. The CPT 3 presents a task requiring focus in order to respond to
presented stimuli as instructed, as well as inhibitory control to prevent incorrect responses to
presented stimuli. Correct responses to stimuli during the task may be due to participant’s having
mastered the skill of attention whereas incorrect responses to stimuli may be the result of deficits
62
during their performance with the task itself rather than being reflective of weaknesses in
attentional capacity. In light of this uncertainty regarding the conceptualization of attention as
measured by the CPT 3, use of a different experimental paradigm to evaluate attention may have
provided greater light in response to the research question in the present study addressing
attention and mind wandering tendencies.
As the area of research on attention and self-reported mind wandering tendencies has yet
to be investigated in empirical literature, it is difficult to ascertain what other alternate
relationships may exist between these variables. It may be the case that there are greater
complexities between these variables, beyond the scope of this study, and there may be
additional factors that influence mind wandering tendencies and attention. A notable factor that
may have had an impact on the potential to identify the relationship between variables in this
study was that approximately half of the participants with ADHD were taking psychostimulant
medication (i.e., Vyvanse, Concerta, Biphentin) to address their ADHD symptoms at the time of
participation. Psychostimulant medications target the primary symptoms of ADHD (i.e.,
hyperactivity-impulsivity, inattention). Secondary symptoms (e.g., learning difficulties) have
also been found to improve with psychostimulant use (Handen, McAuliffe, & Caro-Martinez,
1996). By taking regular medication for ADHD, the participant’s daily mind wandering
tendencies are likely altered, thus impacting their responses on the questionnaires. Additionally,
given that ADHD medications improve the attention challenges faced by those with ADHD,
performance on the CPT 3 was likely better than would be the case if these participants were not
on medication. Although having both medicated and unmedicated participants in the ADHD
group may have restricted the potential to detect differences in this study, the study’s
63
generalizability is strengthened given that in true classroom settings some students with ADHD
may be on medications while others may be unmedicated.
Furthermore, by nature of the experimental set-up requiring participants to complete tasks
one-on-one with the researcher, there may have been demand characteristics at play that
influenced their performance on the measures. Demand characteristics is a social psychology
term referring to experimental cues where participants perceive the purpose of the experiment
and alter their behavior to align with these perceptions (Orne, 2009). With the present study, the
participants were motivated to perform well during their session given they were being observed
directly by the experimenter. Participants consciously focused on the presented tasks, perhaps
more so than they would have if they were working independently. Experimental cues, such as
personal friendliness of the examiner, the physical presence of the examiner during the
experimental session, the experimental setting, and examiner instructions all serve as potential
cues that may have influenced the participants’ behaviours and responses during the study.
Research Question Three
With the third research question investigating performance on measures of reading skills
in relation to self-reported mind wandering tendencies, no significant relationships were found
between any of the reading-based measures and the MWQ and MAAS-A. The results indicated
that there were no trending or statistically significant relationships between any of the reading
variable scores and either of the mind wandering measures. There are a number of potential
reasons that may explain the lack of salient findings with respect to this third research question,
beyond the overarching limitations to the study itself. Particularly, the stepwise model of reading
adopted as the theoretical perspective underlying the predicted relationships between reading and
64
mind wandering may have made it difficult to detect subtle differences in reading skills between
groups.
The stepwise model of reading posits that literacy development progresses in a series of
stages, with proficiency in later reading skills (i.e., reading comprehension) being dependent on
mastery of earlier skills (i.e., phonemic awareness, vocabulary knowledge). The WIAT-III
reading subtests are structured under this stepwise theoretical understanding of literacy
development, and this measure was selected for use with assessing reading skills given the
breadth of literacy components assessed across subtests. The stepwise theory of literacy
development may have restricted the ability to detect more subtle differences in reading ability
between groups, particularly given that mean scores between groups were quite similar.
Adoption of an alternative literacy development theory, such as the perspective that reading
skills develop simultaneously rather than in stages, would have implications for altering the
study design and potentially the findings. If reading skills develop simultaneously, then using a
measure to evaluate performance on a complex reading task (e.g., reading comprehension,
reading fluency) rather than multiple subtests to evaluate discrete reading skills, may have
provided an informative indication of overall reading ability.
Use of a single, complex reading task may allow for quantitative results on reading
ability as well as allowing for the possibility of including a qualitative component to complement
the quantitative data. This qualitative piece could include presenting participants with questions
relating to their interest in the reading task, their insight into their experiences of mind wandering
during the task, and their perspective on their overall reading skills. This qualitative information
could be compared to quantitative performance on the reading tasks (e.g., total correct responses
to reading comprehension questions) as well as scores on the self-report mind wandering
65
measures. By making these alterations with the study design, it may be possible to detect more
subtle nuances in reading skills between groups than was possible with only comparing
quantitative scores between groups. This shift in study design and theoretical perspective would
be valuable for further research with reading skills and mind wandering, focusing on greater
breadth through qualitative and quantitative components. Considering the scope of the present
study was narrow in focus to allow for exploring the relationship between the variables of
interest, it is worthwhile to acknowledge that there may be complexities at play that this study
was not able to identify, which may explain the lack of findings for this third research question.
An additional potential explanation for the lack of hypothesized findings for this third
research question could be the presence of additional factors that influence the relationship
between reading abilities and mind wandering. For example, factors such as supportive teacher-
student relationships, personal drive to academically achieve despite challenges associated with
ADHD, and self-reflection and self-perception capacities may have mediating or moderating
effects on the relationship between mind wandering tendencies and proficiency with reading
skills.
Supportive teacher-student relationships may influence development of proficiency with
reading related skills, thus impacting mind wandering tendencies in relation to school work
reading tasks. Having a supportive teacher who encourages development of strong academic
skills in students may impact the motivation of the student with pursuing achievement in subject
areas. Research has found that students who feel they have supportive interpersonal relationships
in school, particularly where teachers are perceived as being involved with and caring towards
students, report more overall satisfaction with school, positive academic attitudes, and are more
academically engaged (Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Klem & Connell, 2004).
66
A student’s capacity to self-reflect may enhance their ability to redirect attention and
focus when experiencing mind wandering. Similarly, a student’s self-perceptions with how they
are performing academically with reading may have an influence on their attention during
reading-based assignments in school, thus influencing their academic achievement in reading-
related areas. Overall motivation to perform academically may play a role with influencing
student achievement in subject areas in school. Student motivation has been found to be affected
by quality of teacher instruction, which in turn affects academic coursework (Keith & Cool,
1992). Personal motivation and drive to achieve academically despite challenges, such as those
associated with ADHD, may also impact one’s learning of academic material as well as how they
address mind wandering tendencies.
Implications
The preliminary results from this study provide support for the use of the MWQ as a tool
to evaluate self-reported mind wandering tendencies in research involving adolescents with
ADHD. As research into self-reported mind wandering tendencies is a recently growing area,
replication of the present study with larger ADHD and control samples is needed. Statistically
non-significant findings regarding an objective measure of attention (i.e., CPT 3) and reading-
based measures (i.e., WIAT-III reading subtests, TOSCRF-2) suggest that the relationship
between self-reported mind wandering, attention, and reading skills are areas that require further
empirical investigation to gain a more comprehensive understanding of relationships among the
variables. The process of carrying out the present study has led to implications for revisions to
the study design that may allow for further insight to the research questions, particularly the
questions that were not comprehensively answered due to the resulting null findings.
67
The design of the present study involved one-on-one sessions with each participant and
completion of questionnaires, a computer-based task, and reading-based activities administered
by the researcher. Use of a one-on-one session format limited the capacity of participants that
could participate in the study at a given period of time. This could be altered to include group
administration of the self-completion measures (i.e., MWQ, MAAS-A, TOSCRF 2) and include
a reading-based task that can be conducted in a group setting (e.g., a reading comprehension task
followed by open-ended written response questions addressing interest, attention, and mind
wandering tendencies during the task). Alteration of the format of the study design in this way
would be beneficial given that it will allow for maximizing participation, likely increasing the
study sample size, as well as allowing for a qualitative component to complement the
quantitative data collected.
To address the attention component of the present study, attention may be evaluated
through inclusion of an observational and qualitative response component. For example, if using
a group participation format for the reading task and self-report questionnaire, the researcher can
observe and record any inattentive behaviors displayed by participants during completion of the
study tasks, particularly during completion of the reading task (e.g., a reading comprehension
based task, as previously elaborated). This observational data could be compared to the open-
ended written response questions addressing the self-reported attention and mind wandering
experiences of each participant during the reading task. By using a task-related measure of
attention rather than a measure like the CPT 3, a sense of attention during a relevant task may be
gained and links between reading skills (as displayed through performance on a complex reading
task) and attention may be potentially drawn. The CPT 3 is a non-salient, unfamiliar task for
participants that lacks a complex reading component. Performance on the CPT 3 could be
68
viewed as a deficit in correct performance on the task itself, rather than a true reflection of one’s
attentional skills. Thus, by altering the current study design to include a different measure of
attention, there is the possibility to detect relationships between attention and reading skills in a
way that was not possible with the present study. Despite further research and alterations to the
current study design being required, understanding the relationships between the variables of
interest in the present study has applied implications for school administrators, teachers, and
school psychologists.
School administrators. Administrators in school settings are generally tasked with
duties centered around supporting and establishing school culture, supporting teachers with class
curricula and behavior management, and coordinating school finances/budgets. Having an
understanding of mind wandering tendencies for students with ADHD, and how this is related to
key areas of learning (i.e., reading skills), is critical across each of these duties associated with
school administrators. To establish and support an inclusive school environment for children
with an array of learning needs, school administrators require sensitivity to students with ADHD.
For example, through understanding relationships between mind wandering and reading skills in
students with ADHD, school administrators will be better informed to assist teachers with
structuring district-mandated curricula. When structuring curricula across subject areas to
address the unique learning needs of students with ADHD, a focus on inclusion of
strategies/lessons relating to self-monitoring of mind wandering tendencies coupled with
strategies to promote self-redirection of thoughts back to class material may be implemented. If
school administrators have a sensitivity towards the mind wandering tendencies and learning
needs of students with ADHD, school budgets may be developed to ensure adequate funding is
requested and allocated towards interventions to support these needs.
69
Teachers. In classroom settings, teachers have a range of roles that have the potential to
profoundly impact the lives of their students. Teachers become prominent role model figures in
the lives of their students given youth spend the majority of their time as students in school
settings. In addition to the primary role of passing knowledge across subject areas to students,
teachers are responsible for mentoring students and creating nurturing school environments.
Teachers often have a number of students in their classrooms with unique learning and
behavioral needs, including students with ADHD. When teachers have an understanding of the
unique mind wandering tendencies and learning needs of their students with ADHD, they will be
better equipped to tailor to individual student needs.
School psychologists. As members of school-based teams, school psychologists are in a
unique position to support students and school staff given their training in the areas of mental
health, behavior, and learning. Part of this knowledge set and training includes the assessment,
diagnosis, and intervention of diverse students, including those with ADHD. To foster academic,
behavioral, and social success in students with ADHD, school psychologists must be able to link
evidence-based knowledge with practice and provide targeted interventions addressing
individualized student needs. Stemming from the present study, school psychologists may
consider evaluating the self-reported mind wandering tendencies of students with ADHD
through use of the MWQ.
Use of the MWQ by school psychologists would provide self-report information
regarding a student with ADHD’s mind wandering tendencies. This information may be used to
further follow-up with the student’s difficulties with mind wandering in relation to their
completion of assignments in the classroom. Although the MWQ has not been researched to
evaluate its use as a clinical tool, findings from the present study suggest it may be useful with
70
ADHD samples to provide supplementary information during the assessment process. Through
further research investigating the relationships between mind wandering and reading abilities,
school psychologists may gain a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships both
have on learning and academic functioning.
Limitations
A number of limitations can be identified in the present study. The first notable limitation
with the study is the number of total participants (N = 33) that compose the study sample as well
as the limited and unequal numbers of participants within both the ADHD (n = 14) and control
groups (n = 19). This limited number of participants has a direct impact on the statistical power
of the data analyses that were conducted. Having underpowered statistical analyses may result in
missing a real effect that may have otherwise been detected if enough data was collected. Thus,
the probability of obtaining a statistically significant result is lowered when underpowered
analyses are conducted (Cohen, 1992). Statistical power is the probability of successfully
rejecting the null hypothesis (i.e., the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between
the study and true population), allowing the researcher to be confident that findings are not
merely experimental error (Cohen, 1992). Clearly, statistical power is critical for empirical
studies in behavioral sciences research as it allows for avoiding a Type II error (i.e., when the
null is false and it is not rejected; Cohen, 1992). Given that the present study was underpowered,
due to low sample size, true differences may not have been detected.
In addition, there was also a significant difference in gender between the ADHD and
control group. Specifically, the ADHD group had more male participants while the control group
had more female participants. The gender difference for the ADHD group is unsurprising given
that the disorder is more common for males with a 2:1 male to female ratio of diagnosis during
71
childhood and adolescence (Mash & Barkley, 2014; Polanczyk et al., 2007). Despite the higher
prevalence of ADHD in males, having gender-balanced, equal sample sizes for the ADHD and
control group or having a gender-matched sample for both groups would allow for both groups
being more comparable across the study variables. Additionally, having a significant difference
in gender across both groups introduces gender as a potential confound in the study. Thus, all
results yielded in the study must be interpreted with caution and considered in light of these
limitations.
Many studies have found gender differences in both reading ability and attitude to
reading across school-aged groups in typically developing youth, with females having a higher
frequency of reading, stronger overall reading ability, and more positive attitudes to reading in
comparison to males (Coles & Hall, 2002; Sainsbury & Schagen, 2004; Logan & Johnston,
2009). Due to the significant gender differences in previous research, gender was controlled for
with the statistical analyses for the third research question investigating reading-based
differences between groups. No statistically significant findings resulted from the analyses
conducted in response to the third research question for this study, even when gender was
controlled for. Despite the null findings, irrespective of removing gender as a potentially
confounding variable, the significant gender difference between the samples for the ADHD and
control group remains as an overall limitation to the present study. If the ideal sample was
attained for this study, there would be an equal number of males and females in both the ADHD
and control group or a matched sample that is representative of the ADHD population (i.e., a 2:1
male to female ratio in both groups).
A further limitation with the sample of participants used in this study involves the limited
breadth of ethnicity included in the sample. The majority of the sample of participants in this
72
study were of Caucasian ethnicity, which restricts the extent to which findings can be
generalized to larger adolescent ADHD populations with a range of ethnicities. Additionally, it
should be acknowledged that individuals who participated in this study likely came from
educated families who were motivated to seek out participation in university research projects,
which may not necessarily be characteristic of the broader population of adolescents with ADHD
and their families.
Given the challenging nature of accessing individuals that have a diagnosis of ADHD,
without other comorbid diagnoses, some of the adolescents in the ADHD group also had other
mental health diagnoses (i.e., SLD, SLD-Math, Tourette’s Syndrome). There is the potential that
these comorbid diagnoses may have influenced the responses and performance of participants,
and the extent of this influence was not able to be measured in this study. As a result, findings
must be considered with caution and generalizations of results are limited.
Overall, each of the limitations noted may have an impact on the capacity of data
analyses to detect meaningful, significant differences between groups. These limitations with the
study have implications for the external validity of the study’s results. In particular, given the
small sample size, differences in gender between the experimental and control groups, and the
presence of comorbid diagnoses in the ADHD group, the generalizability of findings to broader
ADHD populations is limited. Thus, study findings must be considered reflective of the sample
of participants gathered for the project, and study findings are in need of replication and
validation with further empirical research.
Directions for Future Research
Mind wandering research is a growing area of empirical study, both generally as well as
for clinical populations, such as those with ADHD. The present study attempted to investigate a
73
base understanding of the relationships between self-reported mind wandering, a measure of
attention, and reading skills, each of which have not been studied concurrently in previous
literature. The limitations inherent in the present study suggest a need for subsequent studies to
replicate the design while incorporating a larger and more diverse sample.
A potentially more comprehensive way to investigate the relationships between the
variables of interest in the present study could involve use of an experimental paradigm where
participants are presented with a novel passage to read, during which they are randomly probed
on their mind wandering experiences. This paradigm could include eye tracking data as the
comparison measure to the self-report probe responses. The participant's eye movements away
from their anticipated progression across each line of the passage could be coded as mind
wandering lapses. Through implementation of this form of experimental paradigm, identification
of nuances between mind wandering occurrences and reading progression may be identified.
Identification of direct links between mind wandering and reading variables was not possible
with the present study design, thus restricting exploration for the second and third research
questions.
Of particular interest in the area of mind wandering research is the development of
validated, comprehensive scales to measure self-reported mind wandering tendencies across the
lifespan, with and without psychiatric diagnoses (Mrazek et al., 2013; Mowlem et al., 2016). By
creating a comprehensive mind wandering measure with strong validity and reliability, there is
the potential to use such a measure in clinical practice to aid with diagnostic assessment and
screening. Implementation of a mind wandering screening tool could be particularly useful with
ADHD assessment given that excessive mind wandering has been found to be a co-occurring
feature of ADHD, notably during adulthood (Mowlem et al., 2016).
74
The present study expands literature by investigating the relationships between self-
reported mind wandering tendencies and reading ability in a way that has not previously been
explored in existing literature. Results of the study suggest that the MWQ may be a useful tool
with evaluating self-reported mind wandering in adolescents with ADHD. The relationships
between mind wandering and reading abilities remain to be areas in need of further empirical
investigation. Research in the area of mind wandering has been recently expanding and will be
an area of continuing research in the literature, particularly with ADHD populations.
75
References
Aaron, P. G., Joshi, M., & Williams, K. A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 32(2), 120-137. doi: 10.1177/002221949903200203
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Advokat, C., Martino, L., Hill, B. D., & Gouvier, W. (2007). Continuous Performance Test
(CPT) of college students with ADHD, psychiatric disorders, cognitive deficits, or no
diagnosis. Journal of Attention Disorders, 10(3), 253-256. doi:
10.1177/1087054706292106
Alva, S.A. (1991). Academic invulnerability among Mexican-American students: The
importance of protective and resources and appraisals. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 13(1), 18–34. doi: 10.1177/0739986391013102
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make
a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling?. Reading Research
Quarterly, 26(1), 49-66. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.26.1.3
Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions:
constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 65-95. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.65
Barkley, R. A. (2001). The executive functions and self-regulation: An evolutionary
neuropsychological perspective. Neuropsychology Review, 11(1), 1-29. doi:
10.1023/A:1009085417776
76
Barkley, R.A. (2002). Major life activity and health outcomes associated with attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 63(12), 10-15.
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12562056
Barkley, R. A. (2014). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and
treatment. New York: Guilford Press.
Belar, C. D., & Perry, N. W. (1992). The national conference on scientist-practitioner education
and training for the professional practice of psychology. American Psychologist, 47(1),
71-75. doi: 10.1037/003-066X.47.1.71
Biederman, J., Monuteaux, M. C., Doyle, A. E., Seidman, L. J., Wilens, T. E., Ferrero, F., ... &
Faraone, S. V. (2004). Impact of executive function deficits and attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) on academic outcomes in children. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(5), 757-766. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.72.5.757
Bowey, J. A. (1986). Syntactic awareness in relation to reading skill and ongoing reading
comprehension monitoring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41(2), 282-299.
doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(86)90041-X
Brock, S. E., & Knapp, P. K. (1996). Reading comprehension abilities of children with attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Attention Disorders, 1(3), 173-185. doi:
10.1177/108705479600100305
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822-848.
doi: 10.1037/00223514.84.4.822
Brown, K. W., West, A. M., Loverich, T. M., & Biegel, G. M. (2011). Assessing adolescent
mindfulness: validation of an adapted Mindful Attention Awareness Scale in adolescent
77
normative and psychiatric populations. Psychological Assessment, 23(4), 1040-3590. doi:
10.1037/a0021338
Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-
making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29(6), 850-859.
doi: 10.3758/BF03196414
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent
prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31-42. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31
Catts, H.W., & Hogan, T. P. (2002, June). Late-emerging readers: The fourth grade slump.
Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading,
Chicago.
Cayton, T., Zhu, J., Daniel, M., Weiss, L., Prifitera, A., Van Santen, F., . . . Wang, S. (2009).
Wechsler individual achievement test - third edition examiner’s manual. San Antonio,
TX: Pearson.
Cheyne, J.A., Solman, G. J. F., Carriere, J. S. A., & Smilek, D. (2009). Anatomy of an error: A
bidirectional state model of task engagement/disengagement and attention-related errors.
Cognition, 111(1), 98-113. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.009
Christoff, K., Gordon, A. M., Smallwood, J., Smith, R., & Schooler, J. W. (2009). Experience
sampling during fMRI reveals default network and executive system contributions to
mind wandering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(21), 8719-8724.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900234106
Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3),
98-101. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20182143
78
Coles, M. & Hall, C. (2002). Gendered readings: Learning from children’s reading choices.
Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1), 96-108. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.00161
Conners, C. K. (2008). Conners 3rd Edition: Manual. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
Conners, C. K. (2014). Conners Continuous Performance Test 3rd Edition Manual. Toronto, ON:
Multi-Health Systems Inc.
Conners, C. K. (2016). Conners CPT 3. Retrieved from http://www.mhs.com/product.aspx?gr=cl
i&prod=conner3&id=overview
Conners, C. K. (2016). Conners 3rd Edition. Retrieved from http://www.mhs.com/product.aspx?
gr=cli&prod=conners3&id=overview
Cook, A. E., Halleran, J. G., & O'Brien, E. J. (1998). What is readily available during reading? A
memory-based view. Discourse Processes, 26(2-3), 109-129. doi:
10.1080/01638539809545041
Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative
contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can
depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277-
299. doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5
DeGangi, G. & Porges, S. (1990). Neuroscience Foundations of Human Performance. Rockville,
MD: American Occupational Therapy Association Inc.
Denckla, M. B. (1996). A theory and model of executive function: A neuropsychological
perspective. In Lyon, G. R., and Krasnegor, N. A. (Eds.), Attention, Memory, and
Executive Function (pp. 117-142). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Denton, C. A., Barth, A. E., Fletcher, J. M., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Romain, M., &
Francis, D. J. (2011). The relations among oral and silent reading fluency and
79
comprehension in middle school: Implications for identification and instruction of
students with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(2), 109-135. doi:
10.1080/10888431003623546
Epstein, J. N., Conners, C. K., Sitarenios, G., & Erhardt, D. (1998). Continuous performance test
results of adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 12(2), 155-168. doi: 10.1076/clin.12.2.155.2000
Epstein, J. N., Erkanli, A., Conners, C. K., Klaric, J., Costello, J. E., & Angold, A. (2003).
Relations between continuous performance test performance measures and ADHD
behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31(5), 543-554. doi:
10.1023/A:1025405216339
Ellery, V. (2004). Creating strategic readers: Techniques for developing competency in
phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association Inc.
Erwin, H. D. (2001). Temperament dimensions of activity, attention, and distractibility:
Concepts and measures. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and
Social Sciences, 61(9), 124-331. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2001-
95005-007
Fienup, D. M., Reyes-Giordano, K., Wolosik, K., Aghjayan, A., & Chacko, A. (2015). Brief
experimental analysis of reading deficits for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder. Behavior Modification, 39(1), 191-214. doi: 10.1177/0145445514550393
Franklin, M. S., Mrazek, M. D., Anderson, C. L., Johnston, C., Smallwood, J., Kingstone, A., &
Schooler, J. W. (2014). Tracking distraction: The relationship between mind-wandering,
80
meta-awareness, and ADHD symptomatology. Journal of Attention Disorders, 1-12. doi:
10.1177/1087054714543494
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an
indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical
analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-256. doi:
10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3
Ghelani, K., Sidhu, R., Jain, U., & Tannock, R. (2004). Reading comprehension and reading
related abilities in adolescents with reading disabilities and attention‐deficit/hyperactivity
disorder. Dyslexia, 10(4), 364-384. doi: 10.1002/dys.285
Giambra, L. M. (1995). A laboratory method for investigating influences on switching attention
to task-unrelated imagery and though. Conscious Cognition, 4(1), 1-21. doi:
10.1006/ccog.1995.1001
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 7(1), 6-10. doi: 10.1177/074193258600700104
Gray, C., & Climie, E. A. (2016). Children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and
Reading Disability: A Review of the Efficacy of Medication Treatments. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7, (988), 1-6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00988
Grizenko, N., Bhat, M., Schwartz, G., Ter-Stepanian, M., & Joober, R. (2006). Efficacy of
methylphenidate in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning
disabilities: a randomized crossover trial. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, 31(1),
46-51. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/openview/c1f0fcddba891a2cf3f430f
a4da719a6/1?pq-origsite=gscholar
81
Grossman, P., & Van Dam, N. T. (2011). Mindfulness, by any other name…: trials and
tribulations of sati in western psychology and science. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(01),
219-239. doi: 10.1080/14639947.2011.564841
Hammill, D. D., Wiederholt, J. L., & Allen, E. A. (2006). Test of Silent Word Reading
Fluency. Austin, TX: Pro-Education.
Handen, B. L., McAuliffe, S., & Caro-Martinez, L. (1996). Stimulant medication effects on
learning in children with mental retardation and ADHD. Journal of Developmental and
Physical Disabilities, 8(4), 335-346. doi: 10.1007/BF02578399
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool
for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-644. doi: 10.1598/RT.59.7.3
Hoza, B., Gerdes, A.C., Hinshaw, S.P., Arnold, E.L., Pelham, W.E., Molina, B. S., … & Odbert,
C. (2004). Self-perceptions of competence in children with ADHD and comparison
children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 382-391. doi:
10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.382
Hudson, R. F., Mercer, C. D., & Lane, H. B. (2000). Exploring reading fluency: A paradigmatic
overview. Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2011). Children's reading comprehension difficulties nature,
causes, and treatments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 139-142. doi:
10.1177/0963721411408673
Jacobson, L. A., Ryan, M., Martin, R. B., Ewen, J., Mostofsky, S. H., Denckla, M. B., &
Mahone, E. M. (2011). Working memory influences processing speed and reading
fluency in ADHD. Child Neuropsychology, 17(3), 209-224. doi:
10.1080/09297049.2010.532204
82
Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading
made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 85–97. doi:
10.1080/02702710050084428
Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of
children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 243-255.
doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.78.4.243
Keith, T. Z., & Cool, V. A. (1992). Testing models of school learning: Effects of quality of
instruction, motivation, academic coursework, and homework on academic
achievement. School Psychology Quarterly, 7(3), 207-226. doi: 10.1037/h0088260
Kim, Y. S., Park, C. H., & Wagner, R. K. (2014). Is oral/text reading fluency a “bridge” to
reading comprehension?. Reading and writing, 27(1), 79-99. doi: 10.1007/s11145-013-
9434-7
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: University Press.
Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student
engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health,74(7), 262-273. doi:
10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08283.x
Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental
view. Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 343-354. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.25.3.343
Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech
production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(01), 1-38. doi:
10.1017/S014052X99001776
Lichtenberger, E. O., & Smith, D. R. (2005). Essentials of Wiat-II and Ktea-II Assessment (Vol.
48). Toronto, ON: John Wiley & Sons.
83
Little, C. W., Hart, S. A., Schatschneider, C., & Taylor, J. (2014). Examining associations among
ADHD, homework behavior, and reading comprehension: A twin study. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 49(4), 410-423. doi: 10.1177/0022219414555715
Loe, I. M., & Feldman, H. M. (2007). Academic and educational outcomes of children with
ADHD. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32(6), 643-654. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsl054
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an insurance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95,
492-527. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492
Logan, G. D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspectives from the insurance theory of
automatization. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 13,
123–146. doi: 10.1080/1057356970130203
Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining
where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(2), 199-214. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01389.x
Losier, B. J., McGrath, P. J., & Klein, R. M. (1996). Error patterns on the continuous
performance test in non‐medicated and medicated samples of children with and without
ADHD: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37(8),
971-987. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01494.x
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational
correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 267-281. doi:
10.1002/pits.20149
Marsh, G., Friedman, M., Welch, V., & Desber, P. (1981). A cognitive-developmental theory of
reading acquisition. In G.E. MacKinnon & T.G. Waller (Eds.), Reading research:
Advances in theory and practice. Vol. 3. New York, NY: Academic Press.
84
Mash, E. J., & Barkley, R. A. (Eds.). (2014). Child psychopathology third edition. New York, NY:
Guilford Publications.
Mather, N., Hammill, D. D., Allen, E. A., & Roberts, R. (2004). TOSWRF: Test of silent word
reading fluency: Examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
McVay, J.C., & Kane, M.J. (2010). Does mind wandering reflect executive function or executive
failure? Comment on Smallwood and Schoolder (2006) and Watkins (2008). Psychological
Bulletin, 136(2), 188-197. doi: 10.1037/a0018298
Milich, R. (1994). The response of children with ADHD to failure: If at first you don’t succeed,
do you try, try again? School Psychology Review, 23, 11-28. Retrieved from
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1994-33936-001
Miller, A. C., Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Willcutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., & Olson, R. K.
(2013). Reading comprehension in children with ADHD: cognitive underpinnings of the
centrality deficit. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(3), 473-483. doi:
10.1007/s10802-012-9686-8
Miller, S. D., & Smith, D. E. P. (1990). Relations among oral reading, silent reading and listening
comprehension of students at differing competency levels. Reading Research and
Instruction, 29, 73-84. doi: 10.1080/19388079009558006
Mowlem, F. D., Skirrow, C., Reid, P., Maltezos, S., Nijjar, S. K., Merwood, A., ... & Asherson,
P. (2016). Validation of the Mind Excessively Wandering Scale and the Relationship of
Mind Wandering to Impairment in Adult ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 1-11.
doi: 1087054716651927.
Mrazek, M. D., Phillips, D. T., Franklin, M. S., Broadway, J. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2013).
Young and restless: validation of the Mind-Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ) reveals
85
disruptive impact of mind-wandering for youth. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(560), 1-7.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00560
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary,
and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: evidence from a
longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 665-681. doi: 10.1037/0012-
1649.40.5.665
Nigg, J.T., & Barkley, R. A. (2014). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In Mash, E.J., &
Barkley, R.A. (Eds.), Child Psychopathology (pp. 75-144). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Orne, M. T. (2009). Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. In R. Rosenthal &
R. L. Rosnow (Eds.), Artifacts in Behavioral Research: Robert Rosenthal and Ralph L.
Rosnow’s Classic Books (pp. 110 – 137). New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.
Ouellette, G. P. (2006). What's meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading
and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 554-566. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.554
Owens, J. S., Goldfine, M. E., Evangelista, N. M., Hoza, B., & Kaiser, N. M. (2007). A critical
review of self-perceptions and the positive illusory bias in children with ADHD. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review, 10(4), 335-351. doi: 10.1007/s10567-007-0027-3
Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading
comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510-519. doi: 10.1598/RT.58.6.2
Polderman, T. J. C., Boomsma, D. I., Bartels, M., Verhulst, F. C., & Huizink, A. C. (2010). A
systematic review of prospective studies on attention problems and academic
86
achievement. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 122(4), 271-284. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-
0447.2010.01568.x
Polanczyk, G., de Lima, M. S., Horta, B. L., Biederman, J., & Rohde, L. A. (2007). The
worldwide prevalence of ADHD: A systematic review and metaregression
analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164(6), 942-948. doi:
10.1176/ajp.2007.164.6.942
Rack, J. P., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M.J. (1993). Learning to read: A theoretical synthesis. In H.
Reese (ed.), Advances in child development and behavior: Vol. 24 (pp. 99 – 132). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Read, C., Yun-Fei, Z., Hong-Yin, N., & Bao-Quing, D. (1986). The ability to manipulate speech
sounds depends on knowing alphabetic writing. Cognition, 24(1-2), 31-44. doi:
10.1016/0010-0277(86)90003-X
Reichle, E. D., Reineberg, A. E., & Schooler, J. W. (2010). Eye movements during mindless
reading. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1300-1310. doi: 10.1177/0956797610378686
Riccio, C. A., Reynolds, C. R., & Lowe, P. A. (2001). Clinical applications of continuous
performance tests: Measuring attention and impulsive responding in children and adults.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Rogers, E. A. A. L. (2008). Measuring Reading Comprehension in Groups: A Review of the Test
of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency. Presented at the International Dyslexia
Association Annual Convention. Seattle, WA.
Rowland, A. S., Skipper, B. J., Umbach, D. M., Rabiner, D. L., Campbell, R. A., Naftel, A. J., &
Sandler, D. P. (2013). The prevalence of ADHD in a population-based sample. Journal of
Attention Disorders, 19(9), 741-754. doi: 1087054713513799.
87
Rucklidge, J. J., & Tannock, R. (2002). Neuropsychological profiles of adolescents with ADHD:
Effects of reading difficulties and gender. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 43(8), 988-1003. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00227
Ruff, H. A., & Rothbart, M.K. (1996). Attention in early development. New York, NY: Oxford
Press University.
Sachill, L., & Schwab-Stone, M. (2000). Epidemiology of ADHD in school-age children. Child
& Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 9(3), 541-555. Retrieved from
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2000-00431-006
Sainsbury, M., & Schagen, I. (2004). Attitudes to reading at ages nine and eleven. Journal of
Research in Reading, 27(4), 373-386. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00240.x
Scanlon, D. M., & Vellutino, F. R. (1996). Prerequisite skills, early instruction, and success in
first‐grade reading: Selected results from a longitudinal study. Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 2(1), 54-63. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-
2779(1996)2:1<54::AID-MRDD9>3.0.CO;2-X
Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Very early language deficits in dyslexic children. Child Development,
61(6), 1728-1743. doi: 10.2307/1130834
Sesma, H. W., Mahone, E. M., Levine, T., Eason, S. H., & Cutting, L. E. (2009). The
contribution of executive skills to reading comprehension. Child Neuropsychology, 15(3),
232-246. doi: 10.1080/0929704082220029
Seymour, P.H.K., & MacGregor, C.J. (1984). Developmental dyslexia: A cognitive experimental
analysis of phonological, morphemic and visual impairments. Cognitive
Neuropsychology, 1(1), 43-83. doi: 10.1080/02643298408252016
88
Shankweiler, D. (1999). Words to meanings. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(2), 112-127. doi:
10.1207/s1532799xssr0302_2
Share, D., Jorm, A., Maclean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of individual differences in
reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1309-1324. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1309
Shaw, G. A., & Giambra, L. (1993). Task‐unrelated thoughts of college students diagnosed as
hyperactive in childhood. Developmental Neuropsychology, 9(1), 17-30. doi:
10.1080/87565649309540541
Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2008). Paying attention to reading: the neurobiology of
reading and dyslexia. Development and Psychopathology, 20(04), 1329-1349. doi:
10.1017/S0954579408000631
Shaywitz, B. A., Williams, D. W., Fox, B. K., & Wietecha, L. A. (2014). Reading outcomes of
children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia
following atomoxetine treatment. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology,
24(8), 419-425. doi:10.1089/cap.2013.0148
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of
teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(4), 571-581. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
Smallwood, J. (2013). Distinguishing how from why the mind wanders: A process–occurrence
framework for self-generated mental activity. Psychological Bulletin, 139(3), 519-535.
doi: 10.1037/a0030010
Smallwood, J. M., Baracaia, S. F., Lowe, M., & Obonsawin, M. (2003). Task unrelated thought
89
whilst encoding information. Consciousness and Cognition, 12(3), 452-484. doi:
10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00018-7
Smallwood, J., Beach, E., Schooler, J. W., & Handy, T. C. (2008). Going AWOL in the brain:
Mind wandering reduces cortical analysis of external events. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 20(3), 458-469. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20037
Smallwood, J., Davies, J. B., Heim, D., Finnigan, F., Sudberry, M., O'Connor, R., & Obonsawin,
M. (2004). Subjective experience and the attentional lapse: Task engagement and disengagement
during sustained attention. Consciousness and Cognition, 13(4), 657-690. doi:
10.1016/j.concog,2004.06.003
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006). The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 946-
958. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J.W. (2015). The science of mind wandering: Empirically navigating
the stream of consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 487-518. doi:
10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015331
Snowling, M. J. (2002). Reading development and dyslexia. In Goswami, U. (Ed.), Blackwell
handbook of childhood cognitive development (394–411). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Stecker, S.K., Roser, M.L., & Martinez, M.G. (1998). Understanding oral reading fluency. In T.
Shanahan & F.V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), 47th yearbook of the National Reading
Conference (pp. 295-310). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Stothard, S. E., & Hulme, C. (1995). A comparison of phonological skills in children with reading
comprehension difficulties and children with decoding difficulties. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 36(3), 399-408. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1995.tb01298.x
90
Stuart, M., & Coltheart, M. (1988). Does reading develop in a sequence of
stages?. Cognition, 30(2), 139-181. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90038-8
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Osterlind, S. J. (2013). Using multivariate statistics 6th
edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Tatum, A. W., & Fisher, T. A. (2008). Nurturing resilience among adolescent readers. In Lenski,
S. D., & Lewis, J. (Eds.), Reading success for struggling adolescent learners (pp. 58-73).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The
lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
15(1), 55-64. doi: 10.1207/SLDRP1501_6
Torgesen, J.K. & Hudson, R. (2006). Reading fluency: critical issues for struggling readers. In
S.J. Samuels and A. Fartrup (Eds.). Reading fluency: The forgotten dimension of reading
success. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Tunmer, W. E. (1989). The role of language-related factors in reading disability. In D.
Shankweiler & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.); Phonology and reading disability: Solving the
puzzle (pp. 91- 131). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M., & Nesdale, A. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning
reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(2), 134-158. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/747799
Van Kleeck, A., & Schuele, C. M. (1987). Precursors to literacy: Normal development. Topics in
Language Disorders, 7(2), 13-31. doi: 10.1097/00011363-198703000-00004
91
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Spearing, D. (1995). Semantic and phonological coding in
poor and normal readers. Journal of experimental child psychology, 59(1), 76-123. doi:
10.1006/jecp.1995.1004
Walley, A. C., Metsala, J. L., & Garlock, V. M. (2003). Spoken vocabulary growth: Its role in
the development of phoneme awareness and early reading ability. Reading and
Writing, 16(1-2), 5-20. doi: 10.1023/A:1021789804977
Wang, M. C., & Gordon, E. W. (1994). Educational resilience in inner-city America: Challenges
and prospects. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement test 3rd Edition (WIAT III). Toronto,
ON: Pearson Canada.
Wiederholt, J. L., & Blalock, G. (2000). Gray silent reading tests. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2001). Gray Oral Reading Tests: GORT-4. Austin, TX: Pro-
Ed.
Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., Nigg, J. T., Faraone, S. V., & Pennington, B. F. (2005). Validity of
the executive function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analytic
review. Biological Psychiatry, 57(11), 1336-1346. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.02.006
Willcutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., Olson, R. K., & DeFries, J. C. (2007). Understanding
comorbidity: A twin study of reading disability and attention‐deficit/hyperactivity
disorder. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric
Genetics, 144(6), 709-714. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.b.30310
Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 5(3), 211-239. doi: 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_2
92
Yopp, H.K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research
Quarterly, 23, 159-177. doi: 10.2307/747800
Yopp, H. K. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading
Teacher, 45(9), 696-703. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20200960
Yopp, H. K., & Yopp, R. H. (2000). Supporting phonemic awareness development in the
classroom. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 130-143. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20204888
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled
reading across languages: a psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological
Bulletin, 131(1), 3-29. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3
93
APPENDIX A
Mind-Wandering Questionnaire
Instructions: Below is a collection of statements about your everyday experience. Using the 1-6
scale below, please indicate how frequently or infrequently you currently have each experience.
Please answer according to what really reflects your experience rather than what you think your
experience should be. Please treat each item separately from every other item.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Almost
Never
Very
Infrequently
Somewhat
Infrequently
Somewhat
Frequently
Very
Frequently
Almost
Always
1. I have difficulty maintaining focus on simple or repetitive work.
1 2 3 4 5 6
2. While reading, I find I haven’t been thinking about the text and must therefore read it
again.
1 2 3 4 5 6
3. I do things without paying full attention.
1 2 3 4 5 6
4. I find myself listening with one ear, thinking about something else at the same time.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I mind-wander during lectures or presentations.
1 2 3 4 5 6
94
APPENDIX B
Demographics Questionnaire
Demographics Questionnaire – To be completed by parent
*** Please note: This page will be removed from the participant package and will not be kept
with any other information***
Demographic Questionnaire
Today’s date: ____________
Your Name: _____________________________ Relationship to child: ________________
Child’s Name: _____________________________ Child’s birth date: _________________
Gender: Male Female
Current Grade: _________________________
Phone Number: ____________________ Email address: __________________________
Address: ____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Postal Code: _________________ Phone Number: ____________________________
Would you be willing to be contacted about opportunities for follow-up data collection?
(please note that you would be provided with detailed information and have the opportunity to
consent to any follow-up data collection prior to participation)
____ Yes, please contact me about future opportunities for follow-up participation
____ No, I would not like to be contacted about follow-up participation opportunities
95
FAMILY INFORMATION
Mother:
Biological Parent? Yes No Step-parent? Yes No
Age: _____________ Occupation: _________________________________
Highest level of education (please circle):
Graduate degree Undergraduate Degree College Diploma Some
College/University
High School Diploma Some high school Less than high school
Other: ________________________________
Father:
Biological Parent? Yes No Step-parent? Yes No
Age: _____________ Occupation: _________________________________
Highest level of education (please circle):
Graduate degree Undergraduate Degree College Diploma Some
College/University
High School Diploma Some high school Less than high school
Other: ________________________________
Does this child have other parents/stepparents? Yes No If yes:
Name: _________________________ Relationship to child: __________________
Name: _________________________ Relationship to child: __________________
Please list all siblings:
Age: ____ Sex: _____ Relationship to child: ________________ Lives at home? Yes
No
Age: ____ Sex: _____ Relationship to child: ________________ Lives at home? Yes
No
Age: ____ Sex: _____ Relationship to child: ________________ Lives at home? Yes
No
Age: ____ Sex: _____ Relationship to child: ________________ Lives at home? Yes
No
Age: ____ Sex: _____ Relationship to child: ________________ Lives at home? Yes
No
96
Age: ____ Sex: _____ Relationship to child: ____________ Lives at home? Yes No
Ethnicity: With which group(s) listed below does your child most identify? (circle)
Caucasian Asian African American Aboriginal East Indian
Other: __________________________
Please identify which is most accurate for your child:
a) Lives with both parents in one home
b) Lives with one parent full-time
c) Lives primarily with one parent but sees other parent
How often does he/she see other parent? _________________________
d) Other (please describe): ______________________________________________
How long has this living arrangement been in place? __________________________________
Has the child ever experienced a separation, divorce, or death in the family? Yes No
If yes, please explain briefly: ______________________________________________________
LANGUAGE
What language(s) do you speak at home? Please check all that apply.
_____ English
_____ French
_____ Other (please specify all others) _____________________________________
What language(s) is your child instructed at school? Do not count language classes (e.g., one
French lesson per week). Please check all that apply.
______ English
______ French
______ Other (please specify all others) _____________________________________
Would you consider your child to be fluently bilingual (trilingual etc)? YES NO
Is your child able to FLUENTLY:
Speak Understand Read Write
English
French
Other ______________
97
FAMILY HISTORY
Not including this child, has anyone in his/her immediate family (e.g., biological or
step/adoptive-parents and siblings) experienced:
ADHD Yes No If yes, who?
_____________________________
Learning Disability Yes No If yes, who?
_____________________________
Depression Yes No If yes, who?
_____________________________
Anxiety Yes No If yes, who?
_____________________________
Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Conduct Disorder
Yes No If yes, who?
_____________________________
Alcoholism/Drug Abuse Yes No If yes, who?
_____________________________
Autism Spectrum Disorder Yes No If yes, who?
_____________________________
Are there any other significant mental health problems within your immediate family? Yes
No
If yes, please describe:
_________________________________________________________
CHILD PHYSICAL & MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY
Illnesses & Medications
Does your child currently suffer from any chronic medical conditions (e.g., asthma)? Yes No
If yes, please list: ________________________________________________________
Is your child currently on any regular medication? Yes No
(please describe, including name, dosage, frequency):
___________________________________
If yes, for what purpose was this medication prescribed? __________________________
For how long have they been on this medication? ________________________________
Mental Health
Has your child received an ADHD diagnosis? Yes No
If yes, when? ______________
By whom? Pediatrician/family doctor Psychologist Psychiatrist Other: ____
98
Has your child received any other mental health or learning diagnoses (e.g., learning disability,
anxiety, autism, oppositional defiant disorder)? Yes No
If yes, please list: ______________________________ When? ________________
By whom? Pediatrician/family doctor Psychologist Psychiatrist Other: _____
Has your ever child received a psychological/psychoeducational assessment? Yes No
If yes, when? ___________________
For what purpose?
_________________________________________________________
Has your child ever had psychological counseling or therapy? Yes No
If yes, when? ___________________
For what purpose?
_________________________________________________________
EDUCATION
What grade is your child currently enrolled in? ______________________
Has your child been retained a grade in school? Yes No
If yes, when & why? _____________________________________________________
Has your child skipped a grade in school? Yes No
If yes, when & why? _____________________________________________________
Has your child changed schools? Yes No
If yes, when & why? _____________________________________________________
Does your child currently have an Individual Program Plan in place at school? Yes No
Does your child currently receive any special education services at his/her school? Yes No
If yes, what type of services (e.g., academic, social-emotional)? _________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Hours/week: ______________
Does your child enjoy going to school? Mostly/Always Sometimes Rarely/Never
Please rate your child’s current academic performance:
Significantly
Below Grade
Level
Somewhat
Below Grade
Level
At Grade
Level
Somewhat
Above Grade
Level
Significantly
Above Grade
Level
Reading Writing Overall
99
To your knowledge, does your child’s thoughts seem to occasionally wander when they are
completing activities?
Not at all Very little Somewhat Often
During which activities have you noticed that your child’s thoughts seem to occasionally
wander?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
100
APPENDIX C
Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale for Adolescents
Day-to-Day Experiences
Instructions: Below is a collection of statements about your everyday experience. Using the 1-6
scale below, please indicate how frequently or infrequently you currently have each experience.
Please answer according to what really reflects your experience rather than what you think your
experience should be. Please treat each item separately from every other item
.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Almost
Always
Very
Frequently
Somewhat
Frequently
Somewhat
Infrequently
Very
Infrequently
Almost
Never
1. I could be experiencing some emotion and not be conscious of it until some time later.
1 2 3 4 5 6
2. I break or spill things because of carelessness, not paying attention, or thinking of
something else.
1 2 3 4 5 6
3. I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present.
1 2 3 4 5 6
4. I tend to walk quickly to get where I’m going without paying attention to what I
experience along the way.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I tend not to notice feelings of physical tension or discomfort until they really grab my
attention.
1 2 3 4 5 6
6. I forget a person’s name almost as soon as I’ve been told it for the first time.
1 2 3 4 5 6
7. It seems I am “running on automatic”, without much awareness of what I’m doing.
1 2 3 4 5 6
101
8. I rush through activities without being really attentive to them.
1 2 3 4 5 6
9. I get so focused on the goal I want to achieve that I lose touch with what I’m doing right
now to get there.
1 2 3 4 5 6
10. I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of what I’m doing.
1 2 3 4 5 6
11. I find myself listening to someone with one ear, doing something else at the same time.
1 2 3 4 5 6
12. I find myself preoccupied with the future or the past.
1 2 3 4 5 6
13. I find myself doing things without paying attention.
1 2 3 4 5 6
14. I snack without being aware that I’m eating.
1 2 3 4 5 6
102
APPENDIX D
Recruitment Email Script
Recruitment Email Script for Previous Participants
The following email script will be sent to previous participants to recruit interest participants:
You and your child previously participated in one of our research projects, thank you for your
participation! We are currently working on another research project and were wondering if you
would be interested in participating again. The purpose of our current research project is to
examine the relationships between mind wandering, reading abilities, and resilience in children
with and without ADHD. This study has been approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint
Faculties Research Ethics Board.
If you choose to participate in this research project and you are determined to be eligible based
on a brief pre-screening questionnaire, which we can do over the phone, you and your
son/daughter will visit the University of Calgary for one session of 1.5 hours. Within this
session, your child will work one-on-one with a researcher to complete reading related tasks and
several questionnaires. While the researcher is working with your child, you will be asked to
complete a questionnaire that asks about your family and your child’s history, as well as a
questionnaire that asks you about your child’s behaviour.
It is expected that the information collected in this study will provide us with a better
understanding of how mind wandering, reading skills, and resilience are related. An
understanding of how a child with ADHD is affected by mind wandering in relation to reading
will be beneficial in promoting the development of improved reading comprehension strategies.
These strategies can assist children with earlier recognition of when their mind starts to wander,
which can improve academic success for these children.
Participation in this study is completely voluntary and confidential. In exchange for your
participation, your family will receive a $25 gift card as an acknowledgement of your time.
If you are interested in participating in this study or would like more information please contact
us at:
XXXXXXX
103
Appendix E
Recruitment Poster
TEENS AGES 13 – 17 WANTED:
FOR PARTICIPATION IN A READING BASED
STUDY
The University of Calgary Strengths in ADHD Lab is
looking for adolescents with and without a diagnosis of
ADHD between the ages of 13 to 17 to participate in a
reading based study. This study has been approved by the
Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board at the University of
Calgary. Participation involves one 1.5 hour visit to the lab,
a parking pass will be provided, and you’ll receive a $25
gift card for your participation! If you’re interested,
contact Christina at the Strength in ADHD Lab
We are looking for:
Teens between 13
to 17 years old
With ADHD
Without ADHD
For a Reading
Based Study!
CONTACT:
XXXXX
104
APPENDIX F
Pre-Screening Questionnaire
Pre-screening Questionnaire (Administered over phone)
Thank you for your interest in the Mind Wandering and Reading Study. In order to determine
whether your child is able to participate in this study, we have some questions for you now
which will take approximately 5 minutes to complete. Is this a good time to complete our pre-
screening questionnaire?
*ASSIGNED ID: __________ Sibling participant ID (if applicable): _________
DATE SCHEDULED FOR PARTICIPATION:
Name of researcher: _____________________________ Date of questionnaire: ___________
Name of individual completing this questionnaire: _____________________________
Where did you hear about us? __________________________________________________
Relationship to child: _________________________
Phone Number: ____________________ E-mail address: _______________________
Child’s full name: _____________________________ Gender: _________________
Child’s date of birth: __________________________ Age: ____________________
What are the living arrangements for this child? (e.g., lives with both parents, one parent)
If doesn’t live with both parents, what is custody arrangement? ___________________
If joint custody, is other parent aware of this study? Will you be able to get a consent
form signed by them as well? Y N
Child’s primary language: __________________
If English is not first language, is the child fluent in English? Yes No
Is your child generally reading at grade level? Yes No
Does your child have any major hearing or vision problems? Yes No
105
Explain:
__________________________________________________________________
Does your child have a diagnosis of ADHD? Yes No
If so, do you know if a specific subtype was provided? _________________
Who provided the diagnosis? Profession: _________________________
When was this diagnosis made? _____________________
Has your child received any other mental health or learning diagnoses? Yes No
If so, what other diagnosis does your child have or has had and when were they
diagnosed?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Has your child ever had a psychological assessment? Yes No
If so, when was the last time an assessment was completed? ________________ (date)
Is your child currently taking medication for attentional concerns? Yes No
If yes, what medication? ___________________
************************ For office use only ************************
Based on these questions:
Does the child meet inclusionary criteria to participate in this study? Yes No
If so, in what group? ADHD Control
Is the child needed based on age, gender, or comorbidity needs at this time? Y / N
******* Scripted responses to parents:*********************************************
If participant does qualify:
Thank you for completing these questions. Based on the information provided, you are able to
participate in this study. Do you have any questions at this time? If you choose to participate,
106
when you first arrive for your session, you will be provided with an opportunity to review and
sign the consent form. We would be happy to provide you an email copy of this consent form
now to review before deciding to participate. The consent form will provide you with more
detailed information about the study and your participation in it. Would you like to first have a
chance to review this consent form or would you like to book a time to come to the University of
Calgary to participate at this time?
If participant does not qualify:
Thank you for completing these questions. Based on the information provided, your child
unfortunately does not meet our criteria to participate in this study. We do thank you for your
interest in this research, and encourage you to pass on our information to anyone else you know
who might be interested in participating. Do you have any questions for us? Thank you again
for your interest and we wish you all the best.
Tracking Contacts
Date Time Researcher Notes
107
APPENDIX G
Informed Consent Form
Christina Gray, Faculty of Graduate Studies, Werklund School of Education, XXXX:
Supervisor:
Dr. Emma A. Climie, Werklund School of Education
Title of Project:
Eyes Up, Down, All Around: Mind Wandering during Reading in Children with ADHD
Sponsor:
Carlson Family Research award in ADHD
This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed
consent. If you want more details about something mentioned here, or information not included here,
you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any
accompanying information.
The University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board has approved this research study.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between mind wandering, reading abilities, and
resilience in children with ADHD. An understanding of how a child with ADHD is affected by mind
wandering in relation to reading will be beneficial in promoting the development of improved reading
comprehension strategies. These strategies can assist children with earlier recognition of when their mind
starts to wander, which can improve academic success for these children.
What Will I Be Asked To Do?
The study will involve your son/daughter’s completion of reading based tasks and several questionnaires
addressing their mind wandering tendencies and resilience. For example, the reading tasks will involve
reading a text passage and then answering questions based on the content in the passage or reading a series
of words presented on a page while being timed. The mind wandering questionnaires will ask questions
relating to your son/daughter’s experiences of mind wandering, how often they tend to mind wander while
reading, and their experience of mind wandering during the reading tasks in the study. The resilience
questionnaire will ask questions relating to your son/daughter’s optimism, adaptability, support, and
sensitivity. Your son/daughter will be encouraged to express their need for breaks throughout the study.
You, the parent, will be given a demographics questionnaire relating to your child’s medical history and
108
family background. Parents will also be given a questionnaire that involves answering questions regarding
their child’s behavior.
Participation in the study is completely voluntary, and both the parent and adolescent may withdraw
from the study at any time without penalty. Participants will still receive a $25 gift card as appreciation
of their time.
What Type of Personal Information Will Be Collected?
Should you agree to participate, you will be asked to provide personal information including your and
your child’s gender, age, family history, your child’s physical and mental health history, information on
your child’s primary/secondary language abilities, and information on your child’s education/academic
background. Your contact information will be collected, and you will have the opportunity to indicate
your interest in being contacted for participation in future studies with the Strengths in ADHD research
group. Should you decide to provide your contact information, it will be kept separate and will be added
to the participant pool for future studies.
Are there Risks or Benefits if I Participate?
There are no foreseeable physical risks to you or your child should you choose to participate in this
study. Given that participation involves completion of questionnaires and reading based tasks, there is
the possibility that your child may experience fatigue and/or minor emotional stress/worry if your child
tends to get anxious during tests. The opportunity to take breaks will be provided throughout the study
as needed.
As recognition for you and your child’s time and efforts, a $25 gift card will be given to you as a token
of appreciation. This gift card will be provided even if you choose to withdrawn from the study.
What Happens to the Information I Provide?
Participation in the study is completely voluntary and confidential. You are free to discontinue
participation at any time during the study. Should you decide to withdraw participation from the study,
any data collected will be destroyed and will not be used in any data analyses. Only the researcher
Christina Gray, and her supervisor Dr. Emma Climie will have access to the information collected
through the study. To ensure confidentiality of your participation, an identification number will be
assigned to your child and all study materials will be labelled with the assigned number. Only group
information will be summarized for any presentation or publication of results. All questionnaires and
study materials are kept in a locked cabinet in a locked lab space. The anonymous data will be stored for
10 years on a password-protected computer, at which time, hard copies of data and the electronic
datasets will be shredded and permanently erased.
Signatures
Your signature on this form indicates that 1) you understand to your satisfaction the information
provided to you about your participation in this research project, and 2) you agree to participate in the
research project.
109
In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, sponsors, or involved
institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to withdraw from this
research project at any time. You should feel free to ask for clarification or new information throughout
your participation.
Participant’s Name: (please print) _____________________________________________
Parent/Guardian Signature: __________________________________________ Date: ______________
Child/Youth Participant Verbally Assents to Participate: Yes No Researcher’s Initials: ______
Researcher’s Name: (please print) ________________________________________________
Researcher’s Signature: ________________________________________ Date: _______________
Questions/Concerns
If you have any further questions or want clarification regarding this research and/or your participation,
please contact:
Christina Gray
XXXXX
Emma A. Climie, Ph.D., R.Psych. XXXXXX
If you have any concerns about the way you’ve been treated as a participant, please contact XXXX
A copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference. The
investigator has kept a copy of the consent form.
110
APPENDIX H
Verbal Assent Script
The following script will be read to each adolescent participant following arrival to the lab. The
researcher will provide them with the opportunity to ask any questions.
In classroom settings, students are often required to remain focused on academic material for
long periods of time. When thoughts drift away from the current task being done, mind
wandering occurs. Students who experience mind wandering may miss important details, which
may impact their learning. Mind wandering has the potential to significantly impact a variety of
academic areas, including reading skills.
You have been invited to participate in a research project investigating the relationships between
mind wandering, reading abilities, and resilience in adolescents with ADHD. If you are willing
to participate, you will be helping with increasing our understanding of how mind wandering
and reading skills are related. By better understanding this, improved reading strategies can be
developed.
If you choose to participate in this research project, you will be asked to complete a number of
tasks. The tasks will involve reading activities and completion of questionnaires.
It is important for you to know that if you decide to participate, all of your information will be
kept confidential. This means that your information will not be shared with your parents,
teachers, friends, or anyone who is not part of the project.
Do you have any questions?
111
APPENDIX I
Debrief Form
Thank you for your participation in the Mind Wandering during Reading study. This study
is investigating the relationships between mind wandering, reading abilities, and resilience in
children with ADHD. Mind wandering occurs when one’s thoughts drift to off-task musings.
Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) often face difficulties with
remaining focused and are highly susceptible to mind wandering. As a result, these children may
be increasingly vulnerable to academic struggles due to their lack of focus and mind wandering
tendencies. Mind wandering has the potential to significantly impact functioning in a variety of
academic areas, including adequate reading comprehension. When children have underdeveloped
literacy skills, they may experience greater stress as they are presented with challenging reading
that increases across grade levels.
One way in which children with ADHD may overcome these mind wandering tendencies
is through the development of a more resilient mindset. Resilience is a process where individuals
achieve positive outcomes despite adversity and risk factors. Given the previous link connecting
increased mind wandering tendencies in children with ADHD and the impairment this may have
on reading/reading comprehension, it is important to better understand the connection between
these variables as a key factor that may impact resilience.
We are collecting data from participants with a diagnosis of ADHD and participants
without a diagnosis of ADHD to compare mind wandering tendencies between groups. An
understanding of how a child with ADHD is affected by mind wandering in relation to reading
will be beneficial in promoting the development of improved reading comprehension strategies.
These strategies can assist children with earlier recognition of when their mind starts to wander,
which can improve academic success for these children.
Please feel free to contact the primary researcher, Christina Gray, at XXX or Dr. Emma Climie at
XXX if you have any questions regarding this study.
112
APPENDIX J
Gift Card Receipt Form
I acknowledge that following participation in the Mind Wandering and Reading Study, my child
has received a $25 gift card in appreciation for their time and effort.
________________________ Date: _________________________
Parent Signature
________________________
Researcher Signature