Skip to main content

Table 1 Results of the quality assessment of studies

From: A systematic review of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and mathematical ability: current findings and future implications

Domain criterion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Score Rating
1 Antonini et al. [35] + + + + n/a n/a + + + + 8 High
2 August et al. [49] + + + n/a n/a + + + + + 8 High
3 Barry et al. [32] + + + n/a n/a + + + + + 8 High
4 Bauermeister et al. [31] + + + + n/a n/a + + + + + 9 High
5 Benedetto-Nasho & Tannock [25] + + + n/a n/a + + + + 7 High
6 Biederman et al. [44] + + + + n/a n/a + + + + 8 High
7* Biederman et al. [37] + + + + + + + + + + 10 High
8* Biederman et al. [46] + + + + + + + + + + 10 High
9 Biederman et al. [40] + + + + n/a n/a + + + + 8 High
10 DuPaul et al. [5] + + + n/a n/a + + + + 7 High
11 Efron et al. [41] + + + + n/a n/a + + + + 9 High
12* Faraone et al. [18] + + + + + + + 7 Medium
13 Faraone et al. [45] + + + n/a n/a + + + + 7 High
14 Frick et al. [26] + + + n/a n/a + + 5 Medium
15 Gremillion & Martel [36] + + + + n/a n/a + + + + + 9 High
16 Greven et al. [50] + + + + n/a n/a + + + + 8 High
17 Hart et al. [19] + + + n/a n/a + + + + 7 High
18 Kaufmann & Nuerk [20] + + n/a n/a + + + 5 Medium
19 Kempton et al. [28] + + + n/a n/a + + + + 7 High
20 Laasonen et al. [33] + + + + n/a n/a + + 6 Medium
21 Lamminmäki et al. [39] + + + n/a n/a + + + + 7 High
22 Lewandowski et al. [21] + + + n/a n/a + + + + 7 High
23* Massetti et al. [38] + + + + + + + + + 9 High
24 Mayes & Calhoun [42] + + + n/a n/a + + + 6 Medium
25 Mealer et al. [22] + + n/a n/a + + + + 6 Medium
26 Papaioannou et al. [48] + + + + n/a n/a + + + + 7 High
27 Penny et al. [29] + + n/a n/a + + + + 6 Medium
28 Roy-Byrne et al. [34] + + + + n/a n/a + + + + + 9 High
29 Rucklidge & Tannock [23] + + n/a n/a + + + + + 7 High
30 Schachar & Tannock [30] + + + n/a n/a + + + 6 Medium
31 Seidman et al. [24] + + n/a n/a + + + + 6 Medium
32 Thorell [27] + + + n/a n/a + + + 6 Medium
33 Todd et al. [43] + + + + n/a n/a + + + + + 9 High
34 Zentall et al. [47] + + + + n/a n/a + + + + + 9 High
  1. n/a, Not applicable; Domain criterion, the 11-question criteria used for quality appraisal; +, criteria fulfilled; –, criteria not fulfilled; *, Longitudinal studies; Scores for longitudinal studies: high quality >9, medium quality 5–8, low quality 0–4; Scores for cross-sectional studies: high quality >7, medium quality 4–6, low quality 0–3. Only the four longitudinal studies, indicated with the asterisk (*) fulfil the criteria in columns 5 and 6 of participant response rate and reason for participant drop-out