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