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ADHD (Unpublished master's thesis).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