Clark C.2023.Psychometric Properties of a Combined Gono-go and Continuous Performance Task Across Childhood
Clark C.2023.Psychometric Properties of a Combined Gono-go and Continuous Performance Task Across Childhood
Author manuscript
Psychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2024 April 01.
Author Manuscript
Abstract
Despite the critical importance of attention for children’s self-regulation and mental health, there
are few task-based measures of this construct appropriate for use across a wide childhood age
range including very young children. Three versions of a combined Go/No-go and Continuous
Performance Task (GNG/CPT) were created with varying length and timing parameters to
maximize their appropriateness for age groups spanning early to middle childhood. As part of
the baseline assessment of a clinical trial, 452 children aged 3 to 12 years (50% male, 50% female;
52% White, Non-Hispanic, 27% Black, 16% Hispanic/Latinx; 6% Other ethnicity/race) completed
the task. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that all task versions assessed two latent factors,
labeled Response Inhibition and Sustained Attention. Versions for older children elicited lower
overall accuracy while equating levels of inhibitory demand. All versions showed limited floor
Author Manuscript
and ceiling effects, as well as developmental sensitivity. Boys showed higher commission error
rates and children from lower income households showed lower performance across multiple
task metrics. Task metrics, especially d-prime and accuracy summary scores, correlated with
parent-reported executive function and externalizing behavior. Task scores show promise as valid
and sensitive indicators of inhibition and sustained attention across heterogeneous pediatric age
groups.
Corresponding author: Caron A.C. Clark, Rm. 241 Teachers’ College Hall, Department of Educational Psychology, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln, NE 68521, [email protected].
Clark et al. Page 2
Keywords
Author Manuscript
The capacity to coordinate and manage attention serves as a foundation for self-regulation
and learning (Duncan et al., 2006; Erickson et al., 2015; Fisher, 2019; Stevens & Bavelier,
2012). Attention therefore is listed as a key variable in the National Institute of Mental
Health Research Domain Criteria (Insel & Cuthbert, 2010) and is an important clinical
endpoint in prevention science. Requirements for lifespan representation and repeated
assessments in clinical trials research necessitate measures that are sensitive, valid and
reliable across wide age and ability ranges. Given its slow developmental trajectory,
performance on tasks designed to assess intrinsically regulated, self-directed attention
may vary dramatically with age, making this construct especially difficult to measure
Author Manuscript
consistently across different age groups (Kanaka et al., 2008; Mahone & Schneider, 2012).
Go/No-go (GNG) and Continuous Performance Tests (CPT) are used widely to assess two
key components of attention: sustained attention, the capacity to focus on a stimulus for
prolonged intervals of time; and response inhibition, the capacity to inhibit or cancel an
inappropriate behavioral response (Colombo & Cheatham, 2006; Wright et al., 2014). The
aim of this study was to evaluate the measurement invariance, sensitivity, and validity of
scores from a combined GNG and CPT task for age groups spanning 3 to 12 years.
are driven reactively by the salience of stimuli in the environment (Ristic & Enns, 2015).
Children show gradual improvements in sustained attention from age 9 months through
middle childhood (Amso & Scerif, 2017; Kanaka et al., 2008; Kannass et al., 2006; Oakes
et al., 2011; Ruff et al., 1990). Although the capacity to withhold or inhibit inappropriate
responses also emerges in infancy, children show a sharp increase in response inhibition
performance between 3 and 5 years of age, with less pronounced growth continuing through
middle childhood and adolescence (Clark et al., 2012; Lewis, 2017; Wiebe et al., 2012).
These forms of attention are closely interrelated, as infant and toddler sustained attention
levels predict response inhibition performance in preschoolers (Brandes-Aitken et al., 2019;
Reck & Hund, 2011; Veer et al., 2017). Growth in these forms of attention across childhood
likely relates to increasing connectivity within, and differentiation of, associated neural
networks, including the dorsal attention network, involved in focused attention; the ventral
Author Manuscript
attention network, involved in orienting to sensory cues; and the fronto-parietal network,
involved in maintaining goal-relevant information in working memory (Baum et al., 2017;
Xie et al., 2019).
age groups. In infants aged 3 to 6 months, lengthier periods of sustained focus on an object
Author Manuscript
may reflect slower processing speed and are associated negatively with later measures of
cognitive development (Colombo, 2001; Cuevas & Bell, 2014). Conversely, longer focal
times after age 9 months correlate positively with later cognitive performance, suggesting
that the same dependent variable may reflect poorer or more advanced attention contingent
on the child’s age. Likewise, a latent response inhibition construct is difficult to differentiate
from related constructs, such as working memory, in confirmatory factor analyses (CFA)
of tasks administered to preschool-aged children (Wiebe et al., 2011; Willoughby et al.,
2012). Separate latent factors for inhibition and working memory can, however, be parsed
in adolescent and adult cohorts (Karr et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2013). These non-invariant
measurement properties pose challenges for research focusing on broad age bands, as it is
not clear that tasks are measuring the same underlying constructs in different age groups.
When the same measures are administered to different age groups, it also often is
Author Manuscript
comparable. Moreover, these tasks assess children aged 4 and over and therefore overlook a
dramatic period of growth in response inhibition between age 3 and 4 years (Wiebe et al.,
2012).
tasks typically include a higher proportion of target ‘go’ relative to non-target, ‘no-go’ trials,
creating a prepotent tendency to respond on every trial and placing greater demands on
response inhibition. The opposite typically is true of CPT tasks, where participants must
maintain a high level of sustained attention in order to recognize the infrequent need for
a response (although these labels are sometimes used interchangeably, with the Conner’s
CPT (Conners et al., 2003) having a GNG-like format). The timing of stimulus presentation
also is integral to task sensitivity, as slower trials presumably dampen the prepotency of
the response and generally result in fewer erroneous responses to non-target stimuli (Metin
Author Manuscript
et al., 2012). Young children, however, may require a long time window even to enact a
response, meaning that tasks allowing a response time of less than one second may not be
sensitive to differences in response inhibition in children below 4 years of age (Simpson
& Riggs, 2006). The CPT originally was designed to capture lapses in attention over a
prolonged test period (Albrecht et al., 2015). Young children, however, may be less able
to tolerate very long test periods and are likely to show attentional lapses earlier than
older participants. Measurement quality for these tasks therefore intersects with typical
developmental expectations, making it especially important to consider developmental
differences in studies with heterogenous age groups.
Another psychometric issue concerns the sensitivity of multiple metrics that can be derived
from GNG and CPT tasks. Errors of commission or ‘false alarms’ to non-target stimuli
theoretically capture impulsive, disinhibited or perseverative tendencies (Anderson et al.,
Author Manuscript
2006; Lewis et al., 2017) and typically are higher in boys than in girls (Hasson & Fine,
2012; Wiebe et al., 2012). Conversely, errors of omission or target ‘misses’ may reflect
inattention and tend to increase with task duration (Allan & Lonigan, 2015). Response times
to individual trials may reflect the individual’s processing speed and several researchers have
argued that the fluctuations in participants’ trial response times over the course of the task
may be a sensitive marker of sustained attention (Antonini et al., 2013). Indeed, variance
in reaction times is consistently higher among children with ADHD (Epstein et al., 2012).
Measures of correct ‘hits’ of the target stimuli and total accuracy may provide more holistic
performance indicators (Kanaka et al., 2008). Additionally, some researchers have advocated
for the use of a d prime (d’) signal detection score reflecting the probability of responding
to target vs. non-target stimuli, as this index accounts for the fact that participants can
demonstrate high overall accuracy despite numerous commission errors if the frequency of
Author Manuscript
With respect to convergent validity, studies have reported significant differences in the mean
performance of children with ADHD and typically developing samples on GNG and CPT
tasks (Epstein et al., 2003; Vaughn et al., 2011), although the diagnostic sensitivity and
specificity of the tasks relative to clinical interviews typically is below 70% (Albrecht et
al., 2015; Edwards et al., 2007). Barnard et al. (2018) found that measures of omission,
commission, and reaction time derived from a GNG paradigm for preschoolers did not
correlate with parent-reported measures of executive control and attention. Other studies
have shown similarly non-significant or small (r ~ .1 to .25) correlations with teacher or
parent ratings of inattention and hyperactivity (Allan & Lonigan, 2015; Edwards et al.,
2007; Vaughn et al., 2011). Overall, then, correlations between these task metrics and
Author Manuscript
clinical criteria or observer rated behavior are small and it is not clear which task metrics
provide the most parsimonious and sensitive outcome measures. The sensitivity of different
dependent variables is especially critical for clinical trials, which hinge on a small number of
pre-specified endpoints to evaluate treatment effects.
There is a need for developmentally appropriate, valid, and sensitive sustained attention and
response inhibition measures that can be used across a wide age range. The overarching
goal in this study was to determine whether a combined GNG/CPT task could yield valid
and sensitive measures of sustained attention and response inhibition across childhood,
Author Manuscript
including in children as young as 3 years, for whom few measures are available. The task is
designed to be appealing and meaningful even for very young children by characterizing
it as a ‘fishing game’ (Wiebe et al., 2012). While the visual properties and response
demands of the GNG/CPT task remained constant across age groups, we created age specific
task versions that varied in their trial timing and length. Specific aims were to describe
the psychometric properties of task scores; to establish whether scores from the different
task versions reflected similar latent constructs; to determine the relation of demographic
characteristics to children’s performance; and to examine convergent the validity of task
metrics with parent ratings of children’s behavior. We hypothesized that the GNG and
CPT task phases would assess distinct latent capacities for sustained attention and response
inhibition in all age groups. We hypothesized that adjustments to task properties across
different versions would serve to normalize performance and mitigate floor and ceiling
Author Manuscript
Method
Participants
The initial sample comprised 459 3- to 12.9-year-old children enrolled across six sites
in a clinical trial (#02562040) designed to assess the effects of adenotonsillectomy on
neurobehavioral functioning, sleep and other health-related outcomes in children with
frequent snoring but without evidence of significant sleep apnea (apnea hypopnea index
<= 3 and no significant oxygen desaturation during sleep; see Wang et al., 2020 for details).
Author Manuscript
All protocols were approved by an Institutional Review Board and parents provided written
consent to participate. Children were screened to ensure they did not have chronic health
conditions (e.g., cardiopulmonary disorders, epilepsy), psychiatric disorders other than
ADHD that required medication or therapy, genetic conditions, autism spectrum disorders,
or developmental delay, and that the primary household language was English or Spanish.
Children with ADHD were not excluded, as attention was an important outcome of interest
in the study.
Seven children had missing data for the GNG/CPT task of interest in this study due to
misunderstanding (n = 1), refusal to complete (n = 4), or technical issues that disrupted
administration of (n = 2) the task. Therefore, the final analytic sample included 452 children
with a mean (SD, range) age of 6.63 (2.28; 3.08 – 12.83) years; 49.8% of the children were
Author Manuscript
female and 50.2% were male; and the ethnic breakdown of the sample was 51.5% White,
Non-Hispanic; 26.3% Black/African American, Non-Hispanic; 16.4% Hispanic/Latinx; and
5.8% Other. Nineteen percent of mothers had not completed high school or had a maximum
education of a high school diploma and 54.7% of the sample reported an annual household
income <= $60,000.
Families attended a baseline study assessment at a pediatric research center, where children
completed a health exam, a pegboard task to assess dexterity, and then the GNG/CPT
psychologists and typically lasted 15 minutes. Following this baseline assessment, children
were assigned randomly to either surgery or watchful waiting with supportive care and then
reassessed at 6– and 12– month follow-up points, although only baseline data is included
here.
Measures
GNG/CPT task.
Wiebe et al.’s (2012) GNG task for preschoolers was adapted for this study. Children
completed one of three separate task versions designed for those 3 to 4 years of age inclusive
(Version 1), 5 through 6 years inclusive (Version 2), or age 7 and above (Version 3). The task
was administered on a desktop PC using Eprime 2 (Psychology Software Tools, PA). Stimuli
consisted of 10 different colored cartoon fish and 10 grey-colored sharks that appeared in
Author Manuscript
the center of the screen. Children were informed that that they should ‘catch’ the fish by
pressing a response pad as quickly as possible. The examiner demonstrated how to respond
before allowing the child 3 practice trials to familiarize themself with the task speed. If
children did not respond correctly on at least 2 of the 3 practice trials, they were given
a maximum of two additional sets of 3 trials to reach this criterion before proceeding.
Children were then introduced to a picture of several sharks and were instructed that they
should withhold responses to the sharks because catching a shark would break their fishing
net. Again, the examiner demonstrated how to correctly withhold a response before allowing
the child up to 9 practice trials. Children’s ability to distinguish the fish from the sharks
was established by having them select the fish stimuli from an array of fish and shark
pictures prior to proceeding to the test trials. Each button-press response was followed by
a brief feedback stimulus. After a correct response, feedback included a bubbling noise and
Author Manuscript
a picture of the fish in a net. After a commission error, i.e., responding to a non-target
shark, feedback comprised a ‘buzzer’ sound and a picture of a broken net. During the first,
‘GNG’ phase of the task, 25% of stimuli were sharks. Halfway through administration,
the task was paused and children were instructed that they would see many more sharks
in subsequent trials. During the final, ‘CPT’ phase of the task, 75% of the stimuli were
sharks, necessitating fewer responses. The task lasted about 8 minutes. Copies of the task are
available from the first author for research purposes upon reasonable request.
Importantly, we manipulated several timing features for the different task versions to
maximize their developmental appropriateness and minimize floor and ceiling effects (see
Table 1). Version-specific response and inter-stimulus intervals were chosen based on
attention task-based studies with varying age groups (Conners et al., 2003; Davidson et
Author Manuscript
al., 2006; Wiebe et al., 2012). Specifically, Wiebe et al. (2012) and Orchinik et al. (2011)
reported ceiling levels of performance in typically developing children by age 5 years using
Version 1 parameters. We therefore reduced the stimulus display time and inter-stimulus
interval for children aged 5 to 6 years. Studies indicate a slower rate of change in response
inhibition task performance after age 7 (Brocki & Bohlin, 2004; Greenberg & Waldman,
1993). Therefore, the final, third version of the task used the same parameters for all
children aged 7 years and over. For older children, we also increased trial numbers to
with varying trial numbers, trial sequences necessarily differed by version. For the purposes
of evaluating measurement invariance and change in performance across the course of the
task, each task phase, i.e., GNG and CPT, was divided into 4 consecutive subblocks and trial
numbers within these subblock also varied by version (Table 1).
Dependent variables for each phase included the overall proportion of accurate trials;
commission errors; omission errors; mean response time for correct trials in seconds
(RT); RT variability, the standard deviation of reaction times to correct trials; and d’,
computed as the Z-scored proportion of incorrect commissions subtracted from the Z-scored
proportion of correct responses to the target fish (Stanislaw & Todorov, 1999). Omission
and commission rates of 0 or 100% were adjusted slightly to allow for the d’ calculation
(Stanislaw & Todorov, 1999).
Author Manuscript
consistencies for CBCL Attention Problems, Internalizing, and Externalizing scales are .83,
.83, and .88, respectively.
behavior ratings and measures of cognition. In this sample, Cronbach’s α for the full scale
was .97.
Analytic Approach
ANOVAs were used to evaluate the impact of task version and phase on various GNG/CPT
task metrics. To test the factor structure of the task in the full sample, we treated the
mean accuracy for each of eight task subblocks as items for analysis and tested, using
CFA, whether the underlying construct/s driving performance were best represented as one
Author Manuscript
or two factors. Maximum likelihood estimation was used and model fit was compared
using the Chi-squared difference test, RMSEA, CFI, TLI, and SRMR (Kline, 2011). The
invariance of the GNG/CPT age versions was then tested by constraining the factor loadings
(metric invariance), intercepts (scalar invariance) and item residuals (strict invariance) to be
equal across versions and testing whether each constraint led to a statistically significant
decline in model fit (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). Specifically, if the chi-squared difference
test comparing the constrained to the unconstrained model was significant, we rejected
the assumption of measurement invariance. Where strict invariance was rejected, we
progressively constrained individual parameters to test for partial invariance. Associations
of GNG/CPT performance metrics with demographic characteristics were examined using
multiple regression analyses, with each task version coded as a dummy variable. Given that
35 children had missing values for household income, we performed multiple imputation
Author Manuscript
Results
General descriptive indicators of performance
Author Manuscript
Table 2 describes children’s mean performance on several GNG/CPT task metrics. Apart
from age, there were no significant differences in the socio-demographic background
characteristics of children completing different versions (see Supplementary Materials).
Preliminary analyses also revealed no significant effect of study site on any of these metrics.
Therefore, data were combined across sites. Generally, outcome metrics showed little
evidence of skewness or kurtosis and there was a high degree of performance variability
within each task version (see Supplementary Materials). As an exception, commission errors
during the CPT phase were skewed (2.93) and kurtotic (9.47), as few children made such
errors.
each subblock as items for analysis (see Supplementary Materials for correlations and mean
performance by version and sub-block). A model with all items loaded on the same factor
showed a poor fit to the data, χ2(24) = 343.71, p < .001; RMSEA = .19, CFI = .82, TLI
= .75, SRMR = .08 and this continued to be the case when the residuals for consecutive
subblocks were allowed to covary, χ2(14) = 102.48, p < .001; RMSEA = .12, CFI = .95,
TLI = .9, SMR = .05. A model that defined two correlated factors parsing items from the
GNG (labeled Response Inhibition) and CPT (labeled Sustained Attention) phases showed
improved fit, χ2(19) = 93.38, p < .001; RMSEA = .09, CFI = .96, TLI = .94, SRMR = .04
Author Manuscript
and fit was excellent when the residuals for successive subblocks were allowed to covary in
this 2-factor model, χ2(13) = 13.97, p = .37; RMSEA = .01, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, SRMR =
0 (see Figure 1). McDonald’s ω reliability coefficients were .83 for the Response Inhibition
and .85 for the Sustained Attention factor.
omission error rates for the third, age 7+ version of the task.
Table 3 shows the results of CFA models to evaluate the measurement invariance of the
different task versions more formally. The two-factor model with autocorrelated residuals
showed excellent fit across all task versions and configural invariance was supported.
Notably, however, the strength of the correlation between the factors varied by version,
being strongest for Version 2 (β = .93) and weakest for Version 3 (β = .79). Tests for metric
invariance showed that the loading for item 4 on the CPT factor was significantly lower
in Version 1, although it was similar for the latter two versions. The remaining loadings
could be set equivalent for all versions without a significant reduction in model fit. Scalar
invariance also held for most intercepts, although the intercept for GNG subblock 3 was
significantly higher in Version 2. Finally, there was limited strict invariance, especially for
the Sustained Attention factor, where residual variances were lower for task Version 1 (see
Author Manuscript
Figure 1). McDonald’s ω coefficients for Response Inhibition and Sustained Attention were
high for task Versions 1 (.91, .83) and 3 (.84, .86), although lower for Version 2 (.67, .64).
response times (partial R2’s = .02 – .11 p’s < .05). Figure 2 illustrates this pattern more
Author Manuscript
closely, showing that, within each version of the task, higher age was associated with better
performance, and that age effects tended to be strongest for Version 1, designed for the
youngest age group.
As shown in Table 5, after adjusting for task version, age, and other demographic
characteristics, household income was the only demographic variable consistently related to
task performance. Children from households with income levels < $60,000 generally showed
lower accuracy and d’ scores, higher commission rates, and higher reaction time variability
for both task phases, partial R2 = 11 – 14%. In addition, boys showed higher commission
rates, coupled with faster reaction times, during the GNG phase only, partial R2 = 13 – 19%.
the CBCL and BRIEF after controlling for task version and child age. Accuracy and d’
scores from both phases correlated with the Global Executive Composite, Inhibit, Working
Memory, and Plan/Organize scales from the BRIEF, such that children with higher scores
were rated as having fewer difficulties in these areas. Omission errors during the CPT
phase corresponded with higher BRIEF Shift and Working Memory scores. The d’ and
commission metrics from the GNG task phase correlated with Externalizing symptoms on
the CBCL, as did the reaction time variability metrics from both task phases. There were
no correlations between GNG/CPT scores and Attention Problems or Internalizing Problems
rated on the CBCL. Similar analyses of selective parent-report scales recoded as binary
outcome variables to compare children with high (T score > 65) and average scores showed
that the d’ metrics for each phase were negatively associated with high (more problematic)
BRIEF Global Executive Composite scores, whereas commission errors during the GNG
Author Manuscript
phase and higher RT variability during the CPT phase were positively associated with
high CBCL Externalizing and Attention Problem ratings (see Supplementary Materials).
Correlations with behavior generally were strongest for task Version 1 (see Supplementary
Materials).
Discussion
Comparable assessment of children with widely varying ages is challenging, particularly
for cognitive constructs that change dramatically with age, such as sustained attention and
response inhibition. We manipulated the temporal demands of a child friendly GNG/CPT
task (Wiebe et al., 2012) so that older children completed more trials at a faster event rate.
Findings suggest that the different task versions assess similar latent constructs of Response
Author Manuscript
As hypothesized, the GNG and CPT task phases were best modeled as separate latent
Author Manuscript
factors, which we deem ‘Response Inhibition’ and ‘Sustained Attention’. Although the
separation of these latent skills generally is aligned with the conceptualization of GNG and
CPT tasks in the literature (Riccio et al., 2002; Wright et al., 2014), it should be noted
that the correlation between the factors was high (β = .72), indicating substantial overlap in
constructs assessed by these phases. The two-factor model showed excellent fit for all task
versions, although the correlation between the factors varied, being weakest in the version
designed for children aged 7+ years. The weaker correlation between the factors in the
oldest children perhaps reflects a tighter concordance between these attentional capacities
in early childhood or higher variation in performance associated with a broader age range
for children completing Version 3. We should also note that, although items showed good
internal consistency for the task as a whole, reliability coefficients for Version 2 were lower,
perhaps due to slightly lower consistency in children’s performance across subblocks for this
Author Manuscript
version.
Further tests for metric, scalar, and strict invariance revealed some differences in
measurement parameters across task versions. Versions generally were metric-invariant, with
the exception that the factor loading for the final CPT subblock was lower for Version 1.
There also was a difference in the intercepts for some subblocks of task Version 2, designed
for children aged 5 to 7 years. Children performing this version of the task performed
especially well in the final CPT block, perhaps because there was one fewer no-go trial in
this block than in other blocks. Descriptive analyses also indicated that versions designed
for older children elicited more omission errors than Version 1 and that accuracy was
lower for these versions. Interestingly, this occurred within the context of relatively uniform
commission error rates across versions during the GNG phase. That is, task adjustments
may have equated inhibitory demands across versions while simultaneously increasing
Author Manuscript
the tendency of older children to miss target trials. Differences in intercepts indicate that
scores will need to adjusted to standardize these metrics across versions. It is reassuring,
however, that all age versions appear to assess the same underlying constructs, as this
offers opportunity for valid assessment of Sustained Attention and Inhibitory Control across
heterogeneous age groups.
Within the different task versions, older children showed higher performance than younger
children. Indeed, there were pronounced differences in performance with age in the
version of task developed for the oldest children, suggesting that the task is sensitive to
developmental differences even as children approach adolescence. Adjusting scores for
version, the task may be helpful in examining developmental changes in sustained attention
and inhibitory control across a broad age range.
Author Manuscript
After accounting for version effects, age, and gender, children from households with
annual incomes of $60,000 or below showed poorer task performance, consistent with
multiple studies describing poorer endogenous attention for children living in financially
impoverished households (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, 2019; Brandes-Aitken et al., 2019).
Poor sustained attention and inhibitory control in children from lower income households
may be offset by relative strengths in other cognitive capacities (Ellis et al., 2022). However,
the fact that these attentional capacities are strongly predictive of classroom behavior
and academic achievement (Hernández et al., 2017; Nelson et al., 2017) underscores the
Author Manuscript
Correlations between the GNG/CPT metrics and parent-reported behavior generally were
small, consistent with previous studies (Allan & Lonigan, 2015; Edwards et al., 2007).
Lower d’ and accuracy scores on both task phases were linked to overall executive scores,
and especially to working memory and planning, whereas RT variability correlated with
externalizing behavior. Patterns of correlation hint that commission errors may be relatively
Author Manuscript
more sensitive for the GNG phase, whereas omission errors are more sensitive for the
CPT phase. Overall, however, these correlations suggest limited specificity of task metrics
for isolating specific attention or inhibition behavior difficulties in a non-clinical sample
and indicate that task metrics may instead offer a broad indication of children’s general
executive function. Modest correlations may also reflect the potential sensitivity of the task
to aspects of attention not reflected in observer ratings that may serve as surrogates for
biologically-based variations in attentional capacities. Although this remains to be seen, the
correlations offer support for the convergent validity of this task in detecting individual
differences in children’s everyday behavior. Given that the task can be administered even
to very young children, with further validation, it may represent a promising screening tool
for early identification and follow-up of children in need of further clinical assessment and
support for their self-management of attention.
Author Manuscript
of the broader clinical study, children may have been more fatigued during the second,
CPT block, perhaps leading to performance changes across the blocks that are unrelated to
the task’s psychometric properties. Finally, it is important to note that the study included
a primarily English-speaking, North American sample selected specifically for a clinical
study of mild sleep disordered breathing. Participants represented East Coast, mid-west, and
Texas regions in the USA. While the sample was racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically
diverse, further testing of the task across other regions and in neurodiverse samples will be
Author Manuscript
Despite these limitations, the study suggests that this GNG/CPT task with timing parameters
titrated for varying age groups allows for the consistent assessment of critical aspects of
attention over a wide age range. The measure fulfils a need for tasks that capture these
attention skills comparably in children as young as 3 and as late as 12 years with limited
floor and ceiling effects. Relations with demographic characteristics and parent-reported
behavior are similar in magnitude to those reported in previous literature on similar tasks.
Based on their robust correlations with other task metrics, their distributional properties, and
their correlations with parent-reported executive function, the d’ prime scores may provide
the most robust general indicators of children’s sustained attention and response inhibition.
Supplementary Material
Author Manuscript
Acknowledgments
This study was funded the National Institutes of Health (1U01HL125307 and 1U01HL125295). The content is
solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. We are
grateful to participating families and to Dr Sandra Wiebe, who conceptualized the original task. Broader Pediatric
Adenotonsillectomy Snoring study information is available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02562040.
Data will be available in the National Sleep Research Resource repository (https://sleepdata.org/datasets) at the end
of the trial. This study was not pre-registered. Copies of the task and analysis code are available from the first
author for research purposes upon reasonable request. Authors 1 and 2 were responsible for writing and analysis.
Mr. Reushman was responsible for data curation. Other authors were responsible for study conceptualization,
funding acquisition, investigation, project administration, and manuscript review and editing. Dr Redline would like
to disclose consulting for Jazz Pharma, Eli Lilly, and Apnimed Inc.
Author Manuscript
References
Achenbach T, & Rescorla L (2000). Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms and profiles. University
of Vermont.
Albrecht B, Uebel-von Sandersleben H, Wiedmann K, & Rothenberger A (2015). ADHD History
of the Concept: The Case of the Continuous Performance Test. Current Developmental Disorders
Reports, 2(1), 10–22. 10.1007/s40474-014-0035-1
Allan DM, & Lonigan CJ (2015). Relations between response trajectories on the continuous
performance test and teacher-rated problem behaviors in preschoolers. Psychological Assessment,
Author Manuscript
of the Conners’ Kiddie Continuous Performance Test (K-CPT) Performance and Parent-Report
Measures of Behavior and Executive Functioning. Journal of Attention Disorders, 22(11), 1056–
1065. 10.1177/1087054715578271 [PubMed: 25846228]
Baum GL, Ciric R, Roalf DR, Betzel RF, Moore TM, Shinohara RT, Kahn AE, Vandekar SN, Rupert
PE, Quarmley M, Cook PA, Elliott MA, Ruparel K, Gur RE, Gur RC, Bassett DS, & Satterthwaite
TD (2017). Modular Segregation of Structural Brain Networks Supports the Development of
Executive Function in Youth. Current Biology, 27(11), 1561–1572.e8. 10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.051
[PubMed: 28552358]
Brandes-Aitken A, Braren S, Swingler M, Voegtline K, & Blair C (2019). Sustained attention in
infancy: A foundation for the development of multiple aspects of self-regulation for children in
poverty. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 184, 192–209. 10.1016/j.jecp.2019.04.006
[PubMed: 31039447]
Brocki KC, & Bohlin G (2004). Executive functions in children aged 6 to 13: A
dimensional and developmental study. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26(2), 571–593. 10.1207/
s15326942dn2602_3 [PubMed: 15456685]
Author Manuscript
Edwards MC, Gardner ES, Chelonis JJ, Schulz EG, Flake RA, & Diaz PF (2007). Estimates of the
validity and utility of the conners’ continuous performance test in the assessment of inattentive
Author Manuscript
[PubMed: 21923973]
Putnick DL, & Bornstein MH (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state
of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90.
10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004 [PubMed: 27942093]
Reck SG, & Hund AM (2011). Sustained attention and age predict inhibitory control during
early childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(3), 504–512. 10.1016/
j.jecp.2010.07.010 [PubMed: 20801457]
Riccio CA, Reynolds CR, Lowe P, & Moore JJ (2002). The continuous performance test: A window on
the neural substrates for attention? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 17, 235–272. [PubMed:
14589726]
Ristic J, & Enns JT (2015). The Changing Face of Attentional Development. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 24(1), 24–31. 10.1177/0963721414551165
Rubin DA (2004). Multiple imputation for non-response surveys (Vol. 81). John Wiley & Sons.
Ruff HA, Lawson KR, Parrinello R, & Weissberg R (1990). Long-term stability of individual
Author Manuscript
differences in sustained attention in the early years. Child Development, 61( 1), 60–75.
10.2307/1131047 [PubMed: 2307047]
Simpson A, & Riggs KJ (2006). Conditions under which children experience inhibitory difficulty with
a “button-press” go/no-go task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 18–26. 10.1016/
j.jecp.2005.10.003 [PubMed: 16325846]
Stanislaw H, & Todorov N (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, & Computers : A Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc, 31(1), 137–149.
10.3758/BF03207704
Stevens C, & Bavelier D (2012). The role of selective attention on academic foundations:
A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(SUPPL. 1).
10.1016/j.dcn.2011.ll.001
Vaughn AJ, Epstein JN, Rausch J, Altaye M, Langberg J, Newcorn JH, Hinshaw SP, Hechtman
L, Arnold LE, Swanson JM, & Wigal T (2011). Relation between outcomes on a continuous
performance test and adhd symptoms over time. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39(6),
853–864. 10.1007/s10802-011-9501-y [PubMed: 21476025]
Author Manuscript
Veer IM, Luyten H, Mulder H, van Tuijl C, & Sleegers PJC (2017). Selective attention relates to the
development of executive functions in 2,5- to 3-year-olds: A longitudinal study. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 41, 84–94. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.06.005
Wang R, Bakker JP, Chervin RD, Garetz SL, Hassan F, Ishman SL, Mitchell RB, Morrical MG,
Naqvi SK, Radcliffe J, Riggan EI, Rosen CL, Ross K, Rueschman M, Tapia IE, Taylor HG, Zopf
DA, & Redline S (2020). Pediatric Adenotonsillectomy Trial for Snoring (PATS): Protocol for a
randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of adenotonsillectomy in treating mild obstructive
sleep-disordered breathing. BMJ Open, 10(3). 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033889
Wiebe SA, Sheffield TD, & Espy KA (2012). Separating the Fish From the Sharks: A Longitudinal
Study of Preschool Response Inhibition. Child Development, 83(4), 1245–1261. 10.1111/
Author Manuscript
Public significance:
Author Manuscript
There are very few well-developed measures of children’s management of their attention,
although attention is fundamental to children’s learning and well-being. This study
describes and validates a task that can be used even with very young children to measure
and monitor their attention skills. The task may be especially useful for clinicians and
researchers hoping to understand and support attention in children of widely varying
ages.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 1:
Author Manuscript
Figure 2:
Author Manuscript
Distribution of CPT (sustained attention; left) and GNG phase performance measures
(inhibitory control; right) by test version and participant age.
Note: Age is shown here as a categorical indicator for illustrative purposes, but was treated
as continuous in all analyses
Table 1:
Test version
1: 3 - 4 years 2: 5 - 6 years 3: 7 + years
Stimulus display time 1500ms 750ms 500ms
Feedback stimulus time 750ms 750ms 750ms
*
From the end of the feedback stimulus or stimulus to subsequent stimulus
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Table 2:
Children’s performance on various metrics from different versions of the GNG/CPT task
Author Manuscript
*
3 children who completed Version 1, 1 child who completed Version 2 and 2 children who completed Version 3 were missing RT variability scores
due to insufficient responses in this phase of the task.
Author Manuscript
Table 3:
Model fit statistics from tests for invariance of age-specific GNG/CPT task versions
Model χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR Δχ 2 Δdf ΔRMSEA ΔCFI ΔTLI ΔSRMR Decision (accept or reject invariance)
Clark et al.
Full metric 69.82*** 51 .049 .988 .981 .089 21.90* 12 .010 .007 .007 .061 Reject
Partial metric 66.16** 50 .046 .990 .981 .077 18.24 11 .007 .005 .005 .049 Accept
Full scalar 121.31* 63 .079 .964 .952 .131 73.39*** 24 .040 .010 .036 .089 Reject
Partial scalar 76.76* 59 .045 .989 .984 .074 29.27 20 .006 .006 .004 .046 Accept
Full strict 204.58*** 72 .111 .919 .905 .201 212.47** 33 .072 .108 .069 .173 Reject
Partial strict 87.26 67 .045 .988 .984 .112 39.82 28 .006 .006 .004 .082 Accept
*
p < .05;
**
p < .01;
***
p < .00
Table 4.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Clark et al.
1. GNG Accuracy
2. GNG d′ .85***
9. CPT Commission Errors −.33*** −.52*** .60*** .07 −.24*** .46*** −.91*** −.65***
1. CPT Omission Errors −.56*** −.37*** −.05 .61*** .22*** .24*** −.35*** −.67*** −.07
11. CPT M RT −.07 .14** −.31*** .07 .48*** −.07 .40*** .26*** −.46*** .07
12. CPT RT Variability −.28*** −.39*** .36*** .12* −.11* .47*** −.48*** −.38*** .51*** −.02 −.22***
Note: Correlations partial for children’s age and GNG/CPT version; d’: d-prime; RT: Response time.
*
p < .05;
**
p < .01;
***
p < .001
Table 5:
GNG Phase
Intercept .43*** (.29, .56) −1.53** (−2.51,−.56) .91*** (.68, 1.14) .46*** (.29, .63) 924.43*** (824.05, 1024.81) 390.41*** (343.40, 437.42)
Age & Test Version
Age (in years) .07 (−.17, .30) 1.10 (−.61, 2.82) −.59** (−.99, −.18) .11 (−.19, .41) −301.95*** (−478.84, −125.05) −215.32*** (−298.19, −132.46)
Test Version 2 −.12 (−.28, .04) .34 (−.82, 1.49) −.42** (−.70, −.15) .30** (.10, .51) −516.94*** (−635.87, −398.01) −293.11*** (−348.81, −237.41)
Test Version 3 .11*** (.07, .15) .93*** (.67, 1.20) −.16*** (−.22, −.10) −.09*** (−.14, −25.74) −37.98*** (−65.19, −10.78) −38.48 (−51.22, 25.74)
Age x Version 2 −.05* (−.10, .00) −.55** (−.91, −.18) .15*** (.06, .24) .02 (−.05, .08) 14.09 (−23.82, 52.00) 27.57** (9.81, 45.33)
Age x Version 3 −.06** (−.10, −.02) −.65*** (−.92, −.37) .14*** (.08, .21) .03 (−.02, .08) 31.26* (3.04, 59.47) 35.54*** (22.32, 48.75)
Sex
Female .00 (−.02, .02) .16* (.02, .30) −.07** (−.10, −.03) .02 (.00, .05) 19.79** (5.44, 34.14) −1.75 (−8.47, 4.97)
Maternal Education
HS/GED or Less .00 (−.03, .02) −.04 (−.23, .15) .01 (−.04, .05) .00 (−.03, .04) −3.72 (−23.31, 15.87) 1.69 (−7.49, 10.87)
Household Income
≤$60,000 −.03* (−.05, .00) −.25** (−.42, −.08) .05** (.01, .09) .02 (−.01, .05) −2.96 (−20.08, 14.16) 9.16* (1.07, 17.26)
CPT Phase
Intercept .18** (.04, .32) −2.53*** (−3.66, −1.40) .83*** (.66, 1.01) .79*** (.54, 1.03) 1032.57*** (912.13, 1153.01) 302.53*** (236.29, 368.77)
Age & Test Version
Age (in years) .39** (.14, .64) .68 (−1.32, 2.67) −.64*** (−.95, −.34) .37 (−.06, .80) −306.49*** (−516.10, −96.88) −207.37*** (−322.60, −92.13)
Test Version 3 .18*** (.14, .21) 1.32*** (1.01, 1.63) −.18*** (−.23, −.14) −.16*** (−.23, −.09) −34.09* (−66.62, −1.57) −19.53* (−37.41, −1.65)
Age x Version 2 −.12*** (−17, −.07) −0.55** (−.98, −.12) .16*** (.09, .23) .00 (−.10, .09) 6.71 (−38.30, 51.72) 18.65 (−6.08, 43.38)
Age x Version 3 −.14*** (−18, −.10) −0.93*** (−1.25, −.62) .17 (.13, .22) .05 (−.02, .12) 29.98 (−3.72, 63.68) 17.23 (−1.30, 35.75)
Sex
Female .01 (−.01, .03) .14 (−.02, .30) −.02 (−.05, .00) .01 (−.02, .05) 9.74 (−7.22, 26.70) −2.87 (−12.17, 6.44)
Maternal Education
HS/GED or Less .00 (−.02, .03) .02 (−.21, .24) −.01 (−.04, .03) .00 (−.05, .05) −11.25 (−34.39, 11.89) −9.93 (−22.58, 2.72)
Page 25
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
≤$60,000 −.03** (−.06, −.01) −.25* (−.45, −.05) .04** (.01, .07) .01 (−.03, .05) −8.41 (−29.05, 12.24) 15.08** (3.81, 26.34)
Clark et al.
Note. HS: High school; Categories not shown, including male gender, maternal education > HS and household income > $60, 000 are the reference categories; race/ethnicity was also included in the models;
*
p < .05;
**
p < .01;
***
p < .001
Table 6:
Partial correlations between CPT/GNG task metrics and parent-reported behavioral problems
Author Manuscript
Commission Errors .01 .13* .08 .12* .09 .04 .06 .15** .12**
Omission Errors .04 −02 .02 .06 .01 .04 .05 .11* .06
RT Variability .01 .10* .05 .06 .07 −.01 .01 .10* .06
CPT Phase
Accuracy −.03 −.08 −.04 −.10* −.11* −.05 −.05 −.13** −.08*
Author Manuscript
Omission Errors .07 .02 .02 .11* .08 .10* .06 .12* .08
RT Variability .01 .10* .07 .08 .08 .03 .05 .08 .10*
Note: Correlations partial for children’s age and test version. Int: Internalizing problems; Ext: Externalizing problems; Atte: Attention difficulties;
GEC: General Executive Composite; Inh: Inhibitory control difficulties; EC: Emotional Control difficulties; WM: Working memory difficulties;
PO: Planning and Organization difficulties.
**
p < .01;
*
p < .05
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript