1. S. Houghton et al.: Sense of Time in ADHDEuropean Journal of PsychologicalA ssessment 2011; Vol. 27(2):88–94© 2011 Hogrefe Publishing
Original Article
Measuring Temporal
Self-Regulation in Children
with and Without Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Sense of Time in Everyday Contexts
Stephen Houghton1, Kevin Durkin2, Rebecca P. Ang3,
Myra F. Taylor1, and Mark Brandtman4
1
The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, 2
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland,
3
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 4
Brandtman Educational Consulting, Sydney, Australia
Abstract. A new parent report measure entitled the Salience, Organization and Management of Time Scale (SOMTS) that assessed the
temporal regulation of children with and without Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD) in everyday contexts was developed
over three phases (item generation, preliminary validation, and factorial structure). Items were compiled from related earlier instruments
plus parental interviews, with final selection determined on the basis of item affectivity indices. The final study was, in part, an online
study. Principal components analysis and confirmatory factor analyses from a sample of parents of children with (n = 194) and without
(n = 142) AD/HD indicated a three factor structure of the new instrument (Verbalizing temporal structures, Temporal self-regulation, and
Conceptualizing and sequencing time). Significant between-group differences revealed children with AD/HD performed worse on all
three factors compared to children without AD/HD. The factors exhibited moderate discriminant validity when used individually and
excellent discriminant validity when used in combination. The three distinct and reliable factors identified by the new instrument map
well onto themes emphasized in a comprehensive theory of AD/HD and the between-group differences are consistent with the theory’s
characterization of a developmental delay in sense of time in young people with the disorder.
Keywords: AD/HD, temporal self-regulation, confirmatory factor analysis
Barkley’s (1997) comprehensive theory of Attention Defi-
cit Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD) views time as an im-
portant component in an individual’s self-regulation of be-
havior. The ability to take time into account when structur-
ing activities is essential for representing internally the
immediate external environment and facilitating the ability
to predict, anticipate, and respond efficiently to current and
anticipated events (Barkley, 1997; Meaux & Chelonis,
2003; Toplak, Rucklidge, Hetherington, John, & Tannock,
2003). Barkley (1997) asserts that “time is the ultimate yet
nearly invisible disability affecting those with AD/HD”
(p. 337). Time is also implicated in other theories such as
the delay aversion theory (Sonuga-Barke, Williams, Hall,
& Saxton, 1996) which proposes that because children with
AD/HD prefer not to delay their responding they use time
inefficiently, which in turn limits their opportunities for ef-
fective performance on time-related tasks. There is exten-
sive evidence in support of these theories. For example,
those with AD/HD perform less well than typically devel-
oping peers in tests of time estimation, time production and
reproduction, and motor timing (González-Garrido et al.,
2008; Mäntylä, Carelli, & Forman, 2007; Rubia, Smith, &
Taylor, 2007; Toplak, Dockstader, & Tannock, 2006).
This array of evidence has, however, been obtained in
highly controlled laboratory settings where experimental
goals mean that the time scales are short, and rigorous con-
straints are placed upon the child’s behavior. Although this
work hasresulted inimportantadvancesinour understanding
of temporal regulation in AD/HD (Toplak et al., 2006), little
isstillknownaboutitineverydaycontexts,primarilybecause
of the lack of reliable instrumentation (Carelli, Forman, &
Mäntylä, 2007). Nevertheless, there are compelling reasons
to expect that the temporal processing skills studied in the
laboratory underlie problems commonly reported in the ev-
DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000048
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2011; Vol. 27(2):88–94 © 2011 Hogrefe Publishing

2. eryday performance of children with AD/HD (Smith, Taylor,
Warner Rogers, Newman, & Rubia, 2002; Spencer, Bieder-
man, & Mick, 2007), including impulsiveness (Solanto et al.,
2001), problems with waiting to take turns (Barkley, 1997),
distractibility in the classroom (Daley, 2006), delaying re-
sponses (Sergeant, Geurts, Huijbregts, Scheres, & Ooster-
laan, 2003), and management of time-related tasks (Hough-
ton, Cordin, Durkin, & Whiting, 2008).
To date, however, temporal self-regulation in everyday
contexts is rarely assessed by the questionnaires typically
used in the AD/HD diagnostic process mainly because of
the lack of reliable instrumentation. The assessment of tem-
poral processing difficulties of children with AD/HD in ev-
eryday real world settings appears to have great potential
for supporting the diagnostic process.
Previous attempts have been made to develop instru-
mentation and measure everyday temporal processing in
real world settings. For example, Zentall, Harper, and Stor-
mont-Spurgin (1993) gathered data from 38 6- to 14- year-
olds (31 males and 7 females) using their 26-item Child
Organization Scale. The primary focus of this measure was,
however, on the child’s ability not to lose objects at school
(e.g., books), complete homework, and maintain a tidy
room. Barkley (1998) developed the 25-item parent-report
“It’s About Time” (Barkley, 1998) questionnaire to mea-
sure the ability of 60 children (8 to 12 years) to judge an
awareness of the passage of time and their preparedness for
deadlines. Both scales were, however, based on small sam-
ple sizes and important aspects relating to everyday tem-
poral management and organization remained unexplored
(Meaux & Chelonis, 2005).
In this study we present a new scale developed to address
Meaux and Chelonis’ (2005)criticismsof theseearlierinstru-
ments. This new scale measures parents’ perceptions of tem-
poral regulation in the everyday lives of young people. Our
goals were to identify the key factors underlying temporal
performance in children and to compare reports for those
diagnosed with AD/HD with those for typically developing
participants. Those who know the child well (e.g., parents)
should be reliable informants on his/her time-related prob-
lems. Parental reports are often solicited as part of the diag-
nostic process and studies point to the value of parents as
sources of information on the behavior of young people with
AD/HD (Mitsis, McKay, Schulz, Newcorn, & Halperin,
2000; Rogers, Wiener, Marton, & Tannock, 2009). Parent
reports of the symptoms of AD/HD prove to have excellent
reliability and accuracy (Faraone, Biederman, & Milberger,
1995) and parents are better able to recollect major life activ-
ities than young persons with AD/HD (Barkley, Fischer,
Smallish, & Fletcher, 2002). Parents are also more informa-
tive for detecting change during treatment of children with
AD/HD (Biederman, Faraone, Monuteaux, & Grossbard,
2004). According to Meaux and Chelonis (2005), parents,
who observe their children in a variety of settings, should be
well placed to provide information on their organization of
behavior related to time.
Materials and Methods
Participants and Settings
A sample of parents of children with AD/HD (n = 194; age
range 5.4 to 19 years, M = 12.01, SD = 3.46; 147 M, 46 F;
gender information was missing for one child) and parents
of children without AD/HD (n = 142; age range 5.5 to 18
years, M = 12.89, SD = 2.45; 56 M, 86 F) was recruited. To
be included in the AD/HD group children must have re-
ceived a formal medical diagnosis by developmental pedi-
atricians as having met the DSM-IV criteria for a diagnosis
of AD/HD. Of the sample, 85% had a diagnosed comorbid
condition, the most prevalent (47%) being oppositional de-
fiant disorder. Participants were drawn from low to high
socioeconomic status areas.
Phase I: Item Generation
Two relevant earlier instruments were identified: (1) The
Child Organization Scale – Parent version (COS-PV; Zentall
et al., 1993), a 26-item scale on which respondents rate their
perception of their child’s ability to plan and manage activi-
ties, objects, and tasks; and (2) the It’s About Time Scale
(IATS; Barkley, 1998), containing 25 multiple choice ques-
tions assessing the child’s ability to judge an awareness of
passage of time and preparedness for deadlines. Each instru-
ment pertains to different aspects of time management. Five
items were selected from COS-PV and eight from IATS.
Theseitemswererewordedandshortened.(Afulldescription
of the selection and item amendment can be obtained from
the first author.) To generate new items covering a wider
range of time-related performance, individual interviews
were conducted with 18 mothers, from low to high socioeco-
nomic status areas, whose children (ages 7 to 17 years) had
received a medical diagnosis of ADHD. (SES in this and the
subsequent phases was based on families’ postal codes as-
sessed in relation to the Australian Socio-Economic Index-
es’.) Interviews focused on the time management and organ-
ization experiences of the children during the daily cycle. On
the basis of previous instruments and interviews, 54 items
were generated. Three raters reviewed the items. In discus-
sion, 24 items were identified as duplicates and were re-
moved,leaving 30items.Theseitemswereincludedin adraft
instrument titled the Salience, Organization, and Manage-
ment of Time Scale (SOMTS). Items were preceded by the
statement“Mychild”andparticipantsrespondedtoeachitem
by shading in one of four response options, ranging from
definitely true to definitely not true.
Phase II: Preliminary Validation of SOMTS
Ten mothers residing in low to high socioeconomic status
areas completed the SOMTS. Six mothers had children
S. Houghton et al.: Sense of Time in ADHD 89
© 2011 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2011; Vol. 27(2):88–94

3. with a medical diagnosis for AD/HD and four had children
who were typically developing. Participants were also
asked to comment on the relevance and appropriateness of
the items; this feedback led to minor modifications of two
items. The item affectivity (q-values) in the sample ranged
from .04 to .85. Following Kline (2000), items with q-val-
ues between .20 and .80 were selected resulting in a final
20-item version of the SOMTS.
Phase III: Factorial Structure of SOMTS
The control sample of parents of children without AD/HD
(n = 142) was used in the principal components analysis
(PCA). The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) utilized the
sample of parents of children with AD/HD (n = 194).
Instrumentation and Procedure
The SOMTS was completed in a paper and pencil format
or online. The online format was created in an attempt to
generate a larger sample. A total of 142 parents of Austra-
lian children with AD/HD who had collaborated in previ-
ous research and who had agreed to assist in future research
received the paper and pencil version. Of these, 110 re-
turned a completed SOMTS in reply-paid envelopes. For
the online version a hyperlink was emailed to AD/HD sup-
port groups located in 25 different countries along with an
information sheet explaining the purpose of the research.
Support groups were requested to post the link and the in-
formation sheet on their respective websites and invite their
members to participate. Of the support groups, only one
declined to participate. The online SOMTS and informa-
tion were presented in English only because it was not fea-
sible to translate them into so many different languages and
it was beyond the capacities of the support groups to do so.
Eighty-four parents of children with AD/HD from 25 coun-
tries representing Australasia, Asia, Africa, Central, South
and North America, and Europe subsequently completed
the SOMTS online.
The parents of children with AD/HD were requested to
each invite a parent who did not have a child with AD/HD
to complete the SOMTS. Consequently, 142 parents of non
AD/HD children responded by completing the paper and
pencil version of the SOMTS.
Results
Principal Components Analysis (PCA)
PCA with varimax rotation was performed on the scores of
the 20-item SOMTS. We based the decision about number
of factors to retain on a combination of methods (e.g., par-
allel analysis, eigenvalue > 1.0, scree plots) as well as con-
ceptual clarity, interpretability and theoretical salience of
the rotated factors, and simple structure. Parallel analysis
has consistently been shown to be superior to other factor
retention rules in terms of extracting the correct number of
factors in Monte Carlo studies (Zwick & Velicer, 1986). In
the present study, parallel analysis and the other methods
used to determine factor retention indicated the same num-
ber of factors to be retained for the final solution. Our goal
was to have the smallest number of possible factors and for
each item to load on only one latent factor. Items should
preferably load greater than .4 on the relevant factor and
less than .4 on all other factors (Stevens, 1996). Of the 20
items, 8 were dropped (e.g., Item 3: “Interprets comments
Table 1. Factor loadings for SOMTS – parent questionnaire
Factor loadings
SOMTS Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 h2
1. Frequently talks about upcoming events that he/she will be involved in .70 .13 –.18 .54
2. Often asks about things that will happen in the future .68 –.10 –.21 .51
3. Enjoys talking about things that he/she has done in the past .69 –.04 .10 .48
4. At the end of the day will often talk about what he/she will be doing tomorrow .89 .14 .10 .82
5. At the end of the day will often talk about what has happened that day .89 .14 .10 .82
6. Does not follow set routines, for example, when getting ready for school in the morning .10 .78 .15 .65
7. Is oblivious to other people’s time deadlines .13 .71 .22 .57
8. Is rarely ready to leave for school on time –.06 .78 .07 .62
9. Is not a punctual person .07 .88 .11 .79
10. Has difficulty telling the time using a clock .00 .18 .70 .53
11. Has difficulty retelling events in the order that they happened –.01 .01 .82 .68
12. Struggles to conceptualize units of time (e.g., weeks/months/terms) –.06 .36 .73 .67
Note. SOMTS = Salience, Organization, and Management of Time Scale. Factor 1 = Verbalizing temporal structures. Factor 2 = Temporal
self-regulation. Factor 3 = Conceptualizing and sequencing time. h2
= Communalities of measured variables. Boldface factor loadings signify
items primarily with that factor. All items had factor loadings of at least .40 on relevant factor and less than .40 on the other factors. Sample
size = 142.
90 S. Houghton et al.: Sense of Time in ADHD
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2011; Vol. 27(2):88–94 © 2011 Hogrefe Publishing

4. on time literally”) from subsequent analyses because they
had very low communalities, loaded greater than .4 on mul-
tiple factors, or did not have a factor loading of at least .4
on any factor. Three factors with eigenvalues greater than
one emerged and this was consistent with the use of other
factor retention methods.
These procedures resulted in a 12-item instrument with
three factors, which accounted for a total of 63.98% of the
variance in SOMTS scores.
The factor pattern/structure coefficients are presented in
Table 1, along with communalities (h2
) of the measured
variables. All 12 items had communalities of at least .45
and above. The first factor consisted of 5 items, was labeled
Verbalizing temporal structures, and accounted for 25.32%
of the variance (postrotation). The second factor consisted
of 4 items, was labeled Temporal self-regulation, and ac-
counted for 22.85% of the variance. The third factor con-
sisted of 3 items, was labeled Conceptualizing and se-
quencing time, and accounted for 15.82% of the variance.
The correlations between Factors 1 and 2, Factors 1 and 3,
and Factors 2 and 3 were .14 (Cohen’s d = 0.28), –.03 (Co-
hen’s d = 0.06), and .38 (Cohen’s d = 0.82), respectively.
We computed estimates of internal consistency using
Cronbach’s coefficient αs for the 142 control participants.
The internal consistency estimates for the three factors
were: Verbalizing temporal structures (5 items) α = .83,
Temporal self-regulation (4 items) α = .82, and Conceptu-
alizing and sequencing time (3 items) α = .69. These Cron-
bach’s α estimates are adequate for general research pur-
poses.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Sole reliance on PCA in scale development has been criti-
cized for having statistics rather than theory determine the
structure of scale scores and for not adequately assessing
error (Thompson & Daniel, 1996). Therefore, to determine
that the hypothesized factor structure was replicated in the
responses of parents of children with AD/HD, we used CFA
to test the stability of scores from the three-factor 12-item
SOMTS using EQS Version 6.1 (Bentler, 2004). The hy-
pothesized multidimensional model identified in the PCA
consisted of three first-order latent variables representing
three scales, with 5 (Verbalizing temporal structures), 4
(Temporal self-regulation), and 3 (Conceptualizing and se-
quencing time) indicators, respectively. The first of each
set of regression paths associated with the factors was fixed
to 1.0 and each item (measured variable) was constrained
to load only on one factor. Correlated errors and other post
hoc model respecification were not permitted. The hypoth-
esized model (three first-order factors) was compared
against a competing one-factor model that assumed that all
12 items reflect a single, global factor: Temporal self-reg-
ulation.
Multiple fit indices provided by EQS were examined to
provide an evaluation of model fit. Analysis revealed that
the data violated the multivariate normality assumption;
therefore robust maximum likelihood estimation was em-
ployed in CFA to correct for this violation. The Satorra-
Bentler rescaled χ² (SBχ²; Satorra & Bentler, 1988) has
been found to perform consistently well across small, mod-
erate, and large sample sizes; hence, researchers have rec-
ommended its use for nonnormal multivariate data (Curran,
West, & Finch, 1996; Hu, Bentler, & Kano, 1992). A non-
significant SBχ² value is indicative of a well-fitting model.
Other fit indices that were used to assess the adequacy of
model fit included the comparative fit index (CFI), the in-
cremental fit index (IFI), and the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) and its confidence intervals. Al-
though a value of .90 for the CFI and IFI indices has served
as a rule-of-thumb lower limit cut-off of acceptable fit, a
value of .95 is expected of models considered to be well-
fitting (Hu & Bentler, 1999). RMSEA values of less than
.06 indicate a good fit, and values as high as .08 indicate a
reasonable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Final assessment of fit
for all models was based on SBχ² and its related robust fit
indices (CFI, IFI, and RMSEA) but for the sake of com-
pleteness, the uncorrected χ² statistic will also be reported.
A CFA was conducted on the scores of the 12-item
SOMTS. Results are summarized in Table 2. Findings
showed a nonsignificant SBχ², a robust CFI of .97, a robust
IFI value of .97, and a RMSEA value of .04, suggesting
that the hypothesized model was well-fitting. In compari-
son, model fit was poor for the competing one-factor mod-
el. Additional robust fit indices such as the Bentler-Bonett
nonnormed fit index and McDonald fit index also showed
that the hypothesized model’s indices of .96 and .96 out-
performed the one-factor model’s indices of .38 and .49,
respectively. The results of the CFA provided further sup-
port for the factor structure of the SOMTS scores estab-
lished via PCA.
The Cronbach’s α estimates for the SOMTS scores on
the 194 children with AD/HD were as follows: Verbalizing
temporal structures α = .78, Temporal-self regulation α =
.74, and Conceptualizing and sequencing time α = .62.
Table 2. Summary of fit indices from confirmatory factor analyses
Model χ² df SBχ² RCFI RIFI RMSEA RMSEA (CI)
Sample (n = 194)
Hypothesized model 74.94 51 66.17 .97 .97 .039 .000–.064
Competing 1-factor model 350.25* 54 330.91* .50 .51 .163 .146–.179
Note. SBχ² = Satorra-Bentler rescaled χ²; RCFI = robust comparative fit index; RIFI = robust incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square
error of approximation. *p < .01.
S. Houghton et al.: Sense of Time in ADHD 91
© 2011 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2011; Vol. 27(2):88–94

5. Between-Group Comparisons
Mean scores of the AD/HD and Control groups were com-
pared on all three factors of the SOMTS. In line with ex-
pectations, the AD/HD group performed significantly
worse on each measure (see Table 3). Comparisons re-
vealed robust mean differences, with medium to large ef-
fect sizes.
Discriminant function analysis was performed to deter-
mine the percentage of individuals correctly assigned to the
AD/HD and Control groups, respectively, on the basis of
each of the three factors and a combination of all (see So-
lanto et al., 2001). Each factor discriminated moderately
and reasonably between the groups. Verbalizing temporal
structures correctly assigned 61.9% of AD/HD partici-
pants, and 61.3% of controls (overall correct, 61.6%). Tem-
poral self-regulation correctly assigned 78.4% of AD/HD,
and 76.8% of controls (overall correct, 77.7%). Conceptu-
alizing and sequencing time correctly assigned 76.3% of
AD/HD and 83.8% of controls (overall correct, 79.5%).
However, a combination of all three factors together in the
same equation yielded marked increases in correctly clas-
sified categories: 82.5% AD/HD, 89.4% control, 85.4%
overall.
Discussion
The present study provides researchers and clinicians with
a new, short, easy-to-administer instrument (available from
the first author on request) with which to gauge parents’
perceptions of their children’s management of time in ev-
eryday settings. Parents have extensive opportunities to ob-
serve their children in a variety of contexts and are well
placed to report on time-related skills and limitations
(Meaux & Chelonis, 2005). Given the important role par-
ents play in the diagnostic process, the SOMTS could eas-
ily be utilized alongside existing ADHD questionnaires to
determine the structural relations of temporal self-regula-
tion with constructs measured by other ADHD question-
naires.
In separate administrations with a sample of typically
developing children and then a sample of children diag-
nosed with AD/HD, we examined the psychometric prop-
erties of this new instrument through calculation of item
functioning indices, internal reliabilities, and both PCA and
CFA. The CFA results provided further support for the fac-
tor structure of the SOMTS scores: that is, a three-factor
model in which temporal regulation is measured by Verbal-
izing temporal structures, Temporal self-regulation, and
Conceptualizing and sequencing time. Parental reports in-
dicated that children with AD/HD experienced greater dif-
ficulties than did the controls.
Discriminant function analysis classified approximately
87% of cases correctly (82.5% AD/HD and 89.4% con-
trols) with the combination of all three factors together in
the same equation. This indicates that our new instrument
may be a useful addition not only for research but also for
current test batteries utilized for diagnostic purposes.
Moreover, the instrument may also be appropriate for gaug-
ing the effectiveness of interventions in which temporal
regulation is addressed (see Lopez, Toprac, Crismon, Boe-
mer, & Baumgartner, 2005).
The between-group differences obtained here are con-
sistent with previous theorizing that has pointed to tempo-
ral processing difficulties and inefficiencies in individuals
with AD/HD (Barkely, 1997; Sonuga--Barke et al., 1996).
The three distinct and reliable factors identified by our in-
strument map well onto themes emphasized in Barkley’s
unified theory of AD/HD. Barkley proposes that children
with AD/HD show deficits in representing and organizing
time; our instrument indicates a factor of Conceptualizing
and sequencing time. The theory predicts difficulties in or-
ganizing own behavior in relation to time, as in learning
routines from others and planning courses of action; our
instrument indicates a factor of Temporal self-regulation.
Finally, the theory predicts fewer references to time in the
course of interpersonal discourse; our instrument indicates
a factor of Verbalizing temporal structure. Importantly, in
each case, there were significant differences, with medium
to large effect sizes, between the group of participants with
AD/HD and the typically developing group.
It should be acknowledged that of the ADHD parents
who completed the SOMTS, approximately 40% did so on-
line because they were recruited from AD/HD support
groups. This recruitment method may, therefore, have con-
tributed to producing a biased sample of parents in as much
as they are highly motivated to seek support from such
groups. In this way they may be different from parents of
Table 3. T-tests of mean differences between ADHD and control groups on three factors identified
Score Group M SD t Cohen’s d
Verbalizing temporal structures ADHD 7.43 3.77
Control 5.44 3.57 4.88* 0.54
Temporal self-regulation ADHD 7.90 3.18
Control 2.96 2.96 14.45* 1.60
Conceptualizing and sequencing time ADHD 4.69 2.62
Control 0.95 1.67 14.93* 1.65
Note. Higher scores denote poorer time management. *p < .01.
92 S. Houghton et al.: Sense of Time in ADHD
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2011; Vol. 27(2):88–94 © 2011 Hogrefe Publishing

6. children with AD/HD who are not affiliated with support
groups. The groups of children with and without AD/HD
were not age and gender matched and this should also be
addressed in future studies. Importantly, it must be ac-
knowledged that there was no demonstration of convergent
and discriminant validity in the present study. This must
also be a strong focus of future research if the reliability
and validity of the SOMTS is to be established. Finally,
while there are many studies demonstrating the stability of
parents’ ratings, there may be some parents who them-
selves experience temporal processing difficulties. There-
fore, future research should attempt to replicate the present
findings with ratings gathered from another source, such as
teachers.
In conclusion, our findings contribute to a developing
body of research showing that children with AD/HD are
impaired in their temporal organization and management
in everyday settings. The instrument developed is an im-
portant addition to current test batteries for diagnostic pur-
poses and as a means of evaluating strategies implemented
to improve adaptive functioning.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Australian Research
Council grant DP0556257.
References
Barkley, R.A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention,
and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of
ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 65–94.
Barkley, R.A. (1998). It’s about time. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Massachusetts, USA.
Barkley, R.A., Fischer, M., Smallish, L., & Fletcher, K. (2002).
Persistence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder into
adulthood as a function of reporting source and definition of
disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 279–289.
Bentler, P.M. (2004). EQS 6 structural equations program man-
ual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc.
Biederman, J., Faraone, S.V., Monuteaux, M.C., & Grossbard,
J.R. (2004). How informative are parent reports of Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder symptoms for assessing out-
come in clinical trials of long-acting treatments? A pooled
analysis of parents’ and teachers’ reports. Pediatrics, 113,
1667–1671.
Carelli, M., Forman, H., & Mäntylä, T. (2007). Sense of time and
executive functioning in children and adults. Child Neuropsy-
chology, 13, 1–15.
Curran, P.J., West, S.G., & Finch, J.F. (1996). The robustness of
test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confir-
matory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.
Daley, D. (2006). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A re-
view of the essential facts. Child Care Health and Develop-
ment, 32, 193–204.
Eakin, L., Minde, K., Hechtman, L. Ochs, E., Krane, E., Bouffard,
R., . . . Looper, K. (2004). The marital and family functioning
of adults with ADHD and their spouses. Journal of Attention
Disorders, 8, 1–10.
Faraone, S., Biederman, J., & Milberger, S. (1995). How reliable
are maternal reports of their children’s psychopathology? One
year recall of psychiatric diagnoses of ADHD children. Jour-
nal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychi-
atry, 34, 1001–1008.
González-Garrido, A., Gómez-Velázquez, F.R., Zarabozo, D.,
López-Elizalde, R., Ontiveros, A., Madera-Carrillo, H., . . . De
La Serna Tuya, J.M. (2008). Time reproduction disturbances
in ADHD children: An ERP study. International Journal of
Neuroscience, 118, 119–135.
Houghton, S., Cordin, R., Durkin, K., & Whiting, K. (2008). Sa-
lience and temporal sequencing of time related actions in boys
with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Child Neuro-
psychology, 14, 60–70.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in
covariance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulle-
tin, 112, 351–362.
Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.).
London, UK: Routledge.
Lopez, M.A., Toprac, M.G., Crismon, M.L., Boemer, C., &
Baumgartner, J. (2005). A psychoeducational program for
children with ADHD or depression and their families: Results
from the CMAP Feasibility Study. Community Mental Health
Journal, 41, 51–61.
Mäntylä, T., Carelli, M., & Forman, H. (2007). Time monitoring
and executive functioning in children and adults. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 1–19.
Meaux, J.B., & Chelonis, J.J. (2003). Time perception differenc-
es in children with and without ADHD. Journal of Pediatric
Health Care, 17, 64–71.
Meaux, J., & Chelonis, J. (2005). The relationship between be-
havioral inhibition and time perception in children. Journal of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 18, 148–160.
Mitsis, E., McKay, K., Schulz, K., Newcorn, J., & Halperin, J.
(2000). Parent-teacher concordance for DSM-IV attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder in a clinic-referred sample. Jour-
nal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
39, 308–313.
Rogers, M.A., Wiener, J., Marton, I., & Tannock, R. (2009). Paren-
tal involvement in children’s learning: Comparing parents of
children with and without Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disor-
der (ADHD). Journal of School Psychology, 47, 167–185.
Rubia, K., Smith, A., & Taylor, E. (2007). Performance of chil-
dren with ADHD on a test battery of impulsiveness. Child Neu-
ropsychology, 13, 276–304.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. (1988). Scaling corrections for χ²
statistics in covariance structure analysis. ASA 1988 proceed-
ings of the business and economic section (pp. 308–313). Al-
exandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
Sergeant, J.A., Geurts, H., Huijbregts, S., Scheres, A., & Ooster-
laan, J. (2003). The top and the bottom of ADHD: A neuro-
psychological perspective. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
Reviews, 27, 583–592.
Smith, A., Taylor, E., Warner Rogers, J., Newman, S., & Rubia,
K. (2002). Evidence for a pure time perception deficit in chil-
S. Houghton et al.: Sense of Time in ADHD 93
© 2011 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2011; Vol. 27(2):88–94

7. dren with ADHD. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychia-
try, 43, 529–542.
Solanto, M., Abikoff, H., Sonuga-Barke, E., Schachar, R., Logan,
G., Wigal, T., . . . Turkel, E. (2001). The ecological validity of
delay aversion and response inhibition measures of impulsivity
in ADHD: A supplement to the NIMH multimodal treatment
study of ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29,
215–228.
Sonuga-Barke, E.J.S., Williams, E., Hall, M., & Saxton, T.
(1996). Hyperactivity and delay aversion III: The effect on
cognitive style of imposing delay after errors. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 189–194.
Spencer, J., Biederman, E., & Mick, E. (2007). Attention-Defi-
cit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Diagnosis, lifespan, comorbidities,
and neurobiology. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 7, 73–81.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social
sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thompson, B., & Daniel, L.G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence
for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and
some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 56, 197–208.
Toplak, M., Dockstader, C., & Tannock, R. (2006). Temporal in-
formation processing in ADHD: The findings to date and new
methods. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 151, 15–29.
Toplak, M., Rucklidge, J.J., Hetherington, R., John, S., & Tan-
nock, R. (2003). Time perception deficits in attention-defi-
cit/hyperactivity disorder and comorbid reading difficulties in
child and adolescent samples. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 44, 888–903.
Zentall, S., Harper, G., & Stormont-Spurgin, M. (1993). Children
with hyperactivity and their organizational abilities. Journal of
Educational Research, 87, 112–117.
Zwick, W.R., & Velicer, W.F. (1986). Comparison of five rules
for determining the number of components to retain. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 99, 432–442.
Stephen Houghton
Centre for Child and Adolescent Related Disorders
The University of Western Australia
Crawley
6009 Perth, Western Australia
Australia
E-mail stephen.houghton@uwa.edu.au
94 S. Houghton et al.: Sense of Time in ADHD
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2011; Vol. 27(2):88–94 © 2011 Hogrefe Publishing