ADHD adolescents overestimate executive functioning skills

Journal of Attention Disorders
2017, Vol. 21(4) 316 –322
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1087054714530782
journals.sagepub.com/home/jad
Article
ADHD is one of the most common childhood neuropsy-
chological disorders, causing difficulties in academic,
social, emotional, and behavioral domains (Barkley, 1990;
LeFever, Villers, & Morrow, 2002; Pelham & Bender,
1982). Due to these problems, it was previously assumed
that children with ADHD would have lower self-confi-
dence than those without (Hoza & Pelham, 1995;
Slomkowski, Klein, & Mannuzza, 1995; Treuting &
Hinshaw, 2001). However, researchers have recently dis-
covered that children and adults with ADHD actually
appear to have a positive illusory bias (PIB) toward them-
selves, meaning that they tend to rate themselves as higher
functioning in social and academic situations than teach-
ers, parents, and peers rate them (see Owens, Goldfine,
Evangelista, Hoza, & Kaiser, 2007, for review). Similarly,
when comparing objective measures of these domains with
their self-reports, ADHD children’s self-perception is usu-
ally an overestimation of their actual performance (Hoza
et al., 2000; Hoza et al., 2001; Manor et al., 2012). This
phenomenon has been found in both genders (Hoza et al.,
2004) and different ADHD subtypes (Swanson, Owens, &
Hinshaw, 2012), and does not seem to improve in children

who have received stimulant medication (Ialongo et al.,
1994) and extensive behavioral therapy (Hoza et al., 2004).
There is much dispute as to whether these positive illu-
sions are adaptive or maladaptive in ADHD. Some studies
hypothesize that this positive illusion may be a protective
strategy to help individuals persist during challenges and
overcome frequent failures or setbacks (Diener & Milich,
1997; Hoza et al., 2004; Taylor & Brown, 1988). Contrary
to this notion though, ADHD children with PIBs still have
decreased motivation, persistence, and overall task perfor -
mance compared with those without the disorder (Owens et
al., 2007). Similarly, others argue that the positive illusions
may be caused by cognitive immaturity (Milich, 1994), and
will lead to poorer social skills and increased risk for nega -
tive outcomes later in life (Colvin, Block, & Funder, 1995;
Hoza et al., 2004). Overestimation of competence in ADHD
children is associated with increased aggression and less
prosocial behavior (Hoza et al., 2010; Linnea, Hoza, &
Tomb, 2012). Interestingly, McQuade et al. (2011) found
that in ADHD-Combined Type and Hyperactive/Impulsive
Type children, working memory, attention, and cognitive
fluency were more likely to be impaired in children who
530782 JADXXX10.1177/1087054714530782Journal of
Attention DisordersSteward et al.
research-article2014
1Austin Neuropsychology, PLLC, TX, USA
2University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Melissa Bunner, Austin Neuropsychology, PLLC, 711 W. 38th
St. F-2,
Austin, TX 78705, USA.

Email: [email protected]
Self-Awareness of Executive Functioning
Deficits in Adolescents With ADHD
Kayla A. Steward1,2, Alexander Tan1,2, Lauren Delgaty1,
Mitzi M. Gonzales2, and Melissa Bunner1,2
Abstract
Objective: Children with ADHD lack self-awareness of their
social and academic deficits, frequently rating themselves
more favorably than external sources. The purpose of the
current study was to assess whether adolescents with ADHD
also hold a positive bias toward their executive functioning
(EF). Method: Participants include 22 control and 35 ADHD
subjects, aged 11 to 16. Participants and their parents completed
the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning
(BRIEF) Self and Parent forms, respectively. Discrepancy
scores were calculated for each domain by subtracting the
adolescents’ T-score from the parents’ T-score. Results:
Discrepancy scores were significantly higher in the ADHD
group
than controls within the Inhibit, Shift, Monitor, Emotional
Control, Working Memory, and Plan/Organization domains (all
p < .05). Conclusion: As compared with controls, adolescents
with ADHD tend to endorse fewer EF difficulties than
what parents report. This is the first study to demonstrate that
those with ADHD may overestimate their EF ability. ( J. of
Att. Dis. 2017; 21(4) 316-322)
Keywords
adolescent ADHD, BRIEF, executive function, self-report
http://sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
http://DOI: 10.1177/1087054714530782
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/jad
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F10870547

14530782&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-05-05
Steward et al. 317
had positive illusions about their social competency relative
to those without a positive bias.
Despite the controversial question of whether PIBs are
beneficial or maladaptive, the fact that it exists in ADHD
children with regard to social, behavioral, and academic
functioning has been well documented. However, it has not
been looked at with regard to executive functioning (EF)
even though this is a major area of weakness in those wi th
the disorder (Barkley, 1997; Nigg, 2006). EF is a neuropsy-
chological term that refers to a variety of higher-order
thinking skills, such as planning, organization, attention,
working memory, and inhibition (Martel, Nikolas, & Nigg,
2007). Welsh and Pennington (1989, p. 201) defined the
construct as “the ability to maintain an appropriate problem
set for attainment of future goals.” EF is an important skill
for complex human behavior, and it has been found that
ADHD children with impaired EF have poorer academic
achievement and peer relationships (Biederman et al., 2004;
Diamantopoulou, Rydell, Thorell, & Bohlin, 2007). If chil -
dren and adolescents with ADHD have an inflated view of
their EF skills, it could limit their ability to insightfull y self-
regulate their behavior and might hinder their receptiveness
to behavioral interventions to improve their EF.
The current study seeks to fill gaps in the ADHD self-
perception and EF literature. This will be the first study to
examine how ADHD children view their EF ability in rela-
tion to their parents’ estimates. We hypothesize that adoles-
cents with ADHD will overestimate their EF ability more so
than controls when comparing their self-reports with parent

ratings.
Method
Participants
Participants between the ages of 11 and 16 years were
recruited using archival data from a private neuropsychol -
ogy clinic. In addition, a portion of the control participants
were recruited from the greater community after contacting
the clinic and completing a telephone screening to deter-
mine initial eligibility. Participants were included if they
were free of neurological disease (e.g., epilepsy, clinically
significant traumatic brain injury), major psychiatric illness
(e.g., depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder), and develop-
mental disorder (e.g., autism, mental retardation). To obtain
a sufficient sample size, participants with learning disabili -
ties (LDs) were not excluded from participation. LD inclu-
sion was limited to those with dyslexia (n = 9), dyscalcula
(n = 2), dysgraphia (n = 15), and LD−not otherwise speci -
fied (n = 4). For all participants, board-certified neuropsy-
chologists used information from patient and parent
interviews, developmental and family history question-
naires, and an extensive cognitive assessment battery to
make diagnoses of ADHD and any other disorders using the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994)
diagnostic criteria.
After obtaining written informed consent, the final sam-
ple consisted of 35 adolescents with diagnoses of ADHD
and 22 without an ADHD diagnosis. Of the ADHD children,
26 were diagnosed with Primary Inattentive subtype, 7 were
diagnosed with Combined subtype, and 2 were diagnosed
with ADHD−not otherwise specified. According to partici -

pants’ self-report, the ethnic distribution of the sample was
as follows: 86% Caucasian (n = 49), 4% Hispanic (n = 2),
2% African American (n = 1), and 9% Other/did not specify
(n = 5). All participants had a full-scale IQ (FSIQ) greater
than 80, as measured by the Weschsler Intelligence Scale for
Children-IV (WISC-IV) or the Weschler Abbreviated
Intelligence Scale-II (WASI-II; Wechsler, 2003, 2011).
Materials
The parent and self-report forms of the Behavior Rating
Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF; Gioia, Isquith,
Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000) were administered during the
clinical interview or delivered through the mail and returned
at the time of the neuropsychology testing appointment.
The BRIEF parent form (BRIEF-P) is an 86-item question-
naire that parents fill out based on their children’s behavior
over the past 6 months. Each question is a short statement
such as “Has a short attention span,” “Makes careless
errors,” or “Reacts more strongly to situations than other
children,” and the parent has to mark “never,” “sometimes,”
or “always.” The BRIEF self-report (BRIEF-SR) is simi-
larly designed, with 80 items that the child fills out about
their own behavior over the past 6 months. According to the
BRIEF manual, a fifth-grade reading level is sufficient to
complete the form. To ensure a thorough understanding of
the instructions and BRIEF questions, BRIEF-SRs were
completed in the presence of examiner or guardian. For
both forms, the BRIEF has been standardized and normed
for the use of boys and girls within the age range of our
sample, and for children with a variety of clinical diagnoses
including ADHD. In accordance with standard procedures,
normative data were separated by gender and age to derive
T-scores for the clinical scales (Inhibit, Shift, Emotional
Control, Working Memory, Plan/Organize, Organization
of Materials, and Monitor). These scales were combined

to form a Behavioral Regulation Index (BRI) and
Metacognition Index (MI), as well as a composite summary
score called the Global Executive Composite (GEC). With
the BRIEF, higher T-scores indicate more subjective
impairment.
According to Gioia et al. (2000), the BRIEF has an inter-
nal consistency ranging from .80 to .98, as assessed using
Cronbach’s alpha. Test−retest reliability statistics range
from .79 to .88 during a 2-week period. The BRIEF is also
reported to have good discriminant and convergent validity
with similar measures (McCandless & O’Laughlin, 2007).
318 Journal of Attention Disorders 21(4)
A discrepancy score for each clinical scale was calcu-
lated by subtracting the BRIEF-SR T-scores from the
BRIEF-P T-scores for each participant. Positive scores indi -
cate that the child reported fewer difficulties than parent
reports. A negative discrepancy score signifies that the
child reported more impairment than parent ratings. This
method of obtaining discrepancy scores has been com-
monly used when studying PIBs in an ADHD population
(Hoza et al., 2004; Hoza, Pelham, Dobbs, Owens, & Pillow,
2002; Owens et al., 2007).
Statistical Analyses
Group differences in the demographic variables were exam-
ined with non-parametric chi-square or independent sam-
ples t tests. The normality of standardized residuals for the
dependent variables was tested using Shapiro−Wilks tests
(all p > .05). Bootstrapping procedures were utilized when
parametric assumptions about the underlying distribution

were not fulfilled (model residuals with Shapiro−Wilks p <
.05). Group differences in the dependent variables were
assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with
gender used as a covariate. As a follow-up analysis, ADHD
medication (yes/no), the presence of a learning disorder
(yes/no), and WASI-II/WISC-IV FSIQ were added as addi-
tional covariates in the ANCOVA. To control for multiple
comparisons, a Sidak-adjusted alpha level of p < .027
was used.
Results
The demographic characteristics of the study sample are
shown in Table 1. Ethnicity distribution, χ2(4, N = 57) =
2.642, p = .62, and LD distribution, χ2(4, N = 57) = .695,
p = .41, in the ADHD and control groups was comparable.
There were also no significant differences in age, educa-
tion, and intelligence between the two groups. The only
variable that significantly differed between the two groups
was gender, χ2(1, N = 57) = 6.350, p = .01.
Discrepancy score group differences are shown in Figure 1
and Table 2. In the overall ANCOVA model (Table 3), dis-
crepancy scores for the BRIEF Inhibit, Shift, Emotional
Control, Monitor, Working Memory, Plan/Organization,
BRI, MI, and GEC domains were all significantly more
positive in the ADHD group as compared with the control
group (p < .027). ADHD had a significant main effect on
the Inhibit, Monitor, Working Memory, Plan/Organize, and
GEC domains (p < .027). Gender contributed significantly
to the Shift and BRI domains (p < .027), with males dis-
playing greater discrepancy scores than females. Group dif-
ferences in the discrepancy scores for the BRIEF
Organization of Materials domain did not reach statistical
significance (p > .027).

These relationships remained unchanged even after
additional adjustment for any potential effects of ADHD
medication, the presence of a learning disorder, or FSIQ.
Discussion
This study extends the literature on PIB in ADHD by being
the first to examine self-perception of EF. The results dem-
onstrate that, in comparison with age-matched controls,
adolescents with ADHD tend to over-inflate abilities rela-
tive to their parents’ reports within the domains of Working
Memory, Emotional Control, Attention and Behavior
Shifting, Inhibition of Behavior, Self-Monitoring, and
Planning and Organization of Future Events. Adolescents
with ADHD also displayed greater discrepancy scores on
the metacognition, behavioral regulation, and GEC
domains. In contrast to large parent−child discrepancies in
the ADHD group, the control group had only negligible or
slightly negative discrepancy scores, meaning that these
children rated themselves the same as or slightly more
impaired than what parents reported.
These findings support previous literature that has docu-
mented a PIB in ADHD children. Other studies have used
similar methodology and found that those with ADHD
overestimate academic and social functioning when com-
pared with mother, father, teacher, and peer reports, as well
as objective measures of these domains (Evangelista,
Owens, Golden, & Pelham, 2008; Hoza et al., 2004; Hoza
et al., 2002; Owens & Hoza, 2003). It is important to note
that the subjective nature of the parents’ reports elicit the
possibility that the large discrepancy scores may be in fact
Table 1. Participants’ Demographic Characteristics.

ADHD (n = 35) Control (n = 22) p value
Male/female (n) 26/9 9/13 .01*
Age (year) 12.91 ± 1.5 13.64 ± 1.6 .09
Education level (year) 7.49 ± 1.5 8.23 ± 1.8 .10
FSIQ 107.29 ± 14.0 106.82 ± 14.5 .90
On ADHD medication at time of testing (n) 12 1 —
LD diagnosis 15 7 .41
Note. Data are M ± SD; FSIQ = full-scale IQ; LD = learning
disability.
*Significant at p < .05.
Steward et al. 319
due to a tendency for parents of ADHD children to rate their
children in an excessively negative manner. We attempted
to control for this by excluding participants who had an
elevated Negativity validity scale on the BRIEF-P forms.
To definitively rule out the potential for inaccurate parent
reports, future studies should compare child self-reports
with objective measures of EF.
One of the strengths of this study is that it incorporated
both genders and assessed the contribution of gender to
self-awareness of deficits in those with ADHD. The major-
ity of previous studies have failed to include females, and
when they did, gender effects were not explored (Owens &
Hoza, 2003). The current study used gender as a covariate
and found that males are more likely to overestimate their
ability to shift their attention and behavior than females. As
the current study had significantly different gender ratios
between the ADHD and control groups, future studies
should incorporate more gender-balanced groups to further

assess the impact that gender may have on self-perception
of EF in an ADHD population.
Of note, discrepancy scores in the Organization of
Materials domain were not significantly different between
groups. There are several possible reasons that this was the
only domain to not reach significance. First, this domain
assesses the organization of the child’s environment, such
as the level of disorganization of their schoolbags and how
frequently they misplace items like homework. As these are
more external behaviors as opposed to the Plan/Organize
domain, which assesses organization on a more cognitive
level, it is probable that these difficulties are brought to the
child’s attention more frequently. This would likely create a
better sense of self-awareness of this particular area of dif-
ficulty. Secondly, this domain had a low number of ques-
tions in the parent and self-report forms; therefore, there is
-5
0
5
10
15
20
ADHD
Control
Figure 1. Mean discrepancy scores for each BRIEF domain.
Note. Discrepancy scores were calculated by subtracting self-

reported BRIEF T-scores from the parent T-scores. As larger T-
scores indicate more
subjective impairment, positive discrepancy scores indicate that
the parent reported more difficulties than the child did and vice
versa. All domain
discrepancy scores, except Organization of Materials, were
significantly (p < .027) more positive in the ADHD adolescents
compared with controls.
BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning.
Table 2. Discrepancy Scores for the BRIEF Questionnaire.
ADHD (n = 35) Control (n = 22)
Inhibit 11.23 ± 14.8 −2.54 ± 11.7
Shift 6.31 ± 16.8 0.72 ± 17.0
Emotional Control 4.45 ± 15.2 −3.09 ± 15.2
Monitor 17.06 ± 16.8 1.91 ± 15.8
Working Memory 14.29 ± 13.4 1.41 ± 16.2
Plan/Organize 13.5 ± 14.3 −0.64 ± 14.0
Organization of
Materials
5.54 ± 13.1 3.27 ± 12.7
Behavior
Regulation Index
9.00 ± 15.0 −1.82 ± 14.8
Metacognition
Index
11.54 ± 15.9 −0.46 ± 15.43
Global Executive

Composite
12.5 ± 15.6 −0.91 ± 15.7
Note. Data are M ± SD. BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of
Executive
Functioning.
a more restricted range of possible total scores. This makes
it more difficult for a difference in discrepancy scores to
become statistically significant, although there was a trend
in the predicted direction (see Figure 1).
Despite consistent evidence that children with ADHD lack
self-awareness of their deficits, it is still highly debated as to
why ADHD children overestimate their ability in so many
areas. Owens et al. (2007) discussed four potential explana-
tions for the PIB seen in ADHD children: neuropsychological
and frontal lobe deficits leading to mild anosognosia (Owens
& Hoza, 2003), an overall cognitive immaturity in ADHD
children (Milich, 1994), ignorance of incompetence in the self
and others (Hoza et al., 2002), and self-protection from per-
sonal failure (Ohan & Johnston, 2002). Very few studies have
directly tested any of these hypotheses in relation to ADHD
PIBs though, and this area of research remains divided on
actual causes for the positive biases seen in children. It is pos-
sible that these hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, and
one or more of them could contribute to the impaired self-
awareness of children and adolescents with ADHD.
There are many strengths to this study that allow it to
uniquely contribute to the field, such as the inclusion of

both genders and ADHD subtypes and the exclusion of
comorbid psychiatric and behavioral disorders; however,
there are also several limitations. The current study used a
relatively small sample size that was largely homogeneous
in terms of ethnicity. Future researchers should seek to
include a more characteristic and larger sample, as well as
expand to other age ranges to test developmental aspects of
EF PIB. Another limitation was the source of the control
group as some participants were selected from an archival
database at a private neuropsychology clinic. These partici -
pants had been previously referred to the clinic for suspi -
cions of neuropsychological impairment. Thus, it is possible
that the clinic-referred non-ADHD group had more impair-
ment than a control group of children not referred for clini -
cal services. In an attempt to lessen the impact from this
limitation, strict exclusion criteria was applied and only
those with no diagnoses of psychiatric, medical, neurologic,
and developmental disorders were enrolled. To further
address this limitation, control participants were addition-
ally recruited from the general community and required to
undergo a telephone screening prior to participation to rule
out suspicions of ADHD and other exclusionary criteria.
The findings of this study support the ADHD PIB
research and expand the number of documented domains
that ADHD children hold positive illusions about (Owens et
al., 2007). These results hold significance not only for other
researchers in the field, but also for caregivers and clini -
cians who provide EF treatment to adolescents with ADHD.
In populations with neurological injuries and psychiatric
disorders, impaired self-awareness has been found to lead
to low motivation and participation in rehabilitation efforts
(Katz, Fleming, Keren, Lightbody, & Hartman-Maeir,
2002; Lam, McMahon, Priddy, & Gehred-Schultz, 1988).
Similarly, if ADHD children do not believe they suffer

from EF impairment, they may be less receptive to treat-
ment for these deficits. Clinicians should be aware that an
EF PIB might exist in ADHD children and incorporate this
knowledge when providing therapy.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and
statis-
tical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC:
Author.
Barkley, R. A. (1990). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder:
A handbook for diagnosis and treatment. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Table 3. Results From ANCOVA Model Examining the Effects
of ADHD and Gender on BRIEF Domain Discrepancy Scores.
Overall model (F value) Overall model (p value) ADHD (p
value) Gender (p value)
Inhibit 9.599 .000* .006* .034
Shift 4.053 .023* .727 .014*
Emotional Control 3.584 .035* .269 .060

Monitor 5.844 .005* .004* .547
Working Memory 5.979 .005* .009* .262
Plan/Organize 6.657 .003* .002* .785
Organization of Materials 1.983 .148 .995 .066
Behavior Regulation Index 6.796 .002* .074 .019*
Metacognition Index 4.922 .011* .032 .177
Global Executive
Composite
7.245 .002* .020* .052
*Significant at p < .027. BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of
Executive Functioning.
Steward et al. 321
Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention
and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of
ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 65-94.
Biederman, J., Monuteaux, M., Doyle, A., Seidman, L., Wilens,
T., & Faraone, S. (2004). Impact of executive function defi -
cits and attention-deficit/hyperactive disorder (ADHD) on
academic outcomes in children. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 72, 757-766.
Colvin, C., Block, J., & Funder, D. (1995). Overly positive self-
evaluations and personality: Negative implications for men-
tal health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
1152-1162.
Diamantopoulou, S., Rydell, A., Thorell, L., & Bohlin, G.
(2007).
Impact of executive functioning and symptoms of attention

deficit hyperactivity disorder on children’s peer relations and
school performance. Developmental Neuropsychology, 32,
521-542.
Diener, M. B., & Milich, R. (1997). Effects of positive feedback
on the social interactions of boys with attention deficit hyper -
activity disorder: A test of the self-protective hypothesis.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 256-265.
Evangelista, N., Owens, J., Golden, C., & Pelham, W. (2008).
Positive illusory bias: Do inflated self-perceptions in children
with ADHD generalize to perceptions of others? Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 779-791.
Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L.
(2000).
Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Hoza, B., Gerdes, A. C., Hinshaw, S. P., Arnold, E. L., Pelham,
W.
E., Molina, B. S. G., . . .Wigal, T. (2004). Self-perceptions of
competence in children with ADHD and comparison children.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 382-391.
Hoza, B., Murray-Close, D., Arnold, L., Hinshaw, S., &
Hechtman,
L. (2010). Time-dependent changes in positively biased self-
perceptions of children with ADHD: A developmental psy-
chopathology persepective. Developmental Pscyhopathology,
22(2), 375-390.
Hoza, B., & Pelham, W. E. (1995). Social-cognitive predictors
of
treatment response in children with ADHD. Journal of Social
& Clinical Psychology, 14, 23-35.

Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Dobbs, J., Owens, J. S., & Pillow, D.
R. (2002). Do boys with attention deficit/hyperactivity disor -
der have positive illusory self-concepts? Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 111, 268-278.
Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Waschbusch, D. A., Kipp, H., &
Owens,
J. S. (2001). Academic task persistence of normally achieving
ADHD and control boys: Performance, self-evaluations, and
attributions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
69, 271-283.
Hoza, B., Waschbusch, D. A., Pelham, W. E., Molina, B. S. G.,
&
Milich, R. (2000). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disordered
and control boys’ responses to social success and failure.
Child Development, 71, 432-446.
Ialongo, N., Lopez, M., Horn, W., Pascoe, J., & Greenberg, G.
(1994). Effects of psychostimulant medication on self-
perceptions of competence, control, and mood in children with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 23, 161-173.
Katz, N., Fleming, J., Keren, N., Lightbody, S., & Hartman-
Maeir, A. (2002). Unawareness and/or denial of disability:
Implications for occupational therapy intervention. Canadian
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69, 281-292.
Lam, C., McMahon, B., Priddy, D., & Gehred-Schultz, A.
(1988).
Deficit awareness and treatment performance among trau-
matic head injury adults. Brain Injury, 2, 235-242.

LeFever, G. B., Villers, M. S., & Morrow, A. L. (2002).
Parental
perceptions of adverse educational outcomes among children
diagnosed and treated for ADHD: A call for improved school/
provider collaboration. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 63-71.
Linnea, K., Hoza, B., & Tomb, M. (2012). Does a positive bias
relate to social behavior in children with ADHD? Behavior
Therapy, 43, 82-875.
Manor, I., Vurembrandt, N., Rozen, S., Gevah, D., Weizman,
A., & Zalsman, G. (2012). Low self-awareness of ADHD in
adults using a Self-Report Screening Questionnaire. European
Psychiatry, 27, 314-320.
Martel, M., Nikolas, N., & Nigg, J. T. (2007). Executive func-
tioning in adolescents with ADHD. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 1437-1444.
McCandless, S., & O’Laughlin, L. (2007). Utility of the
behavior
rating inventory of executive function (BRIEF) in the diagno-
sis of ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 10, 381-389.
McQuade, J., Tomb, M., Hoza, B., Waschbusch, D., Hurt, E., &
Vaughn, A. (2011). Cognitive deficits and positively biased
self-perceptions in children with ADHD. Journal of Abnormal
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.
Nigg, J. T. (2006). What causes ADHD? Understanding what
goes

wrong and why. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ohan, J. L., & Johnston, C. (2002). Are the performance
overesti-
mates given by boys with ADHD self-protective? Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 31, 230-241.
Owens, J. S., Goldfine, M., Evangelista, N., Hoza, B., & Kaiser,
N. (2007). A critical review of self-perceptions and the posi-
tive illusory bias in children with ADHD. Clinical Child
Family Psychology Review, 10, 335-351.
Owens, J. S., & Hoza, B. (2003). The role of inattention and
hyperactivity/impulsivity in the positive illusory bias. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 680-691.
Pelham, W. E., & Bender, M. E. (1982). Peer relationships in
hyperactive children: Description, treatment. In K. D. Gadow
& I. Bialer (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral dis -
abilities (pp. 366-436). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Slomkowski, C., Klein, R. G., & Mannuzza, S. (1995). Is self-
esteem an important outcome in hyperactive children?
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23, 303-315.
Swanson, E., Owens, E., & Hinshaw, S. (2012). Is the positive
illusory bias illusory? Examining discrepant self-perceptions
of competence in girls with ADHD. Journal of Abnormal
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well -being:
A social psychological perspective on mental health.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Treuting, J. J., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2001). Depression and self-
esteem in boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder:

Associations with comorbid aggression and explanatory attri -
butional mechanisms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
29, 23-29.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–
Fourth edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of
Intelligence–
Second edition. San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson.
Welsh, M. C., & Pennington, B. F. (1989). Assessing frontal
lobe
functioning in children: Views from developmental psychol -
ogy. Developmental Neuropsychology, 4, 199-230.
Author Biographies
Kayla A. Steward, BS, is a psychometrist at Austin
Neuropsychology,
PLLC, and a research assistant at the University of Texas at
Austin.
Alexander Tan, BA, is a psychometrist at Austin
Neuropsychology,
PLLC, and a research assistant at the University of Texas at
Austin.
Lauren Delgaty, MA, is a former psychometrist at Austin
Neuropsychology, PLLC, and is now employed in North
Carolina.

Mitzi M. Gonzales, MA, is a doctoral candidate in clinical psy-
chology at the University of Texas at Austin.
Melissa Bunner, PhD, is a neuropsychologist at Austin
Neuropsychology, PLLC.
Export SummaryThis document was exported from Numbers.
Each table was converted to an Excel worksheet. All other
objects on each Numbers sheet were placed on separate
worksheets. Please be aware that formula calculations may
differ in Excel.Numbers Sheet NameNumbers Table NameExcel
Worksheet NameProjectATable 1ProjectAProjectBTable
1ProjectBProjectCTable 1ProjectCComparisonTable
1ComparisonCombined_EvaluateCapProjectsTable
1Combined_EvaluateCapProjects
ProjectAProject AMajor Equipment Purchase Purchasing
cost$10,000,000 Life of project in years8Reduction in cost per
year5%Salvage value$500,000 Required rate of
return8%DepreciationMACRS-7 yearsAnnual sales$20,000,000
Earlier Cost of sales (60% of sales)
Imported Author: Imported Author:
60% of Annual Sales i.e of 20 million
=C9*0.6$12,000,000 Tax rate25%Year012345678Purchasing
Cost$10,000,000 Annual Sales$20,000,000 $20,000,000
$20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000
$20,000,000 Cost of the goods sold
Cost of sales reducing by 5% per year for 8 years$11,000,000
$10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000
$5,000,000 $4,000,000 MACRS - 7 years
rates14.29%24.49%17.49%12.49%8.93%8.92%8.93%4.46%Ann
ual Depreciation$1,429,000 $2,449,000 $1,749,000 $1,249,000

$893,000 $892,000 $893,000 $446,000 Earnings before interest
and taxes (EBIT) / Gross Income
EBIT = Sales - Cost of Sales - Operating Expenses
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/ebit.asp$7,571,000
$7,551,000 $9,251,000 $10,751,000 $12,107,000 $13,108,000
$14,107,000 $15,554,000 Taxes (25%) / Income Taxes
EBIT * Tax rate of 25%$ 1,892,750$ 1,887,750$ 2,312,750$
2,687,750$ 3,026,750$ 3,277,000$ 3,526,750$
3,888,500Earnings after taxes / Net Income
EBIT - Taxes
$5,678,250 $5,663,250 $6,938,250 $8,063,250 $9,080,250
$9,831,000 $10,580,250 $11,665,500 Add
Depreciation$1,429,000 $2,449,000 $1,749,000 $1,249,000
$893,000 $892,000 $893,000 $446,000 Add: After tax salvage
value
Salvage value on 8th year - (Salvage Value * Tax rate 25%)
=C9*0.6$375,000 Cash Flows($10,000,000)$7,107,250
$8,112,250 $8,687,250 $9,312,250 $9,973,250 $10,723,000
$11,473,250 $12,486,500 Cummulative Cash
Flows($10,000,000)($2,892,750)$5,219,500 $13,906,750
$23,219,000 $33,192,250 $43,915,250 $55,388,500 $67,875,000
Present Value factor (8%)

PV
https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/what-is-the-present-
value-factor.html
100%0.930.860.790.740.680.630.580.54Present value of cash
flows
Ref:
Bradford, R.S.W.R.J.J. J. (2017). Corporate Finance: Core
Principles and Applications. [Capella]. Retrieved from
https://capella.vitalsource.com/#/books/1260384357/
Page 115 (Ch4), 197 (Ch7)
Cost of sales reducing by 5% per year for 8
years($10,000,000)$6,580,787 $6,954,947 $6,896,219
$6,844,782 $6,787,626 $6,757,309 $6,694,531 $6,746,067
Present value of cash inflows$54,262,269 Present value cash
outflows$10,000,000 Net present value = Present value of cash
inflows - Present value of cash outflows$44,262,269 NPV
Formula:$44,262,269 Internal rate of return
(IRR)IRR:79.79%Payback period
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/051315/how -do-you-
calculate-payback-period-using-excel.asp
https://www.elearnmarkets.com/blog/calculation-of-payback-
period/1.36profitability Index (PI) + present value of cash
inflows/ present value of cash outflows5.43
&"Helvetica Neue,Regular"&12&K000000&P
ProjectB Project B: Expansion Into Three Additional States
Expansion Into Three Additional States Start up Cost$7,000,000
Life of a project in years5Annual Depreciation (using

straightline)
Using straight line depreciation
Annual Depreciation= (Asset Cost - Salvage Value)/Asset Life
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/acco
unting/straight-line-depreciation/$1,400,000 Net working
capital$1,000,000 Required rate of Return12%Earlier annual
sales$20,000,000 Earlier Cost of sales (60% of
sales)$12,000,000 Increase in sales and revenue per
year10%Tax rate25%Year012345Purchasing Cost$7,000,000
Annual Sales$22,000,000 $24,200,000 $26,620,000 $29,282,000
$32,210,200 Cost of goods sold$13,200,000 $14,520,000
$15,972,000 $17,569,200 $19,326,120 Annual
Depreciation$1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000
$1,400,000 Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT)$7,400,000
$8,280,000 $9,248,000 $10,312,800 $11,484,080 Tax
(30%)$1,850,000 $2,070,000 $2,312,000 $2,578,200 $2,871,020
Earnings after tax$5,550,000 $6,210,000 $6,936,000 $7,734,600
$8,613,060 Plus Depreciation$1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000
$1,400,000 $1,400,000 Net working
capital($1,000,000)$1,000,000 Cash
flows($8,000,000)$6,950,000 $7,610,000 $8,336,000
flows($8,000,000)($1,050,000)$6,560,000 $14,896,000
$24,030,600 $35,043,660 Present value factor
(12%)1.000.890.800.710.640.57Present value of cash
flows($8,000,000)$6,205,357 $6,066,645 $5,933,400
$5,805,203 $6,249,106 Present value of cash
inflows$30,259,712 Present Value of Cash outflows$8,000,000
Net Present Value = Present Value of cash inflows - Present
Value of cash outflows$22,259,712 NPV Formula:$22,259,712
Internal rate of returnIRR:91.48%payback
period1.14Profitability Index (PI)3.78

ProjectCProject CMarketuing/ Advertising CampaignAnnual
cost$2,000,000 Life of project in years6Required rate of
return10%Earlier Annual sales $20,000,000 Earlier Cost of
Sales (60% of sales)$12,000,000 Increase in sales and revenue
per year15%Tax rate25%Year0123456Marketing / Advertising
cost$2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
$2,000,000 Present value of Annual marketing cost$8,710,521
Annual sales$23,000,000 $26,450,000 $30,417,500 $34,980,125
$40,227,144 $46,261,215 Cost of the Goods sold$13,800,000
$15,870,000 $18,250,500 $20,988,075 $24,136,286 $27,756,729
Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT)$9,200,000
$10,580,000 $12,167,000 $13,992,050 $16,090,858 $18,504,486
Taxes (25%)$2,300,000 $2,645,000 $3,041,750 $3,498,013
$4,022,714 $4,626,122 Earnings after taxes$6,900,000
$7,935,000 $9,125,250 $10,494,038 $12,068,143 $13,878,365
Cash Flows($8,710,521)$6,900,000 $7,935,000 $9,125,250
$10,494,038 $12,068,143 $13,878,365 Present value factor
(10%)1.000.910.830.750.680.620.56Present value of cash
flows($8,710,521)$6,272,727 $6,557,851 $6,855,935
$7,167,569 $7,493,367 $7,833,975 Cummulative Cash
flows($8,710,521)($1,810,521)$6,124,479 $15,249,729
$25,743,766 $37,811,909 $51,690,274 Present value of cash
inflows$42,181,425 Present value of cash outflows$8,710,521
value of cash outflows$33,470,904 NPV Formula:$33,470,904
internal rate of returnIRR:90.36%Payback
periodd1.23Profitability Index (PI) = present value of cash
inflows/ present value of cash outflows4.84
ComparisonProjectsNet Present ValuePayback
PeriodProfitability IndexInternal Rate of ReturnProject A:
Major Equipment Purchase$44,262,268.65
1.365.4379.79%Project B: Expansion Three Additional States

$22,259,712.14 1.143.7891.48%Project C: Marketing or
Advertising Campaign$33,470,903.72 1.234.8490.36%
Combined_EvaluateCapProjectsProject AMajor Equipment
Purchase Purchasing cost$10,000,000 Life of project in
years8Reduction in cost per year5%Salvage value$500,000
Required rate of return8%DepreciationMACRS-7 yearsAnnual
sales$20,000,000 Earlier Cost of sales (60% of sales)
=C9*0.6$12,000,000 Tax rate25%Year012345678Purchasing
Cost$10,000,000 Annual Sales$20,000,000 $20,000,000
$20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000
$20,000,000 Cost of the goods sold
Cost of sales reducing by 5% per year for 8 years$11,000,000
$10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000
$5,000,000 $4,000,000 MACRS - 7 years
rates14.29%24.49%17.49%12.49%8.93%8.92%8.93%4.46%Ann
ual Depreciation$1,429,000 $2,449,000 $1,749,000 $1,249,000
$893,000 $892,000 $893,000 $446,000 Earnings before interest
and taxes (EBIT) / Gross Income
EBIT = Sales - Cost of Sales - Operating Expenses
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/ebit.asp$7,571,000
$7,551,000 $9,251,000 $10,751,000 $12,107,000 $13,108,000
$14,107,000 $15,554,000 Taxes (25%) / Income Taxes
EBIT * Tax rate of 25%$ 1,892,750$ 1,887,750$ 2,312,750$
2,687,750$ 3,026,750$ 3,277,000$ 3,526,750$

3,888,500Earnings after taxes / Net Income
EBIT - Taxes
$5,678,250 $5,663,250 $6,938,250 $8,063,250 $9,080,250
$9,831,000 $10,580,250 $11,665,500 Add
Depreciation$1,429,000 $2,449,000 $1,749,000 $1,249,000
$893,000 $892,000 $893,000 $446,000 Add: After tax salvage
value
Salvage value on 8th year - (Salvage Value * Tax rate 25%)
$375,000 Cash Flows($10,000,000)$7,107,250 $8,112,250
$8,687,250 $9,312,250 $9,973,250 $10,723,000 $11,473,250
$12,486,500 Cummulative Cash
Flows($10,000,000)($2,892,750)$5,219,500 $13,906,750
$23,219,000 $33,192,250 $43,915,250 $55,388,500 $67,875,000
Present Value factor (8%)
PV
value-factor.html
100%0.930.860.790.740.680.630.580.54Present value of cash
flows
Ref:
Page 115 (Ch4), 197 (Ch7)($10,000,000)$6,580,787 $6,954,947
$6,896,219 $6,844,782 $6,787,626 $6,757,309 $6,694,531
$6,746,067 Present value of cash inflows$54,262,269 Present
value cash outflows$10,000,000 Net present value = Present
value of cash inflows - Present value of cash

outflows$44,262,269 NPV Formula:$44,262,269 Internal rate of
return (IRR)IRR:79.79%Payback period
period/1.36profitability Index (PI) + present value of cash
inflows/ present value of cash outflows5.43Project BExpansion
into EuropeStart up Cost$7,000,000 Life of a project in
years5Annual Depreciation (using straightline)
Using straight line depreciation
Annual Depreciation= (Asset Cost - Salvage Value)/Asset Life
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/acco
unting/straight-line-depreciation/
=C9*0.6
PV
value-factor.html
Ref:

Page 115 (Ch4), 197 (Ch7)
Cost of sales reducing by 5% per year for 8 years
period/$1,400,000 Net working capital$1,000,000 Required rate
of Return12%Earlier annual sales$20,000,000 Earlier Cost of
sales (60% of sales)$12,000,000 Increase in sales and revenue
per year10%Tax rate30%Year012345Purchasing Cost$7,000,000
Annual Sales$22,000,000 $24,200,000 $26,620,000 $29,282,000
$32,210,200 Cost of goods sold$13,200,000 $14,520,000
$15,972,000 $17,569,200 $19,326,120 Annual
Depreciation$1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000
$1,400,000 Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT)$7,400,000
$8,280,000 $9,248,000 $10,312,800 $11,484,080 Tax
(30%)$2,220,000 $2,484,000 $2,774,400 $3,093,840 $3,445,224
Earnings after tax$5,180,000 $5,796,000 $6,473,600 $7,218,960
$8,038,856 Plus Depreciation$1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000
$1,400,000 $1,400,000 Net working
capital($1,000,000)$1,000,000 Cash
flows($8,000,000)$6,580,000 $7,196,000 $7,873,600
flows($8,000,000)($1,420,000)$5,776,000 $13,649,600
$22,268,560 $32,707,416 Present value factor
(12%)1.000.890.800.710.640.57Present value of cash
flows($8,000,000)$5,875,000 $5,736,607 $5,604,273
$5,477,505 $5,923,287 Present value of cash
inflows$28,616,672 Present Value of Cash outflows$8,000,000
Value of cash outflows$20,616,672 NPV Formula:$20,616,672

Internal rate of returnIRR:86.34%payback
period1.20Profitability Index (PI)3.58Project CMarketuing/
Advertising CampaignAnnual cost$2,000,000 Life of project in
years6Required rate of return10%Earlier Annual sales
$20,000,000 Earlier Cost of Sales (60% of sales)$12,000,000
Increase in sales and revenue per year15%Tax
rate25%Year0123456Marketing / Advertising cost$2,000,000
$2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Present value of Annual marketing cost$8,710,521 Annual
sales$23,000,000 $26,450,000 $30,417,500 $34,980,125
$40,227,144 $46,261,215 Cost of the Goods sold$13,800,000
$15,870,000 $18,250,500 $20,988,075 $24,136,286 $27,756,729
Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT)$9,200,000
$10,580,000 $12,167,000 $13,992,050 $16,090,858 $18,504,486
Taxes (25%)$2,300,000 $2,645,000 $3,041,750 $3,498,013
$4,022,714 $4,626,122 Earnings after taxes$6,900,000
$7,935,000 $9,125,250 $10,494,038 $12,068,143 $13,878,365
Cash Flows($8,710,521)$6,900,000 $7,935,000 $9,125,250
$10,494,038 $12,068,143 $13,878,365 Present value factor
(10%)1.000.910.830.750.680.620.56Present value of cash
flows($8,710,521)$6,272,727 $6,557,851 $6,855,935
$7,167,569 $7,493,367 $7,833,975 Cummulative Cash
flows($8,710,521)($1,810,521)$6,124,479 $15,249,729
$25,743,766 $37,811,909 $51,690,274 Present value of cash
inflows$42,181,425 Present value of cash outflows$8,710,521
value of cash outflows$33,470,904 NPV Formula:$33,470,904
internal rate of returnIRR:90.36%Payback
periodd1.23Profitability Index (PI) = present value of cash
inflows/ present value of cash outflows4.84ProjectsNet Present
ValuePayback PeriodProfitability IndexInternal Rate of
ReturnProject A: Major Equipment Purchase$44,262,268.65
1.365.4379.79%Project B: Expansion into
Europe$20,616,672.24 1.203.5886.34%Project C: Marketing or
Advertising Campaign$33,470,903.72 1.234.8490.36%

The following resources may be useful in learning about time
value of money (TVM) and
how to calculate TVM in Excel:
• Alexander, M., & Kusleika, D. (2016). Excel 2016 formulas.
John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
• You will find explanations on using Excel to calculate
financials in these
chapters:
▪ Chapter 11, "Borrowing and Investing Formulas."
▪ Chapter 12, "Discounting and Depreciation Formulas."
▪ Chapter 13, "Financial Schedules."
• Ross, S. A., Westerfield, R. W., Jaffe, J. F., & Jordan, B. D.
(2021). Corporate
finance: Core principles and applications (6th ed.). McGraw-
Hill. Available in the
courseroom via the VitalSource Bookshelf link.
• Chapter 4, "Discounted Cash Flow Valuation," pages 82-128.
• Schmidt, C. E. (2016). A journey through time: From the
present value to the
future value and back or: Retirement planning: A
comprehensible application of
the time value of money concept. American Journal of Business
Education, 9(3),
137-143.
• Time Value of Money | Transcript.

• This presentation discusses the components that make up time
value of
money. The presenter also provides examples to compute and
read the
computations.
• Mayes, T. R. (n.d.). Microsoft Excel as a financial calculator
part I. http://
www.tvmcalcs.com/index.php/calculators/excel_tvm_functions/
excel_tvm_functions_page1/
• Skillsoft. (n.d.). Financial statement analysis for non-financial
professionals.
• Go to the Analyzing the Financial Statement section in the
Table of
Contents menu, and select The Time Value of Money.
• Seeking Alpha. (2016, March 28). Does Warren Buffett use
discounted cash
flow? https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/5969741-the-value-
pendulum/4868716-
warren-buffett-use-discounted-cash-flow
(2021). Corporate
• Chapter 4, "Discounted Cash Flow Valuation," pages 82-128.
(2021). Corporate

• Chapter 6, "Stock Valuation," pages 164-193. Find out how
the valuation
of these securities determines the ultimate value of the entire
enterprise.
• Edspira. (n.d.). Capital stock (common stock and preferred
stock) [Video] |
Transcript https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ2uWgtQXBo
• TheFinCoach. (2012). Session 08: Objective 1 - common stock
valuation [Video]
| Transcript https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uajW4BWh_zY
https://ebookcentral-proquest-
com.library.capella.edu/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=420584
3#
http://library.capella.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.p
roquest.com%2Fdocview%2F1804900771%3Faccountid%3D279
65
65
65
http://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/NPL7304/Ti meValue/wra
pper.asp
http://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/NPL7304/TimeValue/tran
script.html
http://www.tvmcalcs.com/index.php/calculators/excel_tvm_func
tions/excel_tvm_functions_page1/
https://capella.skillport.com/skillportfe/custom/login/saml/login
.action?courseaction=launch&assetid=fin_08_a04_bs_enus

https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/5969741-the-value-
pendulum/4868716-warren-buffett-use-discounted-cash-flow
https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/5969741-the-value-
pendulum/4868716-warren-buffett-use-discounted-cash-flow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ2uWgtQXBo
http://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/MBA-
FPX5014/transcripts/CapitalStock_transcript.asp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uajW4BWh_zY
http://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/MBA-
FPX5014/transcripts/Session8Obj1_transcript.html
• Harper, D. (2018, February 18). Forces that move stock prices.
https://
www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/04/100804.asp
(2021). Corporate
• Chapter 5, "Interest Rates and Bond Valuation," pages 129-
163. This
chapter illustrates the employment of time value of money
concepts to
determine the value of corporate debt/bonds and
common/preferred stock.
• McCracken, M. (n.d.). Bond valuation [Video] | Transcript
http://
www.teachmefinance.com/bondvaluation.html
(2021). Corporate
finance: Core principles and applications (6th ed.). McGraw -

• Chapter 7, "Net Present Value and Other Investment Rules,"
pages
194-228. This chapter introduces the process of capital
budgeting, which
determines the value of a potential investment/project to a firm.
That is, it
weeds out good investments from the bad. Evaluating capital
budget
projects is a critical function for any business professional
involved with
finance decisions.
• Chapter 8, "Making Capital Investment Decisions," pages 229-
261. The
key to valuation of investments and projects is the cash they
generate.
This chapter illustrates the way to figure the all-important cash
flows from
investment projects.
• Van Dalsem, S. (2017). Capital budgeting cash flows tutorial
[Video] | Transcript
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6HvKl__rLY&t=19s
• View the segment, 12:36-27:36.
• Nockolas, S. (2015). How do you calculate payback period
using Excel? https://
www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/051315/how-do-you-
calculate-payback-
period-using-excel.asp

(2021). Corporate
finance: Core principles and applications (6th ed.). McGraw -
• Chapter 9, "Risk Analysis, Real Options, and Capital
Budgeting," pages
262-286. The concept of risk is introduced in this chapter. Risk
is an
important aspect of business and investment, and the impact of
risk needs
to be measured on all capital projects.
• Sham, G. (n.d.). Capital budgeting: Wrapping it all up. https://
www.investopedia.com/university/capital-
budgeting/conclusion.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/04/100804.asp
http://www.teachmefinance.com/bondvaluation.html
https://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/MBA-
FPX5014/transcripts/BondValuation.asp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6HvKl__rLY&t=19s
https://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/MBA-
FPX5014/transcripts/CapitalBudgetingCashFlows_transcript.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/051315/how-do-you-
https://www.investopedia.com/university/capital-
budgeting/conclusion.asp

ADHD adolescents overestimate executive functioning skills

ADHD adolescents overestimate executive functioning skills

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ADHD adolescents overestimate executive functioning skills

Similar to ADHD adolescents overestimate executive functioning skills (20)

More from TatianaMajor22

More from TatianaMajor22 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ADHD adolescents overestimate executive functioning skills