Dorien Bangma

168 | CHAPTER 7 impaired (i.e., more than 2.0 SD below the mean) on the FCAI and 28.9% of the adults with ADHD showed a low performance (i.e., between 1.5 and 2.0 SD below the mean) on this measure. Less than half of the adults with ADHD (i.e., 44.4%) could be considered as normal or unimpaired (i.e., scoring less than 1.5 SD below the mean) on the FCAI. On the FDMI, 71.1% of the adults with ADHD showed a normal performance; 20.0% of the adults with ADHD had a low performance on the FDMI, while 8.9% of the adults with ADHD could be classified as impaired on this measure. Regarding the CDR, the performance of almost all adults with ADHD (i.e., 95.6%) could be classified as normal; two adults with ADHD showed either a low and very low/impaired performance. On the IBQ only one adult with ADHD (i.e., 2.2%) could be classified as very low/impaired. On the IGT none of the adults with ADHD could be classified as very low/impaired and of the adults with ADHD only one (i.e., 2.2%) and three (i.e., 7.0%) showed a low performance on the IBQ and IGT, respectively. On the TDT, the performances of 22.2% adults with ADHD were classified as very low/impaired. The performance of one other adult with ADHD was classified as low. All other adults with ADHD (i.e., 75.6%) showed a normal performance on the TDT. In contrast, normal performances on measures of FDM were obtained by healthy controls in more than 90% of the cases (Table 7.4). When taking the FDM tests together, one out of three adults with ADHD (i.e., 34.2%) showed a normal performance on all measures of FDM. However, 36.8% adults with ADHD showed a very low/impaired performance and an additional 28.9% showed a low performance on one or more FDM tests. This is twice as often as in healthy controls (i.e., 19.6% and 7.8% of the healthy controls showed a very low/impaired or low performance, respectively, on one or more FDM tests). FDM and cognition The group difference regarding the FCAI total score was significantly associated with numeracy (WAIS-IV Arithmetic; Figure 7.1 – path ab). Significant associations were also found between numeracy and group differences regarding FCAI subscales (with the exception of Financial abilities) and the FDMI total score. The group differences for all these measures of FDM (Figure 7.1 - path c’), however, remained significant (p < .010). This indicates that the differences between adults with ADHD and healthy controls on the FCAI and FDMI can only partly be explained by numeracy. No significant effects of numeracy were found for the other measures of FDM nor for vigilance (WAFV reaction time) and interference (STROOP interference; Table 7.5). Students Since a large group of students (n =37) was excluded from the current study, we repeated the group comparisons with regard to cognitive functioning, personal financial situation and FDM performance with the samples including the 37 students. This analysis revealed that group differences concerning annual gross income and the amount of money that could be spent freely were no longer significant. All other results were similar to the results of the analyses excluding students (appendices 7-2 to 7-5).