Anne Fleur Kortekaas-Rijlaarsdam

CHAPTER 2 44 Author, year N Mean age (SD) Design Titration on academic outcome? Relevant academic measures Academic tasks Mediators and moderators Included in meta-analysis If not: reason and results (Silva et al., 2005) 36 9.4 (1.9) Within subject design comparing placebo to four fixed doses (18, 20, 36, 40 mg.) Yes, 40 mg. most effective for math accuracy and productivity Math accuracy Math productivity PERMP 2,3,4,5,8,9,10,11,12 Yes (Dopfner et al., 2004) 79 10.0 (1.6) Within subject design comparing placebo to clinically titrated dosage (avg. dose 21 mg.) No Math accuracy Math productivity PERMP 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12 Yes (Swanson et al., 2004) 174 9.6 (1.8) Within subject design comparing placebo to clinically titrated dosage (avg. dose unknown) No Math items correct PERMP No exact values not available Results: MPH improved number of math items completed correctly (Quinn et al., 2004) 31 n.a. (range 6-12) Within subject design comparing placebo to three fixed doses (5, 10 and 20 mg.) Yes, 10 mg. most effective for math accuracy Math accuracy Math sheet 2,4,5,6,8,9,10 Yes (Wigal et al., 2004)** 42 (PLA) 46 (MPH) 9.7 (n.a.) Between subject design comparing placebo to clinically titrated dosage (avg. dose 32.1 mg.) No Math productivity Math sheet 3,4,5,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 Yes (Lopez, Silva, Pestreich, & Muniz, 2003) 36 9.0 (1.7) Within subject design comparing placebo to four fixed doses (18, 20, 36, 40 mg.) Yes, 20 mg. most effective for math correct and attempted Math number correct Math number attempted No: exact values not available Results: MPH improved (1) number of math items completed correctly and (2) math number attempted (Swanson et al., 2003) 23 9.9 (n.a.) Within subject design comparing placebo to clinically titrated dosage (avg. dose 28.9 mg.) No Math accuracy Math number attempted PERMP No: exact values not available Results: MPH improved (1) math accuracy and (2) math number attempted Supplementary material Table E2.1 Continued