Anne Fleur Kortekaas-Rijlaarsdam

CHAPTER 2 46 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 (Forness et al., 1991) 55 9.4 (1.5) Within subject design comparing placebo to one fixed dose (1.0 mg/kg) No Reading accuracy Barnell Loft 3,4,6,7,8,9 Yes (Pelham, Vodde-Hamilton, Murphy, Greenstein, & Vallano, 1991) 17 9.48 (1.0) Within subject design comparing placebo to one fixed dose (0.3 mg/kg) No Math accuracy Reading accuracy Reading number attempted Mad Minute, Barnell Loft 1,2,3,4,6,8,9,11,12,13,14 Yes, with MPH compared to placebo on-task behavior increased with 10.6% (Pelham Jr. et al., 1990) 22 10.39 (1.4) Within subject design comparing placebo to one fixed dose (20 mg.) No Reading accuracy Reading number attempted Barnell Loft 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,11,12,13,14 Yes, with MPH compared to placebo on-task behavior increased with 10.0% (Barkley, McMurray, Edelbrock, & Robbins, 1989) 71 8.25 (2.2) Within subject design comparing placebo to two fixed doses (0.3 and 0.5 mg/ kg) Yes, 0.5 mg/ kg most effective for math accuracy Math accuracy RAS math 3,4,8,9,12 Yes (Pelham Jr. et al., 1989) 24 9. 1 (1.8) Within subject design comparing placebo to one fixed dose (0.3 mg/kg) No Math accuracy Reading accuracy Reading number attempted Mad Minute, Barnell Loft 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,13,14 Yes, with MPH compared to placebo on-task behavior increased with 2.9% (Barkley, Fischer, Newby, & Breen, 1988) 23 8.5 (2.3) Within subject design comparing placebo to two fixed doses (0.3 and 0.5 mg/ kg) No Math accuracy RAS math 1,2,3,4,8,9,12 Yes (Douglas, Barr, Amin, O’Neill, & Britton, 1988) 19 8.7 (1.5) Within subject design comparing placebo to three fixed doses (0.15, 0.3 and 0.6 mg/kg) Yes, 0.15 mg/ kg most effective for math accuracy and 0.6 mg/kg most effective for math productivity Math accuracy Math productivity Math sheet 3,4,5,8,10 Yes Supplementary material Table E2.1 Continued