Assessment & Research

Can the Stroop Test be useful in differentiating specific learning disorder from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in medication-free children?

Güler et al. (2025) · Research in developmental disabilities 2025
★ The Verdict

Stroop section-5 time or one error offers a quick, modest signal that an ADHD child may also have SLD.

✓ Read this if BCBAs doing school assessments for kids with known or suspected ADHD.
✗ Skip if Clinicians who already use full neuropsych batteries or Vineland-II.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Kaya et al. (2025) gave the Stroop Test to kids with ADHD. Some also had a specific learning disorder (SLD). All kids were off medication.

The team timed section 5 and counted errors. They wanted cut-off scores that could flag SLD inside an ADHD group.

02

What they found

Kids who had both ADHD and SLD took longer or made more errors on section 5. A time of 42 seconds or one error gave modest accuracy.

Sensitivity was 62–64 %. Specificity was 61–66 %. The test is not perfect, but it gives a quick clue.

03

How this fits with other research

Balboni et al. (2017) used Vineland-II daily-living items to split ADHD from SLD with 87.5 % accuracy. Their cut-offs were stronger, but needed parent interviews and more time.

Efstratopoulou et al. (2012) tried a motor checklist. It split ADHD from conduct or autism, yet it could not pull out learning disabilities. The Stroop adds a cognitive layer that motor ratings miss.

Tullo et al. (2023) tracked kids on a moving-objects screen. Like Ali, they saw flat learning slopes for ADHD and SLD. Both studies show brief lab tasks can spotlight different processing styles.

04

Why it matters

You now have a 60-second pencil-and-paper tool. If a child already has an ADHD diagnosis, a section-5 time over 42 s or any error nudges you to screen further for SLD. Pair the result with academic data; do not rely on it alone.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Time the child on Stroop section 5; if score tops 42 s or any error, add an SLD checklist to your assessment plan.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
quasi experimental
Sample size
79
Population
adhd, mixed clinical
Finding
positive
Magnitude
small

03Original abstract

INTRODUCTION: Specific learning disorder (SLD) is a significant comorbidity in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Identifying SLD in patients with ADHD is crucial because individualized educational interventions are the primary treatment for SLD. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of the Stroop Test (ST) in differentiating SLD from ADHD. METHODS: A total of 79 patients (42 with ADHD and 37 with ADHD and SLD) participated in the study. ST performance metrics (completion time, errors, and corrections) were collected by a child and adolescent psychiatrist. Additionally, parents completed the Turgay Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ADHD Rating Scale to assess the severity of ADHD symptoms. RESULTS: The ADHD+SLD group exhibited longer completion times across all sections of the ST. Errors in the third, fourth, and fifth sections were significantly higher in the ADHD+SLD group. After adjusting for age, gender, and ADHD symptom severity, the completion time in the fifth section remained significant. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis identified cut-off scores for the fifth section's completion time (42 seconds; sensitivity: 0.62, specificity: 0.66) and errors (1 error; sensitivity: 0.64, specificity: 0.61). Moreover, errors in the fifth section predicted being in the ADHD+SLD group (p = .006, odds ratio [OR] = 1.527). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the ST may be a valuable tool for diagnosing SLD in patients with ADHD. In particular, the completion time and errors in the fifth section of the ST may serve as useful tools in supporting the diagnostic process.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2025 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2025.105021