Re-visiting the 'mysterious myth of attention deficit': A systematic review of the recent evidence.
Attention in ID is not globally impaired—compare scores to mental age, not birth age.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Waldron et al. (2023) pulled every recent paper on attention in people with Down syndrome or other intellectual disabilities.
They lined up the scores against each person’s mental age, not birth age.
The goal: see if the old claim “all ID means attention deficit” still holds.
What they found
Attention was not broken across the board.
Some groups looked “inattentive” only when judged by their birth age; against their mental age they were on track.
The review says we must test the child’s true developmental level before we label.
How this fits with other research
Older single studies seemed to clash. Sisson et al. (1993) and Lancioni et al. (2009) both reported clear attention gaps, but they used chronological-age controls.
The new review shows those gaps shrink once mental age is held constant—so the papers don’t contradict; they just needed a fair yardstick.
Bigham et al. (2013) found parent checklists cried “ADHD” while lab tasks showed nothing; the review backs that story—expect false alarms if you ignore developmental age.
Matson et al. (2011) saw ADHD last longer in kids with ID; the review keeps that fact but adds “check mental age first” so you don’t over-count symptoms.
Why it matters
Next time you assess attention in a child with ID, plot scores against mental-age norms, not grade-level ones.
This simple switch can keep you from writing “ADHD” in a report when the real issue is developmental pace.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Re-score last week’s attention data using mental-age norms and note any label changes.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Based on the inclusive and methodologically rigorous framework provided by Ed Zigler's developmental approach, we previously challenged what we called, 'the mysterious myth of attention deficit', the fallacy of attention as a universal deficit among persons with intellectual disability (ID). In this latest update, we conducted a systematic review of studies of essential components of attention among persons with ID published in the interim since the last iteration of the mysterious myth narrative was submitted for publication approximately a decade ago. We searched the databases PubMed and PsycINFO for English-language peer-reviewed studies published from 1 January 2011 through 5 February 2021. In keeping with the developmental approach, the two essential methodological criteria were that the groups of persons with ID were aetiologically homogeneous and that the comparisons with persons with average IQs (or with available norms) were based on an appropriate index of developmental level, or mental age. Stringent use of these criteria for inclusion served to control for bias in article selection. Articles were then categorised based on aetiological group studied and component of visual attention. Based on these criteria, 18 articles were selected for inclusion out of the 2837 that were identified. The included studies involved 547 participants: 201 participants with Down syndrome, 214 participants with Williams syndrome and 132 participants with fragile X syndrome. The findings from these articles call attention to the complexities and nuances in understanding attentional functioning across homogeneous aetiological groups and highlight that functioning must be considered in relation to aetiology; factors associated with the individual, such as developmental level, motivation, styles and biases; and factors associated with both the task, such as context, focus, social and emotional implications, and levels of environmental complexity.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2023 · doi:10.1111/jir.12994