Subtle executive impairment in children with autism and children with ADHD.
Spatial working memory is the single EF red flag that clearly splits both autism and ADHD from typical kids, so probe it early.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Hatton et al. (2005) compared three groups of kids: autism, ADHD, and neurotypical. They gave each child the same set of executive-function tasks.
The tasks tested spatial working memory, inhibition, planning, and set-shifting. No one got extra teaching or therapy — this was pure assessment.
What they found
Only spatial working memory clearly separated the groups. Kids with high-functioning autism scored lowest, then kids with ADHD, then typical peers.
On every other EF test — stop-signal, tower, card sorting — the clinical groups looked almost normal. The gap was hidden in one pocket: remembering where things were.
How this fits with other research
McGonigle-Chalmers et al. (2010) conceptually replicated the finding. They also saw EF trouble in both ASD and ADHD, but added that autistic kids had extra weakness in emotional control and planning.
Wang et al. (2018) extends the picture. They confirmed the spatial working memory split and showed total EF errors predict the deficit in autism, while set-maintenance failures predict it in ADHD. Same weakness, different engine.
Chiang et al. (2014) ties the lab result to real life. They showed that ADHD kids with poor spatial working memory get worse grades and more peer conflict, proving the score matters outside the clinic.
Why it matters
When you screen an autistic or ADHD client, add a quick spatial working memory probe — even if the rest of the EF profile looks fine. Targeting this one skill may protect academic and social performance later on.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Drop a 9-box spatial recall game into your next assessment and note the error pattern.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: The executive functions of inhibition, planning, flexible shifting of actions, and working memory are commonly reported to be impaired in neurodevelopmental disorders. METHOD: We compared these abilities in children (8-12 years) with high functioning autism (HFA, n = 17), attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD, n = 21) and healthy controls (n = 32). Response inhibition was assessed using the Stroop Color and Word Test (Golden, 1978). Problem solving, set-shifting, and nonverbal memory were assessed using three tasks, respectively, from the CANTAB (Cambridge Cognition, 1996): the Stockings of Cambridge task; the Intra-Dimensional/Extra-Dimensional set-shifting task; and the Spatial Working Memory task (SWM) with tokens hidden behind 3, 4, 6, and 8 boxes. RESULTS: There were no group differences on the response inhibition, planning, or set-shifting tasks. On the SWM task, children with HFA made significantly more between-search errors compared with controls on both the most difficult problems (8-box) and on the mid-difficulty problems (6-box); however, children with ADHD made significantly more errors compared to controls on the most difficult (8-box) problems only. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that spatial working memory is impaired in both ADHD and HFA, and more severely in the latter. More detailed investigation is needed to examine the mechanisms that differentially impair spatial working memory, but on this set of tasks there appears to be sparing of other executive functions in these neuropsychiatric developmental disorders.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2005 · doi:10.1007/s10803-005-3291-4