Skip to main content
Middle East Current Psychiatry
Download PDF

Effects of child abuse and neglect on executive functions among children diagnosed with learning disabilities or attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder

Middle East Current Psychiatry volume 30, Article number: 81 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Studying cognitive deficits due to abuse and neglect in vulnerable children with neurodevelopmental disorders can fuel the battle to save them. We aimed to assess effects of child abuse and neglect on executive functions (EF) among children diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and specific learning disorders (SLD). Three hundred forty drug-naive children were divided into four groups according to their diagnosis. They have all been through history taking, clinical interview, assessment of exposure to abuse or neglect, Barkley Deficit in Executive Functioning Scale-Children and Adolescents (BDEFS-CA), and Conners and intelligence quotient (IQ) test.

Results

Children with ADHD or SLD were significantly exposed to abuse and neglect showing significant executive dysfunctions. The mostly affected domains with abuse among ADHD were emotion regulation with effect size (ES): 0.576, self-restraint ES: 0.38 and self-motivation ES: 0.256, abuse was significantly associated with lower social class 63.6% ES: 0.377 while neglect was significantly associated with parents’ marital status of being divorced 92% ES: 0.621. Abuse and neglect were significantly associated with emotion regulation executive dysfunction with OR 23.5 and 22.8 respectively.

Conclusion

Executive dysfunctions are significantly related to exposure to abuse and neglect. The most affected domains were emotion regulation and self-restraint executive functions. Also, we concluded that prevalence of abuse and neglect to be significantly higher in lower social class than average and higher classes and in divorced parents than married ones. Health education and early intervention programs should be directed more specifically to the more vulnerable children diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders and of lower social class or of divorced parents.

Background

Child abuse and neglect have severe consequences on the public health, and they can be considered a current epidemic. According to a study in 2013 by the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) many children in Egypt are being exposed to abuse at the hands of their supposed guardians. Those perpetrators even their children often normalize this abuse [1].

The study was done from March to May 2013 in Alexandria, Assiut, and Cairo. They found that most of the children interviewed (65% in Alexandria) reported that they had been exposed to physical abuse over the past year. The study confirmed that physical punishment is the accepted form of discipline by many parents.

Neglect is the most common and serious type of child maltreatment; however, it is the least studied type [2] and it affected 25% of the surveyed children, regarding sexual abuse most girls reported experiencing sexual harassment [1].

Children suffering from developmental disorders as ADHD and SLD are expected to suffer from higher rates of abuse and neglect due to the common mis contribution of their symptoms to misbehaving by their parents especially in Egypt, besides child maltreatment whether abuse or neglect may cause disabilities that mostly precipitate further abuse [3].

Research confirmed that developmental disorders are risk factors for physical abuse and neglect [4]. Difficulty in handling children with ADHD makes them suffer higher rates of neglect and abuse as they need an exceptional tolerance for their behavioral problems [5].

The consequences of the parents residual symptoms of ADHD and their children ADHD behavioral problems besides the absent mental health awareness result in ineffective communication and aggressive relation [6]. Besides studies found that children with specific learning disorders are at increased risk of sexual abuse [7].

Consequences of child abuse and neglect on executive functions

Studies confirmed that child abuse and neglect, produce long-term changes in the central nervous system (CNS) [8] causing mainly executive functioning deficits affecting their behavioral regulation. According to research done by the Bucharest Early Intervention Project team, extreme neglect also affects executive functioning [9].

Spann et al. [10] found that adolescents suffered diminished cognitive flexibility due to physical abuse and neglect. Also, research confirmed that abused and neglected preschoolers suffered lower cognitive functioning [11].

Research found that the main protective factors following abuse are stable family relations and high self-esteem [12].

The EF impairment in ADHD is supported by related structural brain deficits found in imaging studies of those children [13]. So, EF deficits are proven to be a salient feature of ADHD. Each domain of EF is a type of self-regulation, ADHD, involves deficits in problem solving, response inhibition, emotion regulation, and self-motivation [14].

Methods

Aim of the study

Assessment of the consequences of child abuse and neglect on different executive functions domains in children diagnosed with ADHD, in children diagnosed with specific learning disorders and in healthy control children.

Study design: cross-sectional comparative study

Study setting

This study was carried out at the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Outpatient Clinic–Alexandria University Hospital.

Participants

All children attending the clinic over a period of 1 year with a diagnosis of ADHD or Specific learning disorder and who were drug-naïve and aged from 6 to 13 years were recruited and random sampling was done using a computer-generated process selecting 240 child out of the recruited 480 child as a sample size of at least 200 children were required to estimate an average difference in executive functions using alpha error = 0.05 and to provide a study power of 80%.and then the selected children were classified in to.

  • Group (I): ADHD only (n = 100)

  • Group (II): SLD only (n = 80).

  • Group (III): comorbid ADHD and SLD (n = 60).

  • Group (IV):healthy control group of normal children with matching age, sex, and educational level (n = 100) (whom were also randomly selected).

Most studies suggested that stimulant medications improve EF in ADHD, also subjects, single doses of the non-stimulant Atomoxetine cause some improvement in response inhibition so we chose drug-naive children as an inclusion criteria to exclude the drug effects on EF where most of the previous studies were carried on children already on treatment [15].

The studied children were subjected to:

  1. I)

    History taking for the following:

    1. A)

      Demographic data, age of onset of symptoms, developmental history, previous medical and surgical history, family history.

    2. B)

      Assessment of parent’s parenting style with special emphasis on children exposure to physical abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect by screening questions for both the parents and the child separately.

    3. C)

      Detailed clinical interview was used to assess the presence of specific learning disorder by screening for symptoms according to DSM V.

  2. II)

    II)Physical, neurological examination, and psychiatric assessment using Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS).

  3. III)

    III)Psychometric assessment:

    1. A)

      IQ testing using Stanford Binet test [16].

    2. B)

      Conner’s parent rating form for ADHD severity assessment [17].

    3. C)

      Socioeconomic standards of the parents using modified Fahmy and Elsherbiny scale which assess 7 different domains, This scale is reliable and valid according to Egyptian culture [18].

    4. D)

      Parent-report rating scale (long form) of the Barkley Deficits In Executive Functioning Scale-Children and Adolescents (BDEFS-CA) [19].

Procedure

  • The approval of the Ethical Committee of Alexandria University was obtained by the Committee of Ethics of Alexandria University Faculty of Medicine.

  • IRB NO:00012098 (expires 6/10/2022)

  • FWA NO: 00018699 (expires 21 January 2026)

  • â–« Informed consent:

  • Consent to participate: informed consent to participate in the study has been obtained from parents of all the studied children.

  • Consent to publish: parents signed informed consent regarding publishing their children’s data if needed.

  • Random sampling was done after all children fulfilling the inclusion criteria attending the clinic for 6-month duration were recruited for psychiatric interview.

  • IQ assessment using the Stanford Binet Scale

  • Conner’s parent rating scale was done to assess ADHD symptom severity.

  • Clinical interview according to DSM V criteria, confirming ADHD or specific learning disorder diagnosis and any other comorbidities.

  • This was followed by Fahmy and El-Sherbini’s Social Classification Scale to determine social class, and scholastic school achievement according to the final grades and finally the executive functions assessment using BDEFS-CA.

  • Parents were subjected to a full family history assessment and marital status whether married, divorced, or widow.

  • Assessment of physical and sexual abuse or neglect of the child was done by separate interviewing of parents and children.

  • Regarding control group screening using Conner's rating scale for ADHD was done excluding nine children for having ADHD while psychiatric interview excluded four children for having specific learning disorders.

Statistical analysis of the data

Data were fed to the computer and analyzed using IBM SPSS software package version 20.0. (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) Qualitative data were described using number and percent. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to verify the normality of distribution quantitative data were described using range (minimum and maximum), mean, standard deviation, and median. The significance of the obtained results was judged at the 5% level.

The used tests are the following:

  1. 1.

    Chi-square test: for categorical variables, to compare between different groups.

  2. 2.

    Fisher’s exact or Monte Carlo correction: correction for chi-square when more than 20% of the cells have expected count less than 5.

  3. 3.

    Regression analysis: to detect the most independent/affecting factor for time management EF, Problem solving and self-organization EF, self-restraint executive function, self-motivation EF, and emotional regulation EF [20, 21].

Results

Abuse and neglect

Table 1 shows that abuse was present in 41% of group I as evident in Fig. 1, in 16.3% of group II as evident in Fig. 2 and 36.7% in group III as demonstrated in Fig. 3, abuse was in the form of physical abuse, sexual or both, a post-comparison test showed statistically significant difference between the first three groups and the control group (group IV) in which only 4% experienced abuse. Neglect was most prevalent in groups I and III where 23% of group I as demonstrated in Fig. 4, 16% of group II as demonstrated in Fig. 5 and 23% of group III as demonstrated in Fig. 6 were exposed to significant neglect while only 2% of the control group (group IV) was exposed to neglect.

Table 1 Comparison between the Four studied groups according to history of abuse or neglect
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Abuse in group I

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Abuse in group II

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Abuse in group III

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Neglect in group I

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Neglect in group II

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Neglect in group III

Full size image

Relation between EF and abuse

Table 2 shows that on relating types of abuse to EF among the whole sample of the studied children (n = 340), emotion regulation EF showed the highest significant association with exposure to physical abuse, sexual abuse, and both types of abuse together to be affected in 93.5% of those exposed to physical abuse, 88.8% of those exposed to sexual abuse and in 88.8% in children exposed to both types of abuse together, followed by self-restraint EF affected in 74.2% of physical abuse, in 100% of children exposed to sexual abuse and in 88.9% in case of exposure to both together physical and sexual abuse followed by self-motivation EF affected in 64.5% of those exposed to physical abuse, 66.7% in children exposed to sexual abuse and in 66.7% of those exposed to both types of abuse while time management and problem solving EF showed insignificant association with different types of abuse.

Table 2 Relation between abuse and executive functions among studied children (n = 340)
Full size table

Table 3 shows that on relating types of abuse to EF among group I (pure ADHD group) emotion regulation EF was the highest EF to show significant association with exposure to different types of abuse being affected in 96.7% in those exposed to physical abuse, 88.3% in those exposed to sexual abuse while in case of exposure to both types of abuse together to be affected in 80%, different types of abuse whether physical, sexual, or both affected EF among group I with emotion regulation EF effect size: 0.576, self-restraint ES: 0.38 and self-motivation ES: 0.256.

Table 3 Relation between abuse and executive functions among studied children in group I (n = 100)
Full size table

Table 4 shows that on relating types of abuse to EF among group II (pure LD group) emotion regulation EF was the only EF to show significant association with exposure to different types of abuse being affected in 100% of those exposed to physical abuse, sexual abuse, or both together.

Table 4 Relation between abuse and executive functions among studied children in group II (n = 80)
Full size table

Table 5 shows that on relating types of abuse to EF among group III (combined ADHD and LD group) emotion regulation EF was the most significantly affected EF in association with exposure to different types of abuse being affected in 95% of those exposed to physical abuse and in 100% of children exposed to sexual abuse or both types of abuse together.

Table 5 Relation between abuse and executive functions among studied children in group III (n = 60)
Full size table

Table 6 shows that on relating types of abuse to EF among group IV (the control group) different EF domains were insignificantly affected in relation to exposure to different types of abuse.

Table 6 Relation between abuse and executive functions among studied children in group IV (n = 100)
Full size table

Relation between EF and neglect

Table 7 shows that on relating EF affection to exposure to neglect among the whole sample of the studied children (n = 340), emotion regulation EF was the highest EF related to exposure to neglect affecting 92.3% of them, followed by self-restraint EF affected in 70%, and then self-motivation EF affected in 62% of children exposed to neglect.

Table 7 Relation between neglect and executive function in the studied groups
Full size table

Table 8 shows that on relating EF affection to exposure to neglect among group I (pure ADHD), emotion regulation EF was the only EF significantly affected in relation to exposure to neglect affecting 91.3% of those children.

Table 8 Relation between neglect and executive function in group I (n = 100)
Full size table

Table 9 shows that on relating EF affection to exposure to neglect among group II (pure LD), emotion regulation EF was the only EF significantly affected in relation to exposure to neglect affecting 100% of those children.

Table 9 Relation between neglect and executive function in group II (n = 80)
Full size table

Tables 10 and 11 show that on relating EF affection to exposure to neglect among group IV (control group), time management EF was the only EF significantly affected in relation to exposure to neglect affecting 100% of those children.

Table 10 Relation between neglect and executive function in group III (n = 60)
Full size table
Table 11 Relation between neglect and executive function in group IV (n = 100)
Full size table

Table 12 shows that level of social class was significantly associated with exposure to abuse where 63.6% of children living in below average socioeconomic standards were exposed either to physical abuse or sexual abuse or both together (ES: 0.37) while only 2.5% of above average class and 17.8% of average class were exposed to different types of abuse.

Table 12 Relation Between Social class and exposure to abuse or neglect in total sample (n = 340)
Full size table

Also, social class was significantly associated with exposure to neglect in children where 32% of those living in low socioeconomic standards were exposed to neglect but only 5% in the above average class and 13.7 in the average class were exposed to neglect.

Table 13 shows that parent’s marital status (being divorced) was significantly associated with exposure to neglect (ES: 0.62) where 92% of children of divorced parents were exposed to neglect and 50% of children of one dead parent. While only 8.3% of children of married parents were exposed to neglect.

Table 13 Relation between neglect and parent marital status in total sample (n = 340) (% from row)
Full size table

Table 14 shows that parent’s marital status (being divorced) was significantly associated with exposure to significant neglect where 92% of children of divorced parents were exposed to significant neglect and 50% of children of one dead parent. While only 8.3% of children of married parents were exposed to significant neglect.

Table 14 Shows that parent Marital status ( being divorced) was significantly more associated with exposure to sexual abuse as only 33.3% of the children of married couples were exposed to sexual abuse but double the percent (66.7%) of children of divorced couples were exposed to sexual abuse
Full size table

Table 15 shows that the variables which showed significant association with emotion regulation EF in group I was below average social class, bad academic outcome, other psychiatric comorbidity, exposure to abuse and exposure to neglect. On the other hand, the variables which showed significant association with emotion regulation EF in group II were other comorbidity, exposure to abuse and exposure to neglect, as for group III emotion regulation was related to low social class, other comorbidities, exposure to abuse, and exposure to neglect.

Table 15 Relation between emotional regulation and different variables among the studied groups
Full size table

Table 16 shows that using multivariate regression analysis the significant risk factors for emotion regulation EF affection in the total sample was other comorbidity (odds ratio = 25 and CI (11–56)), exposure to abuse (odds ratio = 23.5 and CI (7.3–74)), and exposure to neglect(odds ratio = 22.8 and CI (6–85.7)).

Table 16 Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis for the parameters affecting emotional regulation EF in total sample
Full size table

Table 17 shows that using multivariate regression analysis exposure to abuse was a significant risk factor for emotion regulation EF affection in group I (OR 6.844)CI(1.569–29.85).

Table 17 Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis for the parameters affecting emotional regulation EF in group I
Full size table

Table 18 shows the demographic characteristics of the studied sample as follows:

  1. A)

    Age: insignificant statistical difference between the four groups as

Table 18 Comparison between the different studied groups according to history and demographic data
Full size table

The majority of children in the studied groups aged below 10 years, and the groups were matched for age (F = 0.825, P = 0.481).

  1. B)

    Gender: insignificant statistical difference between the four groups where.

The predominant gender among our studied groups were boys; the groups were matched for gender (p = 0.1).

  1. III)

    Residency.

Urban residency was found to be the highest among the control group and the lowest among group I where statistically significant difference was found (p = 0.002), post-comparison test showed that the statistically significant difference was between the control group and group I, the control group and group II and also between the control group and group III.

  1. IV)

    Social class.

Above average social class was most prevalent in group II. Average social class was most prevalent in the control group and below average social class was most prevalent in group III; there was a statistically significant difference (p =  < 0.001), post-comparison test showed the significant difference to be between the control group and the three groups (I, II, and III) and also between group II and group III.

  1. E)

    Birth order.

Statistically significant difference was found (p =  < 0.001), post-comparison test was made and showed the significant difference was between the control group and the other three groups and also between group II and III.

  1. F)

    School grades.

Most of the children in the four studied groups belonged to junior grades (70% of each group) and a statistically significant difference was present (p = 0.06), post-comparison test showed that the significant difference was between group I and group II, the control group and group II.

Regarding distribution of subtypes of SLD in the studied sample

Reading disorder was the most prevalent LD among group II where it constituted 31%, writing disorder constituted 16% while Math disorder constituted 19%.

Combined reading and Math disorder is 7.5%, writing and Math disorder is 7.5% while reading and writing disorder constituted 19%.

While as shown in Fig. 7, the most prevalent LD in group III was reading disorder as combined ADHD and reading disability constituted 45%, combined ADHD and writing disorder in 26%, while combined ADHD and Math disorder in 26%

Fig. 7
figure 7

Learning disorders subtypes among group III

Full size image

Discussion

Emotion regulation was the most significant EF associated with exposure to physical and sexual abuse and neglect and this might be explained by higher incidence of PTSD and depression in this population of children.

And in agreement with what is previously mentioned in literature that in the case of maltreatment children fail to adopt effective strategies for emotion regulation mostly due to the threatening response of abusive parents to their children distress or the unresponsive and nonempathic response of neglectful parents [22, 23].

Processing of cues is very important ability for emotion regulation. Research confirmed that abused children fail to detect anger in the face while having no problems in processing happy faces [24, 25]. So, abused children have a bias toward angry faces but not a general deficit in processing faces [26]. This bias may be actually a coping mechanism when living with the threat cue of parents anger [27]. Unfortunately, this mechanism can lead to aggressive responses because of faulty assumptions of hostile intent in a rather benign situation [28]. However neglected children show a general deficit at identifying facial expressions [29].

According to our results emotion regulation EF significant affection was followed by self-restraint EF and then self-motivation EF in case of abuse and was followed by self-restraint EF affection in case of neglect.

This came in agreement with literature as studies found that abused and neglected preschool children showed poorer inhibitory control, i.e., self-restraint EF [11].

While Nikulina and Widom [30], Mezzacappa et al. [31] and Spann, Mayes [10] reached the same finding yet a systematic review by Irigaray et al. [32], included six studies that found no association between child abuse and cognitive function. The results in review of literature in this area were conflicting mostly due to differences in the methodology whether self-report or retrospective, the studied type of abuse and in the studied samples gender [33, 34].

Child abuse and neglect can affect brain development especially the left neocortex; the hippocampus and the amygdala besides disturbing the stress response through the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis [35].

Also, our finding of child exposure to abuse and neglect being more prevalent in lower social class came in agreement with what was previously mentioned in literature that children living in lower social classes were almost 2 times more likely to be exposed to maltreatment (OR = 1.91) this may be explained by the stress that economic difficulties place on the caregivers letting them behave in abusive manner with their children [36].

As regards the results of higher prevalence of child abuse and neglect in case of divorced parents in our study, this can be explained by the fact that after divorce the parenting skills of parents diminish severely and there is evidence in the literature that children of single parents have many emotional hardships and they are more vulnerable for developing psychiatric illness [37].

Conclusion

Executive dysfunctions are significantly related to exposure to abuse and neglect. The mostly affected domains were emotion regulation and self-restraint executive functions.

The mostly affected domains with abuse among ADHD were emotion regulation with Effect size:0.576, self-restraint ES: 0.38 and self-motivation ES:0.256, abuse was significantly associated with lower social class 63.6% ES: 0.377 while neglect was significantly associated with parents’ marital status of being divorced 92% ES: 0.621.

It is reflected on child school achievement as problem solving, time management and self-motivation EF, emotional lability as emotion regulation EF and frequency of accidents as self-restraint EF and therefore, EF should be assessed and trained to improve children welfare.

Child abuse and neglect can be considered as significant risk factors for emotion regulation executive dysfunctions with odds ratio 23.5 and 22.8 respectively.

Also, we concluded that prevalence of abuse and neglect to be significantly higher in lower social class than average and higher classes and in divorced parents than married ones.

Recommendations

Further research using valid tools for categorizing severity and types of abuse and neglect and its effects on executive to confirm if abuse and neglect are just consequences to the present disorders of ADHD and LD or can also be considered significant risk factors for developing those disorders psychopathology.

Health education and early intervention programs to be directed more specifically to the more vulnerable children of lower social class and of divorced parents and diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders.

Limitations

The authors did not use a specific tool for assessment of abuse and neglect and they only relied on the clinical assessment and interview of both the child and the parent to screen if the child is being exposed to different types of abuse or neglect.

Availability of data and materials

Submitted as supplementary material.

Abbreviations

ADHD:

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

BDEFS-CA:

Barkley deficits in executive functions scale child and adolescent

CNS:

Central nervous system

EF:

Executive functions

ES:

Effect size

IQ:

Intelligence quotient

K-SADS:

Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia

LD:

Learning disabilities

SLD:

Specific learning disabilities

UNICEF:

United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund

References

  1. National Council for Childhood and Motherhood [NCCM], UNICEF (2015) Violence against Children in Egypt. A Quantitative Survey and Qualitative Study in Cairo, Alexandria and Assiut. NCCM and UNICEF, Egypt, Cairo

    Google Scholar 

  2. Stowman SA, Donohue B (2005) Assessing child neglect: a review of standardized measures. Aggress Behav 10:491–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hibbard RA, Desch LW (2007) Maltreatment of children with disabilities. Pediatrics 119:1018–1025. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-0565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sullivan PM, Knutson JF (2000) Maltreatment and disabilities: a population-based epidemiological study. Child Abuse Negl 24:1257–1273. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0145-2134(00)00190-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hadianfard H (2014) Child abuse in group of children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder in comparison with normal children. Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery 2:77–84

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Chi TC, Hinshaw SP (2002) Mother-child relationships of children with ADHD: the role of maternal depressive symptoms and depression-related distortions. J Abnorm Child Psychol 30:387–400. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015770025043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Helton JJ, Gochez-Kerr T, Gruber E (2018) Sexual abuse of children with learning disabilities. Child Maltreat 23:157–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559517733814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gould F, Clarke J, Heim C, Harvey PD, Majer M, Nemeroff CB (2012) The effects of child abuse and neglect on cognitive functioning in adulthood. J Psychiatr Res 46:500–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.01.005

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. McDermott JM, Westerlund A, Zeanah CH, Nelson CA, Fox NA (2012) Early adversity and neural correlates of executive function: implications for academic adjustment. Dev Cogn Neurosci 2(Suppl 1):S59-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2011.09.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Spann MN, Mayes LC, Kalmar JH, Guiney J, Womer FY, Pittman B et al (2012) Childhood abuse and neglect and cognitive flexibility in adolescents. Child Neuropsychol 18:182–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2011.595400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Feit M, Joseph J, Petersen AC (2014) New Directions in Child Abuse and Neglect Research. National Academies Press (US), Washington (DC)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Collishaw S, Pickles A, Messer J, Rutter M, Shearer C, Maughan B (2007) Resilience to adult psychopathology following childhood maltreatment: evidence from a community sample. Child Abuse Negl 31:211–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.02.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Valera EM, Faraone SV, Murray KE, Seidman LJ (2007) Meta-analysis of structural imaging findings in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biol Psychiatry 61:1361–1369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.06.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Barkley RA (2016) The Important Role of Executive Functioning and Self-Regulation in ADHD©. http://www.russellbarkley.org/factsheets/ADHD_EF_and_SR.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2022.

  15. Hosenbocus S, Chahal R (2012) A review of executive function deficits and pharmacological management in children and adolescents. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 21:223–229

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Coolican J, Bryson SE, Zwaigenbaum L (2008) Brief report: data on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (5th ed.) in children with autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disord 38:190–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0368-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Conners CK, Sitarenios G, Parker JD, Epstein JN (1998) The revised Conners’ Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R): factor structure, reliability, and criterion validity. J Abnorm Child Psychol 26:257–268. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022602400621

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. El-Gilany A, El-Wehady A, El-Wasify M (2012) Updating and validation of the socioeconomic status scale for health research in Egypt. East Mediterr Health J 18:962–968. https://doi.org/10.26719/2012.18.9.962

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barkley RA (2012) Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale-Children and Adolescents (BDEFS-CA). Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Iki K, Tomizawa S (2014) Point-symmetric multivariate density function and its decomposition. J Probab Stat 2014:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kirkpatrick LA, Feeney BC (2013) Simple Guide to IBM SPSS Statistics for Version 20.0. Student ed. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, Belmont Calif

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cicchetti D, Ackerman BP, Izard CE (2009) Emotions and emotion regulation in developmental psychopathology. Dev Psychopathol 7:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rogosch FA, Cicchetti D, Aber JL (2009) The role of child maltreatment in early deviations in cognitive and affective processing abilities and later peer relationship problems. Dev Psychopathol 7:591–609. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pollak SD, Tolley-Schell SA (2003) Selective attention to facial emotion in physically abused children. J Abnorm Psychol 112:323–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.112.3.323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shackman JE, Shackman AJ, Pollak SD (2007) Physical abuse amplifies attention to threat and increases anxiety in children. Emotion 7:838–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.838

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pollak SD, Sinha P (2002) Effects of early experience on children’s recognition of facial displays of emotion. Dev Psychol 38:784–791. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.38.5.784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Belsky J, Schlomer GL, Ellis BJ (2012) Beyond cumulative risk: distinguishing harshness and unpredictability as determinants of parenting and early life history strategy. Dev Psychol 48:662–673. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE, Valente E (1995) Social information-processing patterns partially mediate the effect of early physical abuse on later conduct problems. J Abnorm Psychol 104:632–643. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843x.104.4.632

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pollak SD, Cicchetti D, Hornung K, Reed A (2000) Recognizing emotion in faces: developmental effects of child abuse and neglect. Dev Psychol 36:679–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.5.679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nikulina V, Widom CS (2013) Child maltreatment and executive functioning in middle adulthood: a prospective examination. Neuropsychology 27:417–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032811

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mezzacappa E, Kindlon D, Earls F (2001) Child abuse and performance task assessments of executive functions in boys. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 42:1041–1048. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00803

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Irigaray TQ, Pacheco JB, Grassi-Oliveira R, Fonseca RP, Leite JCDC, Kristensen CH (2013) Child maltreatment and later cognitive functioning: A systematic review. Psicologia Reflexão e Crítica 26:376–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nugent NR, Amstadter AB, Koenen KC (2008) Genetics of post-traumatic stress disorder: informing clinical conceptualizations and promoting future research. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 148c:127–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.30169

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Navalta CP, Polcari A, Webster DM, Boghossian A, Teicher MH (2006) Effects of childhood sexual abuse on neuropsychological and cognitive function in college women. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 18:45–53. https://doi.org/10.1176/jnp.18.1.45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Frodl T, O’Keane V (2013) How does the brain deal with cumulative stress? A review with focus on developmental stress, HPA axis function and hippocampal structure in humans. Neurobiol Dis 52:24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2012.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lefebvre R, Fallon B, Van Wert M, Filippelli J (2017) Examining the Relationship between Economic Hardship and Child Maltreatment Using Data from the Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect-2013 (OIS-2013). Behav Sci (Basel) 7:6. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs7010006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Agrawal G, Bhardwaj AK (2013) Parents’ divorce: a cause of childhood neglect. Asian J Soc Sci Arts Humanit 3:191–199

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors Would like to acknowledge the effort made by the while team in the child psychiatry clinic at Alexandria university including the medical residents, nursing staff and the psychologist.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neuropsychiatry Department, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

    Aya Maged Hamza, Soha Abdellatif Ghobashy & Heba Essam Abouelwafa

  2. 2Stanley 28 Abdelhameed Elabady Street Building B 4Th Floor Apartment 46, Alexandria, Egypt

    Aya Maged Hamza

Authors
  1. Aya Maged Hamza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Soha Abdellatif Ghobashy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heba Essam Abouelwafa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Contributor A.M: Aya Maged Hamza, contributor S.A: Soha A. Ghobashy, contributor H.E: Heba E. Abou EL Wafa. All the three authors contributed to the conceptualization of the study and recruitment of the participants. Additionally, author A.M was responsible for statistical analysis of the data besides writing the main manuscript while author S.A and author H.E were responsible for reviewing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aya Maged Hamza.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All experimental protocols were approved by the committee of ethics at Alexandria university faculty of medicine.

IRB No.: 00012098 expires 6/10/2022.

FWA No.: 00018699 expires 21/1/2026.

No. of protocol approval 0104484.

All experiments were performed in accordance with Helsinki guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

All authors guarantee that the research findings have not been previously published and consent for publishing this article at the Child Psychiatry & Human Development journal.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maged Hamza, A., Ghobashy, S.A. & Abouelwafa, H.E. Effects of child abuse and neglect on executive functions among children diagnosed with learning disabilities or attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder. Middle East Curr Psychiatry 30, 81 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43045-023-00349-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43045-023-00349-7

Keywords