# Tele-Assessment of Executive Functions in Young Adults with ADHD: A Pilot Study
## 8 Study Limitations
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Measures** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean (SD)** \\ **ADHD Group** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean (SD)** \\ **TD Group** \\ \end{tabular} & \(\chi^{2}\) & **gdl** & \(p\) & \(\epsilon^{2}\) \\ \hline Nb1 accuracy percentile & 99.5152 (1.176) & 99.6176 (1.206) & 1.386 & 1 & 0.239 & 0.02100 \\ Nb1 mean RT correct answer & 451.7273 (65.628) & 458.0882 (110.665) & 0.425 & 1 & 0.514 & 0.00644 \\ Nb1 mean RT commission error & 236.0606 (555.298) & 104.4412 (267.691) & 0.592 & 1 & 0.442 & 0.00896 \\ \hline Nb2 accuracy percentile & 89.8485 (8.228) & 90.9412 (8.410) & 0.571 & 1 & 0.450 & 0.00866 \\ Nb2 mean RT correct answer & 637.0606 (169.752) & 571.0000 (132.517) & 2.995 & 1 & 0.084 & 0.04538 \\ Nb2 mean RT commission error & 433.2727 (475.476) & 299.4412 (381.555) & 1.593 & 1 & 0.207 & 0.02413 \\ \hline Nb3 accuracy percentile & 97.6364 (2.434) & 98.1765 (2.052) & 0.773 & 1 & 0.379 & 0.01172 \\ Nb3 mean RT correct answer & 527.3333 (79.606) & 513.7059 (96.726) & 1.542 & 1 & 0.214 & 0.02336 \\ Nb3 mean RT commission error & 216.0000 (474.310) & 147.2647 (419.910) & 0.257 & 1 & 0.612 & 0.00389 \\ \hline Nb4 accuracy percentile & 87.4848 (6.906) & 88.9412 (8.312) & 0.887 & 1 & 0.346 & 0.0134 \\ Nb4 mean RT correct answer & 685.0303 (168.650) & 618.5000 (127.204) & 3.172 & 1 & 0.075 & 0.0481 \\ Nb4 mean RT commission error & 699.2424 (433.948) & 615.1176 (413.598) & 1.635 & 1 & 0.201 & 0.0248 \\ \hline Nb5 accuracy percentile & 96.9091 (4.537) & 98.0882 (2.789) & 1.41 & 1 & 00.236 & 0.0213 \\ Nb5 mean RT correct answer & 577.3636 (85.127) & 558.6765 (115.367) & 1.16 & 1 & 0.281 & 0.0176 \\ Nb5 mean RT commission error & 279.9697 (471.621) & 141.2059 (346.392) & 2.46 & 1 & 0.117 & 0.0373 \\ \hline Nb6 accuracy percentile & 91.8788 (7.236) & 92.2941 (7.375) & 0.0334 & 1 & 0.855 & \(5.06\times 10^{-4}\) \\ Nb6 mean RT correct answer & 692.6364 (193.281) & 579.4412 (134.726) & 6.0122 & 1 & 0.014 * & 0.09109 \\
**Nb6 mean RT commission error** & 529.9394 (496.458) & 618.3824 (626.537) & 0.1833 & 1 & 0.669 & 0.00278 \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{l}{* Significant.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Accuracy and mean reaction time (RT) of correct answers and of commission errors in the 6 blocks of the N-back task (Blocks 1, 3, and 5—low cognitive working memory; Blocks 2, 4, and 6—high cognitive working memory). First, the sample size, while adequate for pilot purposes, resulted in lower statistical power than the conventional threshold of 80%, increasing the risk of a Type II error, i.e., the possibility of failing to detect true effects due to insufficient statistical sensitivity. Consequently, the results should be interpreted with caution and considered preliminary evidence to inform future, larger-scale studies. Second, while the use of the Kruskal-Wallis test was appropriate given the non-normal distribution of the data, this non-parametric approach is known to be less powerful than its parametric counterparts, potentially contributing to an underestimation of between-group differences. Another limitation concerns the cross-sectional design, which does not allow for causal inferences or the examination of EF trajectories over time. Additionally, the decision to include only young adults (between 20 and 30 years old), though methodologically sound for reducing developmental variability and age-related decline and difficulties with technology, limits the generalizability of the findings to other age groups. Finally, although standardized tools were used to assess the EF, we cannot completely rule out the influence of uncontrolled variables (e.g., comorbidities, the variability of treatment, medication use, and educational background) that may have affected participants' cognitive performance.