# Tele-Assessment of Executive Functions in Young Adults with ADHD: A Pilot Study
## 7 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Measures**} & **Mean (SD)** & **Mean (SD)** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\chi^{2}\)} & **gdl** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\varepsilon^{2}\)} \\  & **ADHD Group** & & **TD Group** & & & \\ \hline LLWM & & & & & \\ accuracy & 73.1 (26.52) & 76.4 (22.64) & 0.287 & 1 & 0.592 & 0.00422 \\ percentile & & & & & \\ LLWM & & & & & \\ reaction time & 71.8 (24.18) & 73.1 (28.70) & 1.368 & 1 & 0.242 & 0.02012 \\ percentile & & & & & \\ LLWM & & & & & \\ accuracy & 80.3 (19.24) & 80.1 (26.75) & 0.970 & 1 & 0.325 & 0.01447 \\ percentile & & & & & \\ HLWM & & & & & \\ reaction time & 52.3 (30.52) & 68.3 (25.75) & 4.660 & 1 & 0.031 * & 0.06955 \\ percentile & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: LLWM = low-cognitive-load working memory; HLWM = high-cognitive-load working memory; SD = Standard Deviation; * significant.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Non-parametric ANOVA with Kruskal–Wallis for low- (LLWM) and high-cognitive-load working memory (HLWM). Figure 3: Box plots comparing the group with ADHD and the TD group on Cognitive Flexibility (CF) in accuracy and reaction time. Considering planning abilities, the differences in accuracy approached significance (\(\chi^{2}\) = 3.03, \(p\) = 0.083, \(\xi\) = 0.044); in contrast, the difference in the recall time estimation accuracy between the two groups was highly significant (\(\chi^{2}\) = 13.61, \(p\) \(<\) 0.001, \(\xi\) = 0.200), with young adults with ADHD showing a worse performance in the estimated duration required to complete the planned activities compared to their typically developing peers (see Table 5). In the map temporal constraints variable, a difference emerged between the groups (\(\chi^{2}\) = 4.65, \(p\) = 0.031, \(\xi\) = 0.068), with individuals with ADHD showing difficulties in adhering to time constraints for tasks and travel. No other variables in the TPQ test reached significance (see Table 5 and Figure 5). Figure 4: Box plots comparing the group with ADHD and the TD group on Low (LLWM) and High cognitive Load Working Memory (HLWM) in accuracy and reaction time. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Measures**} & **Mean (SD)** & **Mean (SD)** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\chi^{2}\)} & **gdl** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\epsilon^{2}\)} \\  & **ADHD Group** & & **TD Group** & & & \\ \hline P accuracy & \multirow{2}{*}{50.0 (1.00)} & 48.3 (5.68) & 3.003 & 1 & 0.083 \({}^{+}\) & 0.04416 \\ percentile & & & & & & \\ P time & 43.7 (26.95) & 47.3 (33.09) & 0.269 & 1 & 0.604 & 0.00395 \\ R accuracy & 76.1 (21.89) & 75.7 (15.42) & 0.288 & 1 & 0.592 & 0.00423 \\ R estimation & & & & & & \\ time & 87.8 (10.83) & 96.1 (5.02) & 13.610 & 1 & \textless{}0.001 \({}^{*}\) & 0.20015 \\ accuracy & & & & & & \\ M accuracy & 64.9 (16.79) & 73.2 (12.12) & 4.651 & 1 & 0.031 \({}^{*}\) & 0.06839 \\ M time & & & & & & \\ constraints & 44.1 (18.69) & 40.1 (17.61) & 0.585 & 1 & 0.444 & 0.00861 \\ accuracy & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: P = Planning; R = Recall; M = Map; SD = Standard Deviation; \({}^{*}\) approached significance; \({}^{*}\) significant.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Non-parametric ANOVA with Kruskal–Wallis for TPQ variables: Planning (P), Recall (R), and Map (M). To assess the internal consistency of the executive function tasks included in the TeleFE battery, [PERSON]'s alpha was calculated across 12 variables representing the accuracy and reaction time percentiles for key domains (i.e., inhibition, interference control, cognitive flexibility, working memory, and planning). The analysis yielded a Cronbach's alpha of 0.65, indicating moderate internal consistency, which is acceptable given the exploratory and multidimensional nature of the battery. To further examine the construct validity, a standardized correlation matrix was computed among the same variables.