Learning and Individual Differences 49 (2016) 341347

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Working memory in children with specic learning disorders and/or

attention decits
Claudia Maehler , &, Kirsten Schuchardt
University of Hildesheim, Universittsplatz 1, 31141 Hildesheim, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Specic working memory decits have been documented for different learning disorders (dyslexia, dyscalculia).
Received 23 March 2015 Also children with attention decit disorders (ADHD) have working memory problems especially with regard to
Received in revised form 27 February 2016 executive functioning. There is a high rate of comorbidity of learning and attention disorders and yet, it is an open
Accepted 17 May 2016
question, how this comorbidity might affect working memory functioning.
We tested six groups of children with dyslexia (N = 31), dyscalculia (N = 18), ADHD (N = 34), with dyslexia and
Keywords:
Working memory
ADHD (N = 37), with dyscalculia and ADHD (N = 21) and typically achieving control children (N = 31). Work-
Learning disabilities ing memory was assessed by a battery of 16 phonological, visual-spatial and central executive tasks, according to
ADHD the model of Baddeley (1986).
Primary school children Results reveal distinct patterns of working memory decits: dyslexia corresponds with decits in phonological
loop and dyscalculia with decits in visual-spatial sketchpad. ADHD corresponds with decits in central execu-
tive. No interaction effect could be detected. Thus, it should be concluded that the comorbidity leads to additive
working memory decits, i.e. children with both disorders must cope with broader decits.
2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Children with specic learning disorders like dyslexia or dyscalculia
experience signicant difculties in acquiring the core skills of reading,
writing, and arithmetic from their very rst days at school. The high rate
of comorbidity with attention decit and hyperactivity disorders
(DuPaul, Gormley, & Laracy, 2013) gives rise for the question of shared
underlying cognitive disabilities and will be examined in this study with
regard to working memory functioning.
Dyslexia is characterized by a specic and signicant impairment in
the development of reading skills (often accompanied by poor spelling),
dyscalculia by a specic impairment in the acquisition of mathematical
skills. There are numerous approaches to the denition and diagnosis of
these learning disabilities. Internationally recognized criteria for their
diagnosis are specied in the conventional International Classication
of Diseases (ICD-10) published by the World Health Organization
(WHO, 2011). According to this system, learning disorders are present
when individuals' abilities in the domains of reading, spelling, or arith-
metic are substantially below their expected potential given their age,
general intelligence, and education.
Despite increasing research interest in learning disabilities, consen-
sus has not yet been reached on the specic cognitive decits that un-
derlie different learning disorders. For a long time dyslexia was
considered to be caused by visual decits while currently decits in
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: maehler@uni-hildesheim.de (C. Maehler).
phonological information processing are demonstrated to be responsi-
ble (Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004). Causation of
dyscalculia is much less clear. Deciencies in the memory of basic
facts, immature strategies and a less developed number sense are
taken into consideration (Geary, 2004).
Clinical experience tells us that for many children learning disorders
lead to secondary problems, such as low self-esteem, school anxiety, de-
pression, psychosomatic disorders, or antisocial behavior and attention
decit (hyperactivity) disorders (ADHD). A recent review taking a total
of 17 studies published between 2001 and 2011 into account (DuPaul
et al., 2013), found relatively high comorbidity of learning disorders and
ADHD, with 31% to 45% of students with ADHD having learning disorders
and vice versa. The variance between studies was due to different inclu-
sion criteria in the different studies; nevertheless a tendency was found
that comorbidity was highest for writing disorders, lesser for reading dis-
orders and least (although still between 5% and 30%) for math disorder.
According to the International Classication of Diseases (ICD-10;
2011) ADHD is diagnosed on the basis of persistent, developmentally
atypical and impairing symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity and im-
pulsivity. Although ADHD is dened behaviorally, relevant (neuropsy-
chological) research on ADHD has implicated decits in executive
functions as integral cognitive features of ADHD (Barkley, 1997;
Pennington & Ozonoff, 1996). The behavioral problems become mani-
fest in everyday situations at school or at home that require planning,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.007
1041-6080/ 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
342 C. Maehler, K. Schuchardt / Learning and Individual Differences 49 (2016) 341347
self-control, and well structured behavior. Therefore parents and
teachers are mostly asked to report the relevant data for the diagnosis.
It is obvious in everyday school life that children with ADHD are at
risk for sufcient academic achievement: If we observe children in edu-
cational settings we might notice that especially inattention may lead to
impaired participation and to less efcient information processing. On
the other hand learning problems or disorders may in turn lead to inat-
tention and agitation in learning situations because a child may be un-
able to cope with the demands of reading, writing or arithmetic. The
comorbidity therefore does not imply a well dened causal relationship.
But taking the comorbidity into account gives rise to the search for
common underlying causal factors. Given the typical problems of chil-
dren with learning disorders and children with ADHD, information pro-
cessing and executive functioning are viewed as probable basic risk
factors that may cause both learning disabilities and disorders and at-
tention decit (hyperactivity) disorders (Willcutt, Pennington, Olson,
Chhabildas, & Hulslander, 2005). It is the concept of working memory
that encompasses information processing, executive functioning and
(selective) attention.
Working memory decits are widely being discussed and identied
as being related to learning disabilities. Although various models of
working memory have been developed, the British model by Baddeley
(1986) has proved a particularly useful theoretical tool in numerous
studies on learning disabilities. According to this model, working mem-
ory comprises three components: the modality-free central executive,
which is a kind of supervisory system that serves to control and regulate
the occurring cognitive processes, and two slave systems, the phonolog-
ical loop and the visual-spatial sketchpad. The functions of the central ex-
ecutive identied by Baddeley (1996) include a) coordinating the slave
systems, b) focusing and switching attention, c) retrieving representa-
tions from long-term memory, and d) changing learning strategies.
The two slave systems perform modality-specic operations. Verbal
and auditory information is temporarily stored and processed in the
phonological loop. Two components of the phonological loop are distin-
guished: the phonological store and the subvocal rehearsal process. The
visual-spatial sketchpad is concerned with remembering and process-
ing visual and spatial information; it comprises a visual cache for static
visual information and an inner scribe for dynamic spatial information
(Logie, 1995; Pickering, Gathercole, Hall, & Lloyd, 2001).
Research has provided numerous indications that specic learning
disabilities are associated with working memory impairments
(Alloway & Gathercole, 2006; Pickering, 2006a). There is considerable
evidence that children with specic reading disabilities/dyslexia have
decits in phonological processing and storage (Pickering, 2006b;
Schuchardt, Maehler, & Hasselhorn, 2008; Swanson, 2006; Vellutino
et al., 2004). Further evidence suggests that these children also experi-
ence decits in central executive functioning (Brandenburg et al.,
2014; Landerl, Bevan, & Butterworth, 2004), but when the demand for
phonological processing is controlled for in the central executive mem-
ory tasks, this decit seems to disappear (Schuchardt et al., 2008). For
children with dyscalculia empirical evidence suggests that the visual-
spatial sketchpad and the central executive seem to be particularly im-
paired (Passolunghi & Siegel, 2001; Passolunghi, 2006; Schuchardt et al.,
2008; van der Sluis, van der Leij, & de Jong, 2005), while ndings on the
phonological loop are inconsistent (see Geary, Hamson, & Hoard, 2000
vs. Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2001; or Landerl et al., 2004).
Working memory decits in children with ADHD have also been
discussed for quite a while. Results, again, are inconsistent, although
there is a kind of consensus that an impairment of working memory ex-
ists independent of language or learning disorders and independent of
general intelligence (Martinussen & Tannock, 2006). Evidence with re-
gard to the exact location of possible decits is heterogeneous, probably
due to the heterogeneous population of children with AD(H)D, and the
tasks differences. An exploratory meta-analysis of 26 studies
(Martinussen, Hayden, Hogg-Johnson, & Tannock, 2005), that considers
tasks for the two modalities (verbal and spatial) and two types of
processing (storage only vs. storage and manipulation) reveals the
most severe decit in the functioning of visual-spatial sketchpad as
well as in central executive processing of spatial information. There
were also phonological decits observable, but to a lesser extent. The re-
sults of the meta-analysis are in line with several more recent studies
that report decits in the visual-spatial domain (Alloway, Gathercole,
& Elliott, 2010; Kibby & Cohen, 2008) and in central executive function-
ing (Cornoldi et al., 2001).
Taken together the empirical ndings reveal a solid body of evidence
for working memory decits underlying both learning disorders and at-
tention decit disorders. Poor working memory has been found to be
closely associated both with low academic achievement (Alloway,
Gathercole, Kirkwood, & Elliott, 2009; Gathercole & Alloway, 2008)
and with some of the attention problems typical for children with
ADHD (Gathercole et al., 2008).
There are indicators for specic decits with regard to specic work-
ing memory functions and subsystems (see above) but at the same time
studies have shown a considerable overlap of working memory prob-
lems in children affected by learning and/or attention decit disorders.
Furthermore, other studies also report distinct and shared decits, for
example processing speed seems to be impaired in children with read-
ing difculties and those with ADHD and therefore might explain the
comorbidity of both disorders (McGrath et al., 2011; Shanahan et al.,
2006). Yet, there are no studies that allow a direct conclusion by inves-
tigating the different groups of children and different comorbid combi-
nations (dyslexia, dyscalculia and ADHD) within the same design and
by using for all of them a wide range of working memory tasks. Further-
more, the heterogeneous body of evidence might be due to varying in-
clusion and exclusion criteria for the examined learning disorders. By
dening pure groups according to ICD-10 and using a broad battery
of tasks within the theoretical framework of the Baddeley (1986) work-
ing memory model we hope to identify possible distinct and common
decits. Running this kind of study we addressed the following research
question: Given the empirical evidence of working memory decits un-
derlying both learning and attention decit disorders, could the comor-
bidity be explained by shared working memory decits?
To answer this question we analyzed commonalities and differences
in working memory in children with dyslexia and/or attention decit
disorders and with dyscalculia and/or attention decit disorders. School
achievement tests were administered to all children for both reading/
writing and mathematics in order to exclude children with combined
disorders of scholastic skills.
1. Method
1.1. Design
We used a three-factor design: (1) presence or absence of dyslexia,
(2) presence or absence of dyscalculia, and (3) presence or absence of
attention decit hyperactivity disorder. To this end, we identied ve
groups of children with disabilities based on the ICD-10 criteria for spe-
cic disorders: children with specic disorders of attention decit hy-
peractivity disorder without learning difculties (ADHD), children
with specic reading disorders (Dyslexia), children with comorbid dis-
orders of ADHD and dyslexia (ADHD + Dyslexia), children with specic
disorders of arithmetical skills (Dyscalculia), children with comorbid
disorders of dyscalculia and ADHD (ADHD + Dyscalculia), and formed
a control group (C) of typically achieving children matched for chrono-
logical age.
1.2. Participants
One hundred seventy-two 2nd to 4th grade students participated in
the study. The diagnosis ADHD was made by an assessment of parents
and teachers according to assessment forms CBCL and TRF (German ver-
sion). This is a not a clinical diagnosis but only a parents' and teachers'
 C. Maehler, K. Schuchardt / Learning and Individual Differences 49 (2016) 341347
rating. Nevertheless it is the common procedure that also clinicians use.
All children were screened with standardized tests of intellectual ability,
spelling, reading, and arithmetic. We used the full IQ scale from the Ger-
man version of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC,
Melchers & Preu, 2001) to assess general intelligence. Mathematical
skills were assessed using standardized German mathematical achieve-
ment tests for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th graders (DEMAT 2+, Krajewski, Liehm,
& Schneider, 2004; DEMAT 3 +, Roick, Glitz, & Hasselhorn, 2004;
DEMAT 4, Glitz, Roick, & Hasselhorn, 2006). These multi-component
tests include computation problems, word problems, and geometry
problems. Spelling abilities were assessed by the Weingartener spelling
tests for 2nd and 3rd graders (WRT 2+, Birkel, 1994a; WRT 3+, Birkel,
1994b) and the Westermann spelling test for 4th graders (WRT 4/5,
Rathenow, 1979). In both of these standardized German achievement
tests, children insert dictated words into given sentences. Reading
speed abilities were classied on the basis of scores on one subtests of
the Salzburg reading test (SLT; Landerl, Wimmer, & Moser, 1997): the
word reading subtest Textlesen (short or long version depending on
grade level).
Only native German-speaking children were included in the study
sample, and no children with combined disorders of scholastic skills
(that is reading, spelling and mathematical problems) took part in the
study. The operational criteria for the ADHD-subgroups were clinical as-
sessment by parents (CBCL: subtest attention decit disorder T 60)
and teacher (TRF: subtest attention decit disorder T 60). The opera-
tional criteria for learning disability subgroups were as follows:
IQ 80, below-average reading and/or spelling scores (T b 40), and a
critical discrepancy of 1.2 standard deviation between IQ and perfor-
mance on the standardized tests of reading and spelling achievement
(this discrepancy of 1.2 standard deviation is the common criterion in
Germany used in clinical settings, cf. Schulte-Krne, Deimel, &
Remschmidt, 2001). The control group (n = 31) showed average per-
formance (T 40) on all achievement tests.
We recruited the ve disability groups from the counseling center
for children with learning disabilities at our department. All children
were investigated for the rst time, therefore we can be sure that chil-
dren with the diagnosis ADHD did not yet (at the time of data collec-
tion) receive any medication. Control group children were 2nd to 4th
graders from a public elementary school. None of the children in the
study attended special schools. There is a partial overlap in the sample
with the study of Schuchardt et al. (2008) with regard to the two groups
with dyslexia and dyscalculia and the control group. The ADHD-group
and the children with comorbid problems did not participate in the
2008 study, because in that study the aim was to investigate specic
working memory problems and proles in the different learning disabil-
ity groups.
Table 1 summarizes the six groups' descriptive statistics. However,
as expected due to sampling procedures, groups differed signicantly
in reading, F(5, 165) = 38.67, p b 0.001, p2 = 0.559, spelling, F(5,
165) = 41.88, p b 0.001, p2 = 0.561, and mathematics, F(5, 165) =
36.10, p b 0.001, p2 = 0.567. On average, the Dyslexia and
Dyslexia + ADHD groups performed signicantly lower on the reading
and spelling abilities test than did the other groups. The Dyscalculia and
Dyscalculia + ADHD groups performed signicantly lower on the
Table 1
Sex distribution and Means (standard deviations) of Age, K-ABC IQ, WRT Spelling T-Scores, SLT Reading T-Scores, and DEMAT Mathematics T-Scores by Subgroup.
Dyslexia Dyslexia + ADHD
(n = 31) (n = 37)
Sex (m/f) 21/10 24/13
Age (months) 110.03 (12.36) 110.89 (11.85)
IQ 99.55 (6.81) 97.73 (8.74)
Spelling 34.13 (3.96) 35.14 (4.37)
Reading 33.28 (9.07) 32.84 (9.63)
Mathematics 51.11 (7.30) 43.17 (10.53)
343
mathematics abilities test than did the other groups. Inspection of gen-
der distribution patterns across disability groups showed that more
Dyslexia (68%), ADHD (64%) and Dyslexia + ADHD (65%) children
were male. In contrast more Dyscalculia (73%), and
Dyscalculia + ADHD (71%) children were female. Analysis of variance
revealed that the six groups did differ signicantly in terms of intelli-
gence, F(5, 165) = 4.67, p b 0.001, p2 = 0.129. Post hoc comparisons
showed that there was no difference in intelligence between the groups
Dyslexia, Dyslexia + ADHD, C and ADHD or between the Dyscalculia
and the Dyscalculia + ADHD groups, but that the Dyscalculia and
Dyscalculia + ADHD groups scored signicantly lower on intelligence
than the other two groups. We therefore included general intelligence
as a covariate in all subsequent analyses.
1.3. Procedure: Working memory assessment
Working memory was assessed by a battery of 16 tasks: seven pho-
nological tasks (memory spans for digits, one-syllable and three-
syllable words, one-syllable and three-syllable nonwords, and images;
nonword repetition), ve visual-spatial tasks (memory span for loca-
tions, matrix span simple and complex, corsi-block simple and com-
plex), four central executive tasks (double span, backward spans for
one-syllable words and digits, counting span). A detailed description
of all tasks follows below.
1.4. Phonological loop
The digit span is the conventional measure used to assess phonolog-
ical short-term capacity. A series of one to nine digits was presented
acoustically at a rate of one digit per second, starting with two and con-
tinuing up to a maximum of eight digits. Participants had to repeat the
digits immediately in the presented order. The one-syllable and three-
syllable word span tasks and the one-syllable and three-syllable nonword
span tasks were presented in the same manner as in the digit span mea-
sure. In the one-syllable and three-syllable word span tasks familiar
German nouns (e.g., Stern = star, Fisch = sh, Erdbeere = strawberry,
Briefkasten = letterbox) were used; the one-syllable and three-
syllable nonword span tasks are word-like nonwords (e.g., fen, sim,
bestrugeln, reseubelt).
In the images span task, participants were presented a series of pic-
tures of easily recognizable objects (e.g., sun, umbrella, door, car) on a
computer screen, and were asked to recall them verbally in the order
of presentation.
The German nonword repetition task administered developed by
Hasselhorn and Krner (1997). Children had to repeat 24 word-like
nonwords of two, three, or four syllables immediately after their pre-
sentation. Nonwords of different lengths were presented auditorily in
random order. The number of correctly repeated nonwords was taken
as the score for this task.
1.5. Visual-spatial sketchpad
In the location span task, children were shown increasing sequences
of green dots at different locations on a 3 3 matrix and asked to recall
Dyscalculia Dyscalculia + ADHD ADHD C
(n = 18) (n = 21) (n = 34) (n = 31)
5/13 6/15 22/12 15/16
102.50 (7.71) 102.80 (10.52) 105.85 (10.51) 107.10 (9.52)
91.67 (7.15) 92.29 (8.63) 98.21 (9.83) 100.32 (6.01)
46.82 (6.52) 45.00 (7.36) 45.10 (5.76) 50.32 (6.05)
49.00 (8.75) 45.75 (7.23) 48.25 (10.81) 50.27 (6.94)
32.39 (4.98) 30.57 (6.13) 48.91 (8.43) 50.53 (5.70)
344 C. Maehler, K. Schuchardt / Learning and Individual Differences 49 (2016) 341347
these locations in the correct order immediately after the dots had dis-
appeared. Corsi-block tasks were used to assess the dynamic spatial
component of visual-spatial memory. Nine red blocks are nailed in ran-
dom positions on a grey board (23 27.5 cm). The experimenter taps a
sequence of blocks at the rate of one per second. The child then attempts
to reproduce the sequence of taps in the correct order. We used two var-
iations of the corsi-block task: simple sequences involving short dis-
tances between blocks without path crossings, and complex
sequences involving long distances between blocks with path crossings.
A matrix span task was incorporated in the battery to measure the
static component of visual-spatial working memory. This task assesses
memory for random visual-spatial patterns of increasing complexity.
Patterns of white and black boxes in a 4 4 matrix were presented on
the computer, beginning with two black boxes and continuing up to a
maximum of eight black boxes. Immediately after presentation, chil-
dren were asked to reproduce the pattern in an empty matrix. Two var-
iations of this task were also implemented: a simple matrix span with
the black boxes arranged in simple patterns, and a complex matrix
span with the black boxes located at some distance from one another.
1.6. Central executive
The same items and procedures were used for the backward digit and
word span tasks as for the forward spans, the only difference being that
participants were required to recall the sequences of items in reverse
order. Additionally, a double span task was implemented to assess the
children's ability to coordinate the functioning of the phonological
loop and the visual-spatial sketchpad. The same pictures as in the im-
ages span task were presented, but this time in different locations on a
3 3 matrix. Children had to recall the pictures and their location in
the order of presentation. The complex counting span task, a measure
of storage and processing efciency, was based on a task designed by
Case, Kurland, and Goldberg (1982). A series of yellow circles (target
items) and squares (distractor items) was presented in a random,
computer-generated pattern. Children were instructed to count the
number of circles. Subsequently, another map was presented and chil-
dren again had to count the number of circles. Finally, the experimenter
asked the child to recall the number of circles counted on each map. The
number of maps presented per sequence was steadily increased up to a
maximum of eight.
1.6.1. Stop criterion
We used the same stop criterion for all span tasks. The length of the
sequences presented was increased gradually, beginning with a mini-
mum of two, and increasing to a maximum of eight items. There were
four trials at each sequence length. If an error was made, the child was
given a second attempt at an item of the same length. If a child
succeeded on two successive trials of the same length, the task contin-
ued with the next span length. If a child failed on the rst two successive
trials of the same length, he or she was not presented with any further
sequences of the same length, but with a sequence one item shorter
and could thus succeed on all four items of the individual maximum
length. The dependent measure for all span tasks was the longest se-
quence of items repeated at least once in correct order. Children were
credited an extra fourth point (0.25) if they repeated a further sequence
of the same length correctly (e.g., a score of 5.25 was awarded if two of
four 5-item sequences were recalled correctly, 5.5 if three of four se-
quences, and 5.75 if all four sequences were recalled correctly).
1.6.2. Procedure
Children with learning disabilities were administered standardized
tests of spelling, reading, and arithmetic, intelligence, and working
memory individually in two separate sessions. The DEMAT and WRT
measures were administered to control group children in classroom
learning groups. All other tests were administered individually within
a period of three weeks. Except for the corsi-block task, all working
memory tasks were administered on a computer. The order of presenta-
tion of the working memory tasks was the same for all children (images
span, location span, double span, one-syllable word span, three-syllable
word span, corsi-block simple, corsi-block complex, nonword repeti-
tion, backward word span, backward digit span, counting span, digit
span, matrix span simple, matrix span complex, one-syllable nonword
span, three-syllable nonword span).
2. Results
The signicance level for all analyses was set at alpha =0.05. Scores
on the working memory tasks were entered in a multivariate analysis of
variance with dyslexia, dyscalculia and ADHD as xed factors. Due to the
six groups used in the design and the absence of a group with mixed dis-
orders of scholastic skills (i.e. dyslexia and dyscalculia) and of a group
with these criteria plus ADHD, neither interaction between dyslexia
and dyscalculia nor the triple interaction with ADHD could be comput-
ed. IQ was included as covariate in all subsequent analyses. The Levene-
Test revealed equality of error variances for all dependent variables. As
expected in a study with clinical groups data of most dependent vari-
ables do not follow a normal distribution. The MANOVA being fairly ro-
bust when faced with deviations from the normal distribution, we
nevertheless ran these analyses.
Table 2 presents means and standard deviations for all working
memory measures by the six groups.
2.1. Phonological loop
The scores on the seven tasks assessing phonological loop function-
ing were entered into a MANCOVA. The covariate was signicantly re-
lated to the performance on the phonological loop tasks, F(7, 152) =
4.04, p b 0.001, p2 = 0.157. The multivariate main effect for Dyslexia,
F(7, 152) = 2.42, p = 0.022, p2 = 0.100, proved to be signicant. The
multivariate main effect for Dyscalculia, F(7, 152) b 1, p2 = 0.042,
and ADHD, F(7, 152) = 1.83, p = 0.085, p2 = 0.078, and the interaction
of Dyslexia x ADHD, F(7, 152) = 1.15, p = 0.333, p2 = 0.050, and
Dyscalculia x ADHD, F(7, 152) b 1, p2 = 0.030, were not signicant.
For the dyslexia factor, univariate tests of working memory tasks
showed signicant differences between groups on digit span: F(1,
158) = 6.26, p = 0.013, p2 = 0.038; one-syllable nonword span: F(1,
158) = 9.31, p = 0.003, p2 = 0.056; three-syllable nonword span:
F(1, 158) = 7.98, p = 0.005, p2 = 0.048; nonword repetition: F(1,
158) = 4.06, p = 0.046, p2 = 0.025. No differences between groups
were found on images span, F(1, 158) = 1.89, p = 0.171, p2 = 0.012,
one-syllable word span, F(1, 158) b 1, p2 = 0.004, and three-syllable
word span, F(1, 158) b 1, p2 = 0.003.
2.2. Visual-spatial sketchpad
The scores on the ve tasks assessing visual-spatial sketchpad were
entered into a multivariate analysis of variance (MANCOVA). The covar-
iate was signicantly related to the performance on the visual-spatial
tasks, F(5, 159) = 5.22, p b 0.001, p2 = 0.141. The multivariate main ef-
fect for dyscalculia, F(5, 159) = 2.29, p b 0.049, p2 = 0.067, proved sig-
nicant. In contrast, the multivariate main effect for Dyslexia, F(5,
159) b 1, p2 = 0.018, and ADHD, F(5, 159) b 1, p2 = 0.027, and the
Dyslexia x ADHD interaction, F(5, 159) b 1, p2 = 0.021, and dyscalculia
x ADHD interaction, F(5, 159) b1, p2 = 0.020, were not signicant. For
the dyscalculia factor, univariate tests of visual-spatial working memory
tasks showed signicant differences between groups on all visual-
spatial memory tasks (corsi-block simple task, F(1, 163) = 5.82,
p b 0.017, p2 = 0.034; corsi-block complex: F(1, 163) = 5.20, p =
0.024, p2 = 0.031; matrix span complex: F(1, 163) = 5.37, p =
0.022, p2 = 0.032; location span: F(1, 163) = 6.76, p = 0.010, p2 =
0.040), with the exception of matrix span simple task, F(1, 163) =
3.87, p = 0.051, p2 = 0.023, which only slightly missed signicance.
 C. Maehler, K. Schuchardt / Learning and Individual Differences 49 (2016) 341347 345

Table 2
Means (standard deviations) for working memory measures by subgroup.

Dyslexia Dyscalculia
Dyslexia + ADHD Dyscalculia + ADHD ADHD C

Phonological loop
Digit span 4.93 (0.64) 4.51 (0.71) 4.96 (0.65) 4.65 (0.66) 4.96 (0.86) 5.05 (0.64)
One-syllable word span 4.46 (0.76) 4.28 (0.66) 4.17 (0.75) 4.32 (0.61) 4.39 (0.65) 4.56 (0.63)
Three-syllable word span 3.69 (0.49) 3.47 (0.50) 3.69 (0.48) 3.57 (0.43) 3.57 (0.51) 3.76 (0.44)
One-syllable nonword span 3.81 (0.90) 3.47 (0.82) 4.00 (0.55) 3.87 (0.64) 3.89 (0.72) 4.19 (0.49)
Three-syllable nonword span 2.03 (0.98) 1.61 (1.16) 2.19 (1.11) 2.24 (1.02) 2.32 (0.97) 2.40 (0.88)
Images span 4.26 (0.82) 3.95 (0.65) 4.21 (0.65) 4.12 (0.77) 4.16 (0.70) 4.48 (0.82)
Nonword repetition 19.13 (2.99) 18.84 (2.95) 20.67 (2.09) 19.76 (2.32) 19.21 (2.66) 20.77 (1.80)

Visual-spatial sketchpad
Location span 5.15 (0.84) 4.97 (0.94) 4.43 (0.90) 4.25 (0.69) 4.96 (0.99) 5.06 (0.93)
Corsi-block simple 6.00 (1.31) 5.70 (1.22) 5.08 (1.01) 5.10 (1.28) 5.77 (1.06) 6.00 (1.47)
Corsi-block complex 5.06 (0.82) 4.57 (1.07) 4.38 (1.05) 4.05 (0.89) 4.88 (1.07) 5.03 (0.92)
Matrix span simple 6.89 (1.05) 6.55 (1.41) 5.43 (1.09) 5.67 (1.52) 6.42 (1.38) 6.66 (1.30)
Matrix span complex 4.31 (1.79) 4.16 (1.75) 3.33 (0.99) 3.19 (0.96) 3.98 (1.80) 4.76 (1.49)

Central executive
Backward digit span 3.52 (0.58) 3.63 (0.69) 3.76 (0.53) 3.38 (0.50) 3.65 (0.56) 3.94 (0.76)
Backward words span 3.47 (0.49) 3.53 (0.51) 3.44 (0.54) 3.23 (0.49) 3.44 (0.58) 3.72 (0.55)
Double span 3.73 (0.56) 3.49 (0.64) 3.74 (0.67) 3.48 (0.72) 3.76 (0.70) 4.02 (0.72)
Counting span 3.76 (0.81) 3.58 (0.85) 3.99 (0.89) 3.37 (0.71) 3.60 (0.71) 4.37 (0.88)

2.3. Central executive
The scores on the four tasks assessing central executive were en-
tered into a multivariate analysis of variance (MANCOVA). The covariate
was signicantly related to the performance on the central-executive
tasks, F(4, 159) = 6.33, p b 0.001, p2 = 0.137. The multivariate main ef-
fect for ADHD, F(4, 159) = 3.21, p = 0.014, p2 = 0.075 was signicant.
In contrast, the multivariate main effects for Dyslexia, F(4, 159) = 2.11,
p = 0.081, p2 = 0.051, and Dyscalculia, F(4, 159) b 1, p2 = 0.008,
proved not to be signicant. The interaction of the two factors Dyslexia
x ADHD, F(4, 159) = 1.79, p = 0.134, p2 = 0.043, and Dyscalculia x
ADHD, F(4, 159) b 1, p2 = 0.003, were not signicant. For the ADHD
factor, univariate tests showed signicant differences between groups
on double span: F(1, 162) = 4.35, p = 0.039, p2 = 0.026, and counting
span, F(1, 162) = 11.38, p = 0.001, p2 = 0.066, but not on digit back-
ward span, F(1, 162) = 2.14, p = 0.145, p2 = 0.013, and word back-
ward span, F(1, 162) = 1.14, p = 0.287, p2 = 0.007.
3. Discussion
Taken together, the results of our study can be summarized in a
straight forward notion: learning disorders like dyslexia and dyscalculia
and attention decit disorders are accompanied by specic working
memory decits: Phonological loop is impaired in children with dyslex-
ia, visual-spatial sketchpad is impaired in children with dyscalculia, and
children with ADHD have problems in the central executive of working
memory.
With regard to the rather mixed results documented in the literature
(see above) our results reveal very specic decits and not much over-
lap. Probably this result is due to our very strict group denitions and in-
clusion criteria that made our groups more homogenous than in other
studies.
If we look more carefully at the data on a more descriptive level we
must consider, that in spite of the signicant main effects and lack of in-
teractions, the amplitude of group differences with regard to several
variables is not very large. Therefore we should refrain from talking
about severe problems or decits and from predicting individual learn-
ing disorders on the basis of the measured working memory function-
ing. And, although main effects and missing interactions reveal clear
results, we do not wish to deny that with regard to the descriptive
data children with dyscalculia as well as with dyslexia show some ten-
dencies of central executive problems. Due to our factorial analyses
these do not become signicant; but as mentioned above in the intro-
duction these decits have been found for children with reading disabil-
ities (Brandenburg et al., 2014), who partly represent our dyslexia
group, and those with arithmetical disabilities (Passolunghi, 2006).
But still, given the fact that no interaction was found, we conclude
that there is no common working memory decit being responsible
for the comorbidity of learning and attention decit disorders. Of
course, from our design it cannot be argued that the working memory
problems really cause the learning disorders, as there is no proof in
this study for any causal relationship. But the lack of any shared under-
lying working memory problem should lead us to abandon the idea of
working memory as a crucial factor for existing comorbidity.
With regard to educational implications we should take into account
that the important role of working memory for school achievement and
learning problems has often been stated, and it has been argued that
working memory might be more predictive for school achievement
than intelligence (Alloway & Alloway, 2010; Preler, Knen,
Hasselhorn, & Krajewski, 2014). With regard to ADHD the central exec-
utive problems will be predominant and most easily be experienced in
everyday school life. But due to the comorbidity with learning disorders,
ADHD may be accompanied by more working memory decits. In other
words: the comorbidity leads to an addition of working memory prob-
lems rather than to an interaction of functional decits. Other studies,
investigating children with dyslexia and comorbid attention decit dis-
orders have also reported the additive character of decits; distinct pat-
terns of single disorders will come together in children with comorbid
disorders (Gooch, Snowling, & Hulme, 2011; Willcutt et al., 2005).
This puts a high impact on comprehensive diagnostics of learning and
attention decit disorders and working memory in order to nd out
the exact pattern of working memory problems in the individual child.
Several working memory batteries for children are already available
(WMTB-C, Pickering & Gathercole, 2001; AWMA, Alloway, 2007; AGTB
5-12, Hasselhorn et al., 2012). Individual patterns of working memory
functioning might even allow for identication of children at risk for dif-
ferent learning disabilities (Alloway, 2009; Bull, Epsy, & Wiebe, 2008).
Yet, attempts to generally improve working memory through individual
trainings have not been very promising (Melby-Lervg & Hulme, 2012),
but it is still an open question if existing decits could be removed by
specic interventions. Some studies show that especially for children
346 C. Maehler, K. Schuchardt / Learning and Individual Differences 49 (2016) 341347
with ADHD adaptive computerized training can improve central execu-
tive functioning and reduce the ADHD symptoms (Klingberg et al.,
2005). Similar studies have been carried out for children with learning
disorders, mostly with limited success (Holmes, Gathercole, &
Dunning, 2009; Mhler, Jrns, Radtke, & Schuchardt, 2015). With regard
to our ndings future research is needed to predict the outcome of spe-
cic interventions with the aim of training specic aspects of working
memory vs. broad trainings of all working memory subsystems, the lat-
ter being of importance for children with comorbid learning and atten-
tion decit disorders.
In contrast to our sample of very specic, clearly dened groups
school reality is full of children with all kinds and different levels of dif-
culties and comorbid disorders. Therefore, teachers may prot from
knowledge about typical working memory decits as were identied
in this study, but still must be aware of possibly very individual patterns
of strengths and weaknesses.
References
Alloway, T. P. (2007). Automated working memory assessment (AWMA). Oxford: Pearson
Education.
Alloway, T. P. (2009). Working memory, but not IQ predicts subsequent learning in chil-
dren with learning difculties. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25,
9298.
Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of working mem-
ory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106,
2029.
Alloway, T. P., & Gathercole, S. E. (Eds.). (2006). Working memory and neurodevelopmental
disorders. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Kirkwood, H., & Elliott, J. (2009). The cognitive and behav-
ioral characteristics of children with low working memory. Child Development, 80,
606621.
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., & Elliott, J. (2010). Examining the link between working
memory behaviour and academic attainment in children with ADHD.
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 52, 632636.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. (1996). Exploring the central executive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 94A(1), 528.
Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions:
Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 6594.
Birkel, P. (1994a). Weingartener Grundwortschatz Rechtschreib-test fr zweite und dritte
Klassen (WRT 2+) [Weingarten basic vocabulary spelling test for second and third
grades (WRT 2+)]. Gttingen: Hogrefe.
Birkel, P. (1994b). Weingartener Grundwortschatz Rechtschreib-test fr dritte und vierte
Klassen (WRT 3+) [Weingarten basic vocabulary spelling test for third and fourth grades
(WRT 3+)]. Gttingen: Hogrefe.
Brandenburg, J., Klesczewski, J., Fischbach, A., Schuchardt, K., Bttner, G., & Hasselhorn, M.
(2014). Working memory in children with learning disabilities in reading versus
spelling: Searching for overlapping and specic cognitive factors. Journal of Learning
Disabilities. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022219414521665 (online, 2).
Bull, R., Epsy, K. A., & Wiebe, S. A. (2008). Short-term memory, working memory, and ex-
ecutive functioning in preschoolers: Longitudinal predictors of mathematical
achievement at 7 years. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 205228.
Case, R. D., Kurland, M., & Goldberg, J. (1982). Operational efciency and the growth
of short-term memory span. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33,
386404.
Cornoldi, C., Marzocchi, G. M., Belotti, M., Caroli, M. G., de Meo, T., & Braga, C. (2001).
Working memory interference control decit in children referred by teachers for
ADHD symptoms. Child Neuropsychology, 7, 230240.
DuPaul, G. J., Gormley, M. J., & Laracy, S. D. (2013). Comorbidity of LD and ADHD: Impli-
cations of DSM-5 for assessment and treatment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46,
4351.
Gathercole, S., & Alloway, T. P. (2008). Working memory and learning: A practical guide for
teachers. London, UK: Sage.
Gathercole, S. E., Alloway, T. P., Kirkwood, H. J., Elliott, J. G., Holmes, J., & Hilton, K. A.
(2008). Attentional and executive function behaviors in children with poor working
memory. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 214223.
Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
37, 415.
Geary, D. C., Hamson, C. O., & Hoard, M. K. (2000). Numerical and arithmetical cognition:
A longitudinal study of process and concept decits in children with learning disabil-
ity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 236263.
Glitz, D., Roick, T., & Hasselhorn, M. (2006). Deutscher Mathematiktest fr vierte Klassen
(DEMAT 4) [German mathematics test for fourth grades (DEMAT 4)]. Gttingen: Beltz.
Gooch, D., Snowling, M., & Hulme, C. (2011). Time perception, phonological skills and ex-
ecutive function in children with dyslexia and/or ADHD symptoms. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 195203.
Hasselhorn, M., & Krner, K. (1997). Nachsprechen von Kunstwrtern: Zum
Zusammenhang zwischen Arbeitsgedchtnis und syntaktischen Sprachleistungen
bei Sechs- und Achtjhrigen [Repeating nonwords: The relationship between work-
ing memory and syntactic competence in six- and eight-year-olds]. Zeitschrift fr
Entwicklungspsychologie und Pdagogische Psychologie, 29, 212224.
Hasselhorn, M., Schumann-Hengsteler, R., Grube, D., Knig, J., Mhler, C., Schmid, I., ...
Zoelch, C. (2012). Arbeitsgedchtnistestbatterie fr kinder von 5 bis 12 Jahren (AGTB
512) [Working memory test battery for children aged ve to twelve years]. Gttingen:
Hogrefe.
Holmes, J., Gathercole, S. E., & Dunning, D. L. (2009). Adaptive training leads to sustained
enhancement of poor working memory in children. Developmental Science, 12(4),
F9F15.
Kibby, M. Y., & Cohen, M. J. (2008). Memory functioning in children with reading disabil-
ities and/or attention decit/hyperactivity disorder: A clinical investigation of their
working memory and long-term memory functioning. Child Neuropsychology, 14,
525546.
Klingberg, T., Fernell, E., Olesen, P., Johnson, M., Gustafsson, P., Dahlstrm, K., ...
Westerberg, H. (2005). Computerized training of working memory in children with
ADHD A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 177186.
Krajewski, K., Liehm, S., & Schneider, W. (2004). Deutscher Mathematiktest fr zweite
Klassen. DEMAT 2+ [German test for mathematical skills in second grade]. Gttingen:
Hogrefe.
Landerl, K., Wimmer, H., & Moser, E. (1997). Salzburger lese- und Rechtschreibtest (SLT)
[Salzburg reading and spelling test (SLT)]. Bern: Huber.
Landerl, K., Bevan, A., & Butterworth, B. (2004). Developmental dyscalculia and
basic numerical capacities: A study of 89-year-old students. Cognition, 93,
99125.
Logie, R. H. (1995). Visual-spatial working memory. Hove: Erlbaum.
Mhler, C., Jrns, C., Radtke, E., & Schuchardt, K. (2015). Chancen und Grenzen eines
Arbeitsgedchtnistrainings fr kinder mit und ohne lese /Rechtschreib-
schwierigkeiten [Opportunities and limitations of training working memory in chil-
dren with and without reading and writing disabilities]. Zeitschrift fr
Erziehungswissenschaft, 18, 453471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s116180150643-5.
Martinussen, R., & Tannock, R. (2006). Working memory impairments in children
with attention-decit hyperactivity disorder with and without comorbid lan-
guage learning disorder. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,
28, 10731094.
Martinussen, R., Hayden, J., Hogg-Johnson, S., & Tannock, R. (2005). A meta-analysis
of working memory impairments in children with attention-decit/
hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 44, 377384.
McGrath, L. M., Pennington, B. F., Shanahan, M. A., Santerre-Lemmon, L. E., Barnard, H. D.,
Willcutt, E. G., ... Olson, R. K. (2011). A multiple decit model of reading disability and
attention-decit/hyperactivity disorder: Searching for shared cognitive decits.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 547557.
Melby-Lervg, M., & Hulme, C. (2012). Is working memory training effective? A meta-
analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 270291.
Melchers, P., & Preu, U. (2001). Assessment battery for children (K-ABC), German version
(5th ed.). Gttingen: Hogrefe.
Passolunghi, M. C. (2006). Working memory and arithmetic learning disability. In T. P.
Alloway, & S. E. Gathercole (Eds.), Working memory and neurodevelopmental disorders
(pp. 113138). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Passolunghi, M. C., & Siegel, L. S. (2001). Short-term memory, working memory, and in-
hibitory control in children with specic arithmetic learning disabilities. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 80, 4457.
Pennington, B. F., & Ozonoff, S. (1996). Executive functions and developmental psychopa-
thology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 5187.
Pickering, S. J. (Ed.). (2006). Working memory and education. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Pickering, S. J. (2006b). Working memory in dyslexia. In T. P. Alloway, & S. E. Gathercole
(Eds.), Working memory and neurodevelopmental disorders (pp. 740). Hove, UK: Psy-
chology Press.
Pickering, S. J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2001). Working memory test battery for children
(WMTB-C). London: Psychological Corporation.
Pickering, S. J., Gathercole, S. E., Hall, M., & Lloyd, S. A. (2001). Development of memory for
pattern and path: Further evidence for the fractionation of visuo-spatial memory. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 397420.
Preler, A. -L., Knen, T., Hasselhorn, M., & Krajewski, K. (2014). Cognitive preconditions
of early reading and spelling: A latent-variable approach with longitudinal data.
Reading and Writing, 27, 383406.
Rathenow, P. (1979). Westermann Rechtschreibtest 4/5 (WRT 4/5). Braunschweig:
Westermann.
Roick, T., Glitz, D., & Hasselhorn, M. (2004). Deutscher Mathematiktest fr dritte Klassen
(DEMAT 3+) [German mathematics test for third grades (DEMAT 3+)]. Gttingen:
Beltz.
Schuchardt, K., Maehler, C., & Hasselhorn, M. (2008). Working memory decits in
children with specic learning disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(6),
514523.
Schulte-Krne, G., Deimel, W., & Remschmidt, H. (2001). Zur Diagnostik der lese-
Rechtschreibstrung. [on the diagnostics of dyslexia]. Zeitschrift fr Kinder- und
Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 29, 113116.
Shanahan, M. A., Pennington, B. F., Yerys, B. E., Scott, A., Boada, R., Willcutt, E. G., et al.
(2006). Processing speed decits in attention decit/hyperactivity disorder and
read- ing disability. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 585602.
Swanson, H. L. (2006). Working memory and reading disabilities: Both phonological
and executive processing decits are important. In T. P. Alloway, & S. E. Gathercole
(Eds.), Working memory and neurodevelopmental disorders (pp. 5988). Hove, UK:
Psychology Press.
 C. Maehler, K. Schuchardt / Learning and Individual Differences 49 (2016) 341347
Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2001). A subgroup analysis of working memory in chil-
dren with reading disabilities: Domain-general or domain-specic deciency?
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 249263.
van der Sluis, S., van der Leij, A., & de Jong, P. F. (2005). Working memory in Dutch chil-
dren with reading- and arithmetic- related LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(3),
207221.
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specic reading
disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 240.
347
Willcutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., Olson, R. K., Chhabildas, N., & Hulslander, J. (2005). Neu-
ropsychological analyses of comorbidity between reading disability and attention
decit hyperactivity disorder: In search of the common decit. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 27, 3578.
World Health Organization (2011). ICD: Classication of mental and behavioural disorders:
Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines (10th rev. ed.). Geneva, Switzerland:
Author.