Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A Socio-Technical Grounded Theory on the Effect of Cognitive Dysfunctions in the Performance of Software Developers with ADHD and Autism

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A grounded theory from 30 interviews explains how ADHD and autism-related cognitive dysfunctions affect software engineering performance, and how individual journeys and workplace accommodations can regulate that effect.

desk verdict A genuine grounded theory of how ADHD/ASD developers experience their work, with concrete Agile adaptations; treat 'performance' as perceived, not measured, and it is a solid contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13950 v1 pith:SW6PMTOA submitted 2024-11-21 cs.SE

Kiev Gama , Grischa Liebel , Miguel Goulão , Aline Lacerda , Cristiana Lacerda This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords neurodiversitysoftwareengineeringADHDautismspectrumdisordergroundedtheoryAgilepracticesexecutivefunctionsworkplaceinclusion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper builds a grounded theory from interviews with 25 neurodivergent and 5 neurotypical software engineers, claiming that the cognitive and emotional dysfunctions associated with ADHD and autism affect software engineering performance at both individual and team levels. It argues that this effect is not fixed: an individual's journey—diagnosis, therapy, medication, self-awareness—and accommodations from the organization and from Agile practices can regulate how strongly dysfunctions hurt performance. The study's practical payoff is an empirically grounded list of recommended Agile adaptations meant to improve inclusion. A sympathetic reader would take the central claim as: neurodivergent performance differences are real, identifiable in work settings, and manageable through concrete team-level changes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conceptual model of Figure 2, organized around the core category 'Software Engineering Performance' at individual and team levels. The model connects categories by explicit causal arrows: Neurodivergent Cognitive Dysfunctions and Social Interaction/Communication Challenges trigger Responses to Stress, those responses affect performance, and both the Individual Journey and Accommodations regulate that effect. The mediating chain is the central mechanism: cognitive, emotional, and social difficulties produce stress (anxiety, burnout, exhaustion, shutdowns), and the strength of that chain depends on the person's journey and on organizational and Agile accommodations. The IFERA-II pre-interview questionnaire supplies standardized self-ratings of executive-function difficulties, state regulation, and delay aversion, giving the qualitative model an auxiliary quantitative comparison across the ADHD, ASD, ASD+ADHD, and neurotypical groups.

What would settle it

Run the same interview and IFERA-II protocol alongside objective performance records (completed story points, code-review outcomes, bug rates, or manager ratings) for a comparable sample; if the reported dysfunctions do not correlate with measurable performance differences, the theory's central claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is a grounded theory in which Neurodivergent Cognitive Dysfunctions affect Software Engineering Performance—the core category—through a chain of causes and moderators. In the model, cognitive and emotional dysfunctions (organization and planning, task initiation, perfectionism and overengineering, irregular work performance, emotional dysregulation, low self-esteem, context switching, cognitive flexibility, and focus and attention, including hyperfocus) together with social interaction and communication challenges trigger responses to stress such as mental exhaustion and anxiety. Those stress responses in turn affect performance at the individual level (for example, productivity) and at the team level (for example, communication). The Individual Journey and Accommodations—organizational support plus adapted Agile practices—regulate the effect. The authors present as the main novelty their empirically grounded recommendations for tailoring Agile practices, including clear task breakdown, test-driven development for task initiation, stable team composition, written communication, and shorter ceremonies.

Load-bearing premise

The study's link between cognitive dysfunctions and software engineering performance rests entirely on participants' self-reported experiences, with no objective performance data to confirm that the reported struggles actually changed their output, code quality, or workplace evaluations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Agile teams should make task breakdown explicit and consider test-driven development as a way to help neurodivergent engineers start tasks and see when they are finished.
  • Keeping team membership stable gives autistic engineers the familiarity that reduces the social load of pair programming and other collaborative ceremonies.
  • Allowing written communication and shortening or strictly timing meetings, daily stand-ups, and retrospectives can reduce cognitive fatigue and anxiety.
  • Accommodations should be institutional rather than informal, because informal support varies and leaves some neurodivergent employees with unequal help.
  • Engineers with both ASD and ADHD are likely to need the most support, since that group reported the highest difficulties across all measured executive-function constructs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's claims, its model predicts that co-occurring ASD+ADHD engineers require the most extensive accommodations, because that group scored highest on all executive-function constructs in the study; a targeted follow-up could test this directly.
  • An extension the paper does not develop is whether the same regulatory logic applies to other neurodivergent conditions such as dyslexia or dyspraxia, since the theory's categories were built from ASD and ADHD accounts only.
  • The anecdotal use of ChatGPT to check message tone points toward a testable design direction: AI-assisted communication tools might act as a low-cost accommodation, and their effect on workplace inclusion could be measured experimentally.
  • One editorial reading is that Agile ceremonies function as externalized executive function—deadlines and daily check-ins become scaffolding for task initiation—so removing or weakening those ceremonies without a replacement could disproportionately harm neurodivergent engineers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a Socio-Technical Grounded Theory (STGT) study of neurodivergent software engineers with ASD and ADHD. The authors conducted 25 interviews with neurodivergent software developers and 5 neurotypical controls, combined with the IFERA-II pre-interview questionnaire, and developed a conceptual model (Figure 2) in which neurodivergent cognitive dysfunctions (e.g., executive function difficulties, emotional dysregulation, social communication challenges) affect software engineering performance at both individual and team levels. The model also includes stress responses as an intermediate link and identifies the individual journey (diagnosis, therapy, medication, self-awareness) and accommodations (organizational support, Agile practices) as regulatory factors. The paper concludes with a set of recommendations for tailoring Agile practices to support neurodivergent engineers. The authors report transparent coding procedures, include pilot data, make materials available, and discuss reflexive threats from their own neurodivergent status.

Significance. If the central claim is supported, this paper addresses a genuinely understudied area in software engineering and offers a theoretical framework that can guide future research on neurodiversity in Agile teams. Its strengths include a clearly described STGT process, a comparison with neurotypical controls, practical recommendations grounded in interview data, explicit treatment of researcher positionality, and open access to data collection instruments and codebook. The work also contributes to a small but growing body of empirical studies on ADHD and ASD in software development, and the proposed model has the potential to inform both organizational accommodations and future confirmatory research. The main reservation is that the central outcome, 'software engineering performance,' is not independently operationalized, so the theory currently captures participants' perceived or experienced performance impact rather than an externally demonstrated effect.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Figure 2, and Abstract] The central claim that neurodivergent cognitive dysfunctions 'affect SE performance' is not supported by an independent operationalization of performance. Section IV.A states: 'the effect on SE performance is described together with the Neurodivergent Cognitive Dysfunctions, as our interviewees would report how a specific dysfunction or challenge would affect their performance.' Every arrow in Figure 2 from dysfunctions to SE performance is thus grounded in participants' retrospective self-reports, filtered through the researchers' coding. The abstract and conclusions present this as an unqualified effect. The authors should either reframe the theory as a model of perceived or self-reported performance impact, or supplement the interviews with objective performance indicators (e.g., task completion, code quality, performance reviews) to support the stronger claim.
  2. [Section V.A and Figure 3] The comparison of IFERA-II scores across groups (ASD n=7, ASD+ADHD n=5, ADHD n=9, neurotypical n=5) is based solely on descriptive averages, with no inferential statistics. Despite this, Section V.A concludes that 'the results suggest that neurodivergent software engineers face significant cognitive and emotional regulation challenges that are likely to impact their performance.' The word 'significant' is misleading in this context, and the likely impact on performance is an extrapolation beyond the measured instrument, which captures self-reported difficulties in executive functions, regulation, and delay aversion rather than workplace performance. The group comparisons should be explicitly labeled as exploratory and illustrative, and the discussion should not present these averages as evidence of a demonstrated performance effect.
  3. [Section VI] The limitations section acknowledges that 'relying on self-reported experiences may introduce bias,' but it does not identify the deeper structural issue: the outcome variable (SE performance) is defined by the same interviews that provide the causal accounts of dysfunctions. This circularity means that even if self-reports are accurate, the model describes how participants perceive their dysfunctions to affect their performance, not whether such an effect is observable externally. The authors should add an explicit limitation to this effect and discuss how future work could validate the model with independent performance measures.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'the individuals' individual journey' is redundant and grammatically awkward; it should be 'the individual's journey.'
  2. [Section IV.A.d] There is a typo: 'Repetive sounds' should be 'Repetitive sounds.'
  3. [Section V.A] The statement 'reveals distinct patterns' is based on descriptive averages in a small sample; it should be qualified as 'in this sample' or 'descriptively,' and the absence of significance testing should be acknowledged.
  4. [Section V.E.d] There is a duplicated word: 'still still see stereotypes' should be 'still see stereotypes.'
  5. [Section V.F.b] The phrase 'the the former was frequently cited' contains a duplicated article; it should read 'the former was frequently cited.'
  6. [Section III.A] The IFERA-II instrument is described as a 'pre-interview questionnaire' in the method, but the abstract calls it a 'survey.' Please align the terminology to avoid implying a separate survey instrument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; the theory is inductively grounded, and the self-report performance measure is a validity limitation rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an inductive grounded-theory analysis, not a formal prediction from fitted parameters. The core categories (dysfunctions, responses to stress, accommodations, individual journey, SE performance) emerge from open coding of interview transcripts; the model in Figure 2 is an interpretive synthesis of those codes. The IFERA-II pre-interview instrument is an external validated scale used descriptively (n=7/5/9/5) and is not fitted to produce the theory. The targeted literature review and comparisons to prior work (including the authors' pilot [29] and Liebel et al. [28]) occur after the theory is structured, so those citations are post hoc alignment, not load-bearing premises. The only potentially circular-looking element is that 'SE performance' is not independently measured: Section IV.A states the effect on performance is described together with the dysfunctions because interviewees reported how dysfunctions affected performance. That is a construct-validity/self-report limitation (acknowledged in Section VI), not a definitional or statistical reduction of the theory's conclusion to its inputs. No equation, fitted parameter, or uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative study; there are no fitted numerical parameters or invented entities. The central claim depends on the validity of self-reported experiences, the IFERA-II instrument, and qualitative saturation assumptions listed above.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Self-reports are a valid source of evidence about cognitive dysfunction and work performance.
    The theory is built on interview and survey responses; the authors note the reliance on self-report in Section III.C and Section VI.
  • domain assumption The IFERA-II instrument validly measures executive function, regulation, and delay aversion.
    Used as a pre-interview questionnaire and group comparison in Section III.C and Figure 3.
  • domain assumption A sample of 30 participants, with theoretical sampling, is sufficient to reach saturation for the grounded theory.
    The method relies on qualitative saturation; the authors acknowledge sample size as a limitation in Section VI.
  • domain assumption The coding process, largely performed by one researcher, produces categories that reflect participant experiences.
    Section III.C describes coding by one researcher with validation calls; the authors also acknowledge interpreter bias in Section VI.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Socio-Technical Grounded Theory on the Effect of Cognitive Dysfunctions in the Performance of Software Developers with ADHD and Autism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SW6PMTOA

@misc{pith2026241113950,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Socio-Technical Grounded Theory on the Effect of Cognitive Dysfunctions in the Performance of Software Developers with ADHD and Autism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SW6PMTOA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13950}
}
read the original abstract

The concept of neurodiversity, encompassing conditions such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, and dyspraxia, challenges traditional views of these neurodevelopmental variations as disorders and instead frames them as natural cognitive differences that contribute to unique ways of thinking and problem-solving. Within the software development industry, known for its emphasis on innovation, there is growing recognition of the value neurodivergent individuals bring to technical teams. Despite this, research on the contributions of neurodivergent individuals in Software Engineering (SE) remains limited. This interdisciplinary Socio-Technical Grounded Theory study addresses this gap by exploring the experiences of neurodivergent software engineers with ASD and ADHD, examining the cognitive and emotional challenges they face in software teams. Based on interviews and a survey with 25 neurodivergent and 5 neurotypical individuals, our theory describes how neurodivergent cognitive dysfunctions affect SE performance, and how the individuals' individual journey and various accommodations can regulate this effect. We conclude our paper with a list of inclusive Agile practices, allowing organizations to better support neurodivergent employees and fully leverage their capabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13950 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Socio-technical grounded theory method applied using basic and advanced stages. The main steps are the rectangles with the respective outputs below. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Theory on the Effect of Neurodivergent Cognitive Dysfunctions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average of participants answers to the instrument used after the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Rethinking Autonomy: Preventing Failures in AI-Driven Software Engineering

    cs.SE 2025-08 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey-plus-benchmark argues that current code LLMs fail safety thresholds and need stronger governance, but the supporting experiment is incomplete.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Diamond in the rough? an “empty review

    N. Doyle and A. McDowall, “Diamond in the rough? an “empty review” of research into “neurodiversity” and a road map for developing the inclusion agenda,” Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 352–382, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    The neurodiversity concept: is it helpful for clinicians and scientists?

    E. Sonuga-Barke and A. Thapar, “The neurodiversity concept: is it helpful for clinicians and scientists?” Lancet Psychiatry, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 559–561, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Perceived diversity in software engineering: a systematic literature review,

    G. Rodr ´ıguez-P´erez, R. Nadri, and M. Nagappan, “Perceived diversity in software engineering: a systematic literature review,”Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1–38, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Creativity and adhd: A review of behavioral studies, the effect of psychostimulants and neural underpinnings,

    M. Hoogman, M. Stolte, M. Baas, and E. Kroesbergen, “Creativity and adhd: A review of behavioral studies, the effect of psychostimulants and neural underpinnings,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, vol. 119, pp. 66–85, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychol- ogy: toward an integrated framework of cognitive style

    M. Kozhevnikov, “Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychol- ogy: toward an integrated framework of cognitive style.” Psychological bulletin, vol. 133, no. 3, p. 464, 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Grandin, Visual Thinking: The Hidden Gifts of People Who Think in Pictures, Patterns, and Abstractions

    T. Grandin, Visual Thinking: The Hidden Gifts of People Who Think in Pictures, Patterns, and Abstractions . Penguin, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage,

    R. D. Austin and G. P. Pisano, “Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 96–103, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Stack overflow developer survey,

    “Stack overflow developer survey,” https://survey.stackoverflow.co/, ac- cessed: 2024-09-30

    work page 2024

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    ‘coming out’with autism: Identity in people with an asperger’s diagnosis after dsm-5,

    O. Smith and S. C. Jones, “‘coming out’with autism: Identity in people with an asperger’s diagnosis after dsm-5,” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 592–602, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    “You Can’t Possibly Have ADHD

    T. Eagle and K. E. Ringland, ““You Can’t Possibly Have ADHD”: Ex- ploring validation and tensions around diagnosis within unbounded adhd social media communities,” in Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility , 2023, pp. 1–17

    2023

  3. [11]

    Inclusion of individuals with autism spectrum disorder in software engineering,

    G. M ´arquez, M. Pacheco, H. Astudillo, C. Taramasco, and E. Calvo, “Inclusion of individuals with autism spectrum disorder in software engineering,” Information and Software Technology , p. 107434, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Are asd and adhd a continuum? a comparison of pathophysiological simi- larities between the disorders,

    J. K. Kern, D. A. Geier, L. K. Sykes, M. R. Geier, and R. C. Deth, “Are asd and adhd a continuum? a comparison of pathophysiological simi- larities between the disorders,” Journal of attention disorders , vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 805–827, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    Hoda, Qualitative Research with Socio-Technical Grounded Theory

    R. Hoda, Qualitative Research with Socio-Technical Grounded Theory . Springer, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    American Psychiatric Association, A

    D. American Psychiatric Association, A. P. Association et al. , Diag- nostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5 . American psychiatric association Washington, DC, 2013, vol. 5, no. 5

    2013

  7. [15]

    An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications,

    S. M. Reis, S. M. Baum, and E. Burke, “An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications,” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 217–230, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    Autism spectrum disorder: Outcomes in adulthood,

    P. Howlin and I. Magiati, “Autism spectrum disorder: Outcomes in adulthood,” Current opinion in psychiatry , vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 69–76, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Demographic and cognitive profile of individuals seeking a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in adulthood,

    F. G. Happ ´e, H. Mansour, P. Barrett, T. Brown, P. Abbott, and R. A. Charlton, “Demographic and cognitive profile of individuals seeking a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in adulthood,” Journal of autism and developmental disorders , vol. 46, pp. 3469–3480, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Late diagnosis of autism: Exploring experiences of males diagnosed with autism in adulthood,

    B. M. Lupindo, A. Maw, and N. Shabalala, “Late diagnosis of autism: Exploring experiences of males diagnosed with autism in adulthood,” Current Psychology, vol. 42, no. 28, pp. 24 181–24 197, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Characterizing cognition in adhd: beyond executive dysfunction,

    F. X. Castellanos, E. J. Sonuga-Barke, M. P. Milham, and R. Tan- nock, “Characterizing cognition in adhd: beyond executive dysfunction,” Trends in cognitive sciences , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 117–123, 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    Goldstein, J

    S. Goldstein, J. A. Naglieri, D. Princiotta, and T. M. Otero, Introduction: A History of Executive Functioning as a Theoretical and Clinical Construct. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2014, pp. 3–12. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8106-5 1

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    P. D. Zelazo and U. M ¨uller, Executive Function in Typical and Atypical Development. New York, NY , USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2002, ch. 20, pp. 445–469

    2002

  14. [22]

    Hyperactivity and delay aversion—i. the effect of delay on choice,

    E. J. Sonuga-Barke, E. Taylor, S. Sembi, and J. Smith, “Hyperactivity and delay aversion—i. the effect of delay on choice,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 387–398, 1992

    1992

  15. [23]

    Modeling attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a crit- ical appraisal of the cognitive-energetic model,

    J. A. Sergeant, “Modeling attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a crit- ical appraisal of the cognitive-energetic model,” Biological psychiatry, vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 1248–1255, 2005

    2005

  16. [24]

    Asd and adhd comorbidity: What are we talking about?

    C. Hours, C. Recasens, and J.-M. Baleyte, “Asd and adhd comorbidity: What are we talking about?” Frontiers in psychiatry, vol. 13, p. 837424, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Comorbidity of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorders: Current status and promising di- rections,

    C. J. Vaidya and C. Klein, “Comorbidity of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorders: Current status and promising di- rections,” in New discoveries in the behavioral neuroscience of attention- deficit hyperactivity disorder . Springer, 2022, pp. 159–177

    2022

  18. [26]

    Towards accessible remote work: Understanding work-from-home practices of neurodi- vergent professionals,

    M. Das, J. Tang, K. E. Ringland, and A. M. Piper, “Towards accessible remote work: Understanding work-from-home practices of neurodi- vergent professionals,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 5, no. CSCW1, pp. 1–30, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Understanding the chal- lenges faced by neurodiverse software engineering employees: Towards a more inclusive and productive technical workforce,

    M. R. Morris, A. Begel, and B. Wiedermann, “Understanding the chal- lenges faced by neurodiverse software engineering employees: Towards a more inclusive and productive technical workforce,” in Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on computers & acces...

    2015

  20. [28]

    Challenges, strengths, and strategies of software engineers with adhd: A case study,

    G. Liebel, N. Langlois, and K. Gama, “Challenges, strengths, and strategies of software engineers with adhd: A case study,” inProceedings of the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society , 2024, pp. 57–68

    2024

  21. [29]

    Understanding and supporting neurodiverse software developers in agile teams,

    K. Gama and A. Lacerda, “Understanding and supporting neurodiverse software developers in agile teams,” in SBES ’23: Proceedings of the XXXVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering , ser. SBES ’23. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023, p. 497–502...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Socio-technical grounded theory for software engineering,

    R. Hoda, “Socio-technical grounded theory for software engineering,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 3808– 3832, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Development and content validity of ifera-ii for adults,

    N. M. Dias, B. T. Trevisan, G. Zauza, L. R. R. Carreiro, and A. G. Seabra, “Development and content validity of ifera-ii for adults,” Be- havioral Sciences, vol. 37, p. e3759, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Assessment of executive functioning using the behavior rating inventory of executive function (brief),

    R. M. Roth, P. K. Isquith, and G. A. Gioia, “Assessment of executive functioning using the behavior rating inventory of executive function (brief),” in Handbook of executive functioning . Springer, 2013, pp. 301–331

    2013

  25. [33]

    Executive functions,

    A. Diamond, “Executive functions,” Annual review of psychology , vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 135–168, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    Manifesto for Agile Software Development,

    K. Beck, M. Beedle, A. van Bennekum, A. Cockburn, W. Cunningham, M. Fowler, J. Grenning, J. Highsmith, A. Hunt, R. Jeffries, J. Kern, B. Marick, R. C. Martin, S. Mellor, K. Schwaber, J. Sutherland, and D. Thomas, “Manifesto for Agile Software Development,” 2001, https://agilem...

    2001

  27. [35]

    Analyzing the concept of technical debt in the context of agile software development: A systematic literature review,

    W. N. Behutiye, P. Rodr ´ıguez, M. Oivo, and A. Tosun, “Analyzing the concept of technical debt in the context of agile software development: A systematic literature review,” Information and Software Technology , vol. 82, pp. 139–158, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Assessment of the relationship between self-reported cognitive distor- tions and adult adhd, anxiety, depression, and hopelessness,

    C. W. Strohmeier, B. Rosenfield, R. A. DiTomasso, and J. R. Ramsay, “Assessment of the relationship between self-reported cognitive distor- tions and adult adhd, anxiety, depression, and hopelessness,” Psychiatry research, vol. 238, pp. 153–158, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Sleep in adults with autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A system- atic review and meta-analysis,

    J. Lugo, C. Fadeuilhe, L. Gisbert, I. Setien, M. Delgado, M. Corrales, V . Richarte, and J. A. Ramos-Quiroga, “Sleep in adults with autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A system- atic review and meta-analysis,” European Neuropsychopharmacology...

    2020

  30. [38]

    Self-esteem, self- efficacy, and resources in adults with adhd,

    P. E. Newark, M. Els ¨asser, and R.-D. Stieglitz, “Self-esteem, self- efficacy, and resources in adults with adhd,” Journal of Attention Disorders, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 279–290, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    Hyperfocus: The forgotten frontier of attention,

    B. K. Ashinoff and A. Abu-Akel, “Hyperfocus: The forgotten frontier of attention,” Psychological research, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Expe- riences of hyperfocus and flow in college students with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (adhd),

    M. M. Grotewiel, M. E. Crenshaw, A. Dorsey, and E. Street, “Expe- riences of hyperfocus and flow in college students with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (adhd),” Current Psychology, pp. 1–11, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    The paradox of cognitive flexibility in autism,

    H. M. Geurts, B. Corbett, and M. Solomon, “The paradox of cognitive flexibility in autism,” Trends in cognitive sciences , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 74–82, 2009

    2009

  34. [42]

    Neurodiversity in the workplace: Building toward a more inclusive future of work,

    Bank of America, “Neurodiversity in the workplace: Building toward a more inclusive future of work,” 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    A rising tide lifts all boats - creating a better work environment for all by embracing neurodiversity,

    Deloitte, “A rising tide lifts all boats - creating a better work environment for all by embracing neurodiversity,” Deloitte Insights, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    How to be more neuro-inclusive in the workplace: A guide for HR,

    Every mind at work, “How to be more neuro-inclusive in the workplace: A guide for HR,” 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Neurodiversity in the workplace supporting neurodivergent members at work and campaigning for neurodiversity- friendly workplaces,

    University College Union, “Neurodiversity in the workplace supporting neurodivergent members at work and campaigning for neurodiversity- friendly workplaces,” Quality and Participation Unit , 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Neurodiversity at work: demand, supply and a gap analysis,

    A. McDowall, N. Doyle, and M. Kiseleva, “Neurodiversity at work: demand, supply and a gap analysis,” 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Neuroinclusion at work,

    E. Thompson and J. Miller, “Neuroinclusion at work,” Survey report. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development , 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Neurodiversity in the workplace - an information guide for employers

    ADHD Foundation - The Neurodiversity Charity, “Neurodiversity in the workplace - an information guide for employers.” 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.