homework problems checklist

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, how to do homework: 15 expert tips and tricks.

Coursework/GPA

Everyone struggles with homework sometimes, but if getting your homework done has become a chronic issue for you, then you may need a little extra help. That’s why we’ve written this article all about how to do homework. Once you’re finished reading it, you’ll know how to do homework (and have tons of new ways to motivate yourself to do homework)!

We’ve broken this article down into a few major sections. You’ll find:

• A diagnostic test to help you figure out why you’re struggling with homework
• A discussion of the four major homework problems students face, along with expert tips for addressing them
• A bonus section with tips for how to do homework fast

By the end of this article, you’ll be prepared to tackle whatever homework assignments your teachers throw at you .

So let’s get started!

How to Do Homework: Figure Out Your Struggles 

Sometimes it feels like everything is standing between you and getting your homework done. But the truth is, most people only have one or two major roadblocks that are keeping them from getting their homework done well and on time. 

The best way to figure out how to get motivated to do homework starts with pinpointing the issues that are affecting your ability to get your assignments done. That’s why we’ve developed a short quiz to help you identify the areas where you’re struggling. 

Take the quiz below and record your answers on your phone or on a scrap piece of paper. Keep in mind there are no wrong answers! 

1. You’ve just been assigned an essay in your English class that’s due at the end of the week. What’s the first thing you do?

A. Keep it in mind, even though you won’t start it until the day before it’s due  B. Open up your planner. You’ve got to figure out when you’ll write your paper since you have band practice, a speech tournament, and your little sister’s dance recital this week, too.  C. Groan out loud. Another essay? You could barely get yourself to write the last one!  D. Start thinking about your essay topic, which makes you think about your art project that’s due the same day, which reminds you that your favorite artist might have just posted to Instagram...so you better check your feed right now. 

2. Your mom asked you to pick up your room before she gets home from work. You’ve just gotten home from school. You decide you’ll tackle your chores: 

A. Five minutes before your mom walks through the front door. As long as it gets done, who cares when you start?  B. As soon as you get home from your shift at the local grocery store.  C. After you give yourself a 15-minute pep talk about how you need to get to work.  D. You won’t get it done. Between texts from your friends, trying to watch your favorite Netflix show, and playing with your dog, you just lost track of time! 

3. You’ve signed up to wash dogs at the Humane Society to help earn money for your senior class trip. You: 

A. Show up ten minutes late. You put off leaving your house until the last minute, then got stuck in unexpected traffic on the way to the shelter.  B. Have to call and cancel at the last minute. You forgot you’d already agreed to babysit your cousin and bake cupcakes for tomorrow’s bake sale.  C. Actually arrive fifteen minutes early with extra brushes and bandanas you picked up at the store. You’re passionate about animals, so you’re excited to help out! D. Show up on time, but only get three dogs washed. You couldn’t help it: you just kept getting distracted by how cute they were!

4. You have an hour of downtime, so you decide you’re going to watch an episode of The Great British Baking Show. You: 

A. Scroll through your social media feeds for twenty minutes before hitting play, which means you’re not able to finish the whole episode. Ugh! You really wanted to see who was sent home!  B. Watch fifteen minutes until you remember you’re supposed to pick up your sister from band practice before heading to your part-time job. No GBBO for you!  C. You finish one episode, then decide to watch another even though you’ve got SAT studying to do. It’s just more fun to watch people make scones.  D. Start the episode, but only catch bits and pieces of it because you’re reading Twitter, cleaning out your backpack, and eating a snack at the same time.

5. Your teacher asks you to stay after class because you’ve missed turning in two homework assignments in a row. When she asks you what’s wrong, you say: 

A. You planned to do your assignments during lunch, but you ran out of time. You decided it would be better to turn in nothing at all than submit unfinished work.  B. You really wanted to get the assignments done, but between your extracurriculars, family commitments, and your part-time job, your homework fell through the cracks.  C. You have a hard time psyching yourself to tackle the assignments. You just can’t seem to find the motivation to work on them once you get home.  D. You tried to do them, but you had a hard time focusing. By the time you realized you hadn’t gotten anything done, it was already time to turn them in. 

Like we said earlier, there are no right or wrong answers to this quiz (though your results will be better if you answered as honestly as possible). Here’s how your answers break down: 

• If your answers were mostly As, then your biggest struggle with doing homework is procrastination. 
• If your answers were mostly Bs, then your biggest struggle with doing homework is time management. 
• If your answers were mostly Cs, then your biggest struggle with doing homework is motivation. 
• If your answers were mostly Ds, then your biggest struggle with doing homework is getting distracted. 

Now that you’ve identified why you’re having a hard time getting your homework done, we can help you figure out how to fix it! Scroll down to find your core problem area to learn more about how you can start to address it. 

And one more thing: you’re really struggling with homework, it’s a good idea to read through every section below. You may find some additional tips that will help make homework less intimidating. 

How to Do Homework When You’re a Procrastinator  

Merriam Webster defines “procrastinate” as “to put off intentionally and habitually.” In other words, procrastination is when you choose to do something at the last minute on a regular basis. If you’ve ever found yourself pulling an all-nighter, trying to finish an assignment between periods, or sprinting to turn in a paper minutes before a deadline, you’ve experienced the effects of procrastination. 

If you’re a chronic procrastinator, you’re in good company. In fact, one study found that 70% to 95% of undergraduate students procrastinate when it comes to doing their homework. Unfortunately, procrastination can negatively impact your grades. Researchers have found that procrastination can lower your grade on an assignment by as much as five points ...which might not sound serious until you realize that can mean the difference between a B- and a C+. 

Procrastination can also negatively affect your health by increasing your stress levels , which can lead to other health conditions like insomnia, a weakened immune system, and even heart conditions. Getting a handle on procrastination can not only improve your grades, it can make you feel better, too! 

The big thing to understand about procrastination is that it’s not the result of laziness. Laziness is defined as being “disinclined to activity or exertion.” In other words, being lazy is all about doing nothing. But a s this Psychology Today article explains , procrastinators don’t put things off because they don’t want to work. Instead, procrastinators tend to postpone tasks they don’t want to do in favor of tasks that they perceive as either more important or more fun. Put another way, procrastinators want to do things...as long as it’s not their homework! 

3 Tips f or Conquering Procrastination 

Because putting off doing homework is a common problem, there are lots of good tactics for addressing procrastination. Keep reading for our three expert tips that will get your homework habits back on track in no time. 

#1: Create a Reward System

Like we mentioned earlier, procrastination happens when you prioritize other activities over getting your homework done. Many times, this happens because homework...well, just isn’t enjoyable. But you can add some fun back into the process by rewarding yourself for getting your work done. 

Here’s what we mean: let’s say you decide that every time you get your homework done before the day it’s due, you’ll give yourself a point. For every five points you earn, you’ll treat yourself to your favorite dessert: a chocolate cupcake! Now you have an extra (delicious!) incentive to motivate you to leave procrastination in the dust. 

If you’re not into cupcakes, don’t worry. Your reward can be anything that motivates you . Maybe it’s hanging out with your best friend or an extra ten minutes of video game time. As long as you’re choosing something that makes homework worth doing, you’ll be successful. 

#2: Have a Homework Accountability Partner 

If you’re having trouble getting yourself to start your homework ahead of time, it may be a good idea to call in reinforcements . Find a friend or classmate you can trust and explain to them that you’re trying to change your homework habits. Ask them if they’d be willing to text you to make sure you’re doing your homework and check in with you once a week to see if you’re meeting your anti-procrastination goals. 

Sharing your goals can make them feel more real, and an accountability partner can help hold you responsible for your decisions. For example, let’s say you’re tempted to put off your science lab write-up until the morning before it’s due. But you know that your accountability partner is going to text you about it tomorrow...and you don’t want to fess up that you haven’t started your assignment. A homework accountability partner can give you the extra support and incentive you need to keep your homework habits on track. 

#3: Create Your Own Due Dates 

If you’re a life-long procrastinator, you might find that changing the habit is harder than you expected. In that case, you might try using procrastination to your advantage! If you just can’t seem to stop doing your work at the last minute, try setting your own due dates for assignments that range from a day to a week before the assignment is actually due. 

Here’s what we mean. Let’s say you have a math worksheet that’s been assigned on Tuesday and is due on Friday. In your planner, you can write down the due date as Thursday instead. You may still put off your homework assignment until the last minute...but in this case, the “last minute” is a day before the assignment’s real due date . This little hack can trick your procrastination-addicted brain into planning ahead! 

If you feel like Kevin Hart in this meme, then our tips for doing homework when you're busy are for you. 

How to Do Homework When You’re too Busy

If you’re aiming to go to a top-tier college , you’re going to have a full plate. Because college admissions is getting more competitive, it’s important that you’re maintaining your grades , studying hard for your standardized tests , and participating in extracurriculars so your application stands out. A packed schedule can get even more hectic once you add family obligations or a part-time job to the mix. 

If you feel like you’re being pulled in a million directions at once, you’re not alone. Recent research has found that stress—and more severe stress-related conditions like anxiety and depression— are a major problem for high school students . In fact, one study from the American Psychological Association found that during the school year, students’ stress levels are higher than those of the adults around them. 

For students, homework is a major contributor to their overall stress levels . Many high schoolers have multiple hours of homework every night , and figuring out how to fit it into an already-packed schedule can seem impossible. 

3 Tips for Fitting Homework Into Your Busy Schedule

While it might feel like you have literally no time left in your schedule, there are still ways to make sure you’re able to get your homework done and meet your other commitments. Here are our expert homework tips for even the busiest of students. 

#1: Make a Prioritized To-Do List 

You probably already have a to-do list to keep yourself on track. The next step is to prioritize the items on your to-do list so you can see what items need your attention right away. 

Here’s how it works: at the beginning of each day, sit down and make a list of all the items you need to get done before you go to bed. This includes your homework, but it should also take into account any practices, chores, events, or job shifts you may have. Once you get everything listed out, it’s time to prioritize them using the labels A, B, and C. Here’s what those labels mean:

• A Tasks : tasks that have to get done—like showing up at work or turning in an assignment—get an A. 
• B Tasks : these are tasks that you would like to get done by the end of the day but aren’t as time sensitive. For example, studying for a test you have next week could be a B-level task. It’s still important, but it doesn’t have to be done right away.
• C Tasks: these are tasks that aren’t very important and/or have no real consequences if you don’t get them done immediately. For instance, if you’re hoping to clean out your closet but it’s not an assigned chore from your parents, you could label that to-do item with a C.

Prioritizing your to-do list helps you visualize which items need your immediate attention, and which items you can leave for later. A prioritized to-do list ensures that you’re spending your time efficiently and effectively, which helps you make room in your schedule for homework. So even though you might really want to start making decorations for Homecoming (a B task), you’ll know that finishing your reading log (an A task) is more important. 

#2: Use a Planner With Time Labels

Your planner is probably packed with notes, events, and assignments already. (And if you’re not using a planner, it’s time to start!) But planners can do more for you than just remind you when an assignment is due. If you’re using a planner with time labels, it can help you visualize how you need to spend your day.

A planner with time labels breaks your day down into chunks, and you assign tasks to each chunk of time. For example, you can make a note of your class schedule with assignments, block out time to study, and make sure you know when you need to be at practice. Once you know which tasks take priority, you can add them to any empty spaces in your day. 

Planning out how you spend your time not only helps you use it wisely, it can help you feel less overwhelmed, too . We’re big fans of planners that include a task list ( like this one ) or have room for notes ( like this one ). 

#3: Set Reminders on Your Phone 

If you need a little extra nudge to make sure you’re getting your homework done on time, it’s a good idea to set some reminders on your phone. You don’t need a fancy app, either. You can use your alarm app to have it go off at specific times throughout the day to remind you to do your homework. This works especially well if you have a set homework time scheduled. So if you’ve decided you’re doing homework at 6:00 pm, you can set an alarm to remind you to bust out your books and get to work. 

If you use your phone as your planner, you may have the option to add alerts, emails, or notifications to scheduled events . Many calendar apps, including the one that comes with your phone, have built-in reminders that you can customize to meet your needs. So if you block off time to do your homework from 4:30 to 6:00 pm, you can set a reminder that will pop up on your phone when it’s time to get started. 

This dog isn't judging your lack of motivation...but your teacher might. Keep reading for tips to help you motivate yourself to do your homework.

How to Do Homework When You’re Unmotivated 

At first glance, it may seem like procrastination and being unmotivated are the same thing. After all, both of these issues usually result in you putting off your homework until the very last minute. 

But there’s one key difference: many procrastinators are working, they’re just prioritizing work differently. They know they’re going to start their homework...they’re just going to do it later. 

Conversely, people who are unmotivated to do homework just can’t find the willpower to tackle their assignments. Procrastinators know they’ll at least attempt the homework at the last minute, whereas people who are unmotivated struggle with convincing themselves to do it at a ll. For procrastinators, the stress comes from the inevitable time crunch. For unmotivated people, the stress comes from trying to convince themselves to do something they don’t want to do in the first place. 

Here are some common reasons students are unmotivated in doing homework : 

• Assignments are too easy, too hard, or seemingly pointless 
• Students aren’t interested in (or passionate about) the subject matter
• Students are intimidated by the work and/or feels like they don’t understand the assignment 
• Homework isn’t fun, and students would rather spend their time on things that they enjoy 

To sum it up: people who lack motivation to do their homework are more likely to not do it at all, or to spend more time worrying about doing their homework than...well, actually doing it.

3 Tips for How to Get Motivated to Do Homework

The key to getting homework done when you’re unmotivated is to figure out what does motivate you, then apply those things to homework. It sounds tricky...but it’s pretty simple once you get the hang of it! Here are our three expert tips for motivating yourself to do your homework. 

#1: Use Incremental Incentives

When you’re not motivated, it’s important to give yourself small rewards to stay focused on finishing the task at hand. The trick is to keep the incentives small and to reward yourself often. For example, maybe you’re reading a good book in your free time. For every ten minutes you spend on your homework, you get to read five pages of your book. Like we mentioned earlier, make sure you’re choosing a reward that works for you! 

So why does this technique work? Using small rewards more often allows you to experience small wins for getting your work done. Every time you make it to one of your tiny reward points, you get to celebrate your success, which gives your brain a boost of dopamine . Dopamine helps you stay motivated and also creates a feeling of satisfaction when you complete your homework !  

#2: Form a Homework Group 

If you’re having trouble motivating yourself, it’s okay to turn to others for support. Creating a homework group can help with this. Bring together a group of your friends or classmates, and pick one time a week where you meet and work on homework together. You don’t have to be in the same class, or even taking the same subjects— the goal is to encourage one another to start (and finish!) your assignments. 

Another added benefit of a homework group is that you can help one another if you’re struggling to understand the material covered in your classes. This is especially helpful if your lack of motivation comes from being intimidated by your assignments. Asking your friends for help may feel less scary than talking to your teacher...and once you get a handle on the material, your homework may become less frightening, too. 

#3: Change Up Your Environment 

If you find that you’re totally unmotivated, it may help if you find a new place to do your homework. For example, if you’ve been struggling to get your homework done at home, try spending an extra hour in the library after school instead. The change of scenery can limit your distractions and give you the energy you need to get your work done. 

If you’re stuck doing homework at home, you can still use this tip. For instance, maybe you’ve always done your homework sitting on your bed. Try relocating somewhere else, like your kitchen table, for a few weeks. You may find that setting up a new “homework spot” in your house gives you a motivational lift and helps you get your work done. 

Social media can be a huge problem when it comes to doing homework. We have advice for helping you unplug and regain focus.

How to Do Homework When You’re Easily Distracted

We live in an always-on world, and there are tons of things clamoring for our attention. From friends and family to pop culture and social media, it seems like there’s always something (or someone!) distracting us from the things we need to do.

The 24/7 world we live in has affected our ability to focus on tasks for prolonged periods of time. Research has shown that over the past decade, an average person’s attention span has gone from 12 seconds to eight seconds . And when we do lose focus, i t takes people a long time to get back on task . One study found that it can take as long as 23 minutes to get back to work once we’ve been distracte d. No wonder it can take hours to get your homework done! 

3 Tips to Improve Your Focus

If you have a hard time focusing when you’re doing your homework, it’s a good idea to try and eliminate as many distractions as possible. Here are three expert tips for blocking out the noise so you can focus on getting your homework done. 

#1: Create a Distraction-Free Environment

Pick a place where you’ll do your homework every day, and make it as distraction-free as possible. Try to find a location where there won’t be tons of noise, and limit your access to screens while you’re doing your homework. Put together a focus-oriented playlist (or choose one on your favorite streaming service), and put your headphones on while you work. 

You may find that other people, like your friends and family, are your biggest distraction. If that’s the case, try setting up some homework boundaries. Let them know when you’ll be working on homework every day, and ask them if they’ll help you keep a quiet environment. They’ll be happy to lend a hand! 

#2: Limit Your Access to Technology 

We know, we know...this tip isn’t fun, but it does work. For homework that doesn’t require a computer, like handouts or worksheets, it’s best to put all your technology away . Turn off your television, put your phone and laptop in your backpack, and silence notifications on any wearable tech you may be sporting. If you listen to music while you work, that’s fine...but make sure you have a playlist set up so you’re not shuffling through songs once you get started on your homework. 

If your homework requires your laptop or tablet, it can be harder to limit your access to distractions. But it’s not impossible! T here are apps you can download that will block certain websites while you’re working so that you’re not tempted to scroll through Twitter or check your Facebook feed. Silence notifications and text messages on your computer, and don’t open your email account unless you absolutely have to. And if you don’t need access to the internet to complete your assignments, turn off your WiFi. Cutting out the online chatter is a great way to make sure you’re getting your homework done. 

#3: Set a Timer (the Pomodoro Technique)

Have you ever heard of the Pomodoro technique ? It’s a productivity hack that uses a timer to help you focus!

Here’s how it works: first, set a timer for 25 minutes. This is going to be your work time. During this 25 minutes, all you can do is work on whatever homework assignment you have in front of you. No email, no text messaging, no phone calls—just homework. When that timer goes off, you get to take a 5 minute break. Every time you go through one of these cycles, it’s called a “pomodoro.” For every four pomodoros you complete, you can take a longer break of 15 to 30 minutes.

The pomodoro technique works through a combination of boundary setting and rewards. First, it gives you a finite amount of time to focus, so you know that you only have to work really hard for 25 minutes. Once you’ve done that, you’re rewarded with a short break where you can do whatever you want. Additionally, tracking how many pomodoros you complete can help you see how long you’re really working on your homework. (Once you start using our focus tips, you may find it doesn’t take as long as you thought!)

Two Bonus Tips for How to Do Homework Fast

Even if you’re doing everything right, there will be times when you just need to get your homework done as fast as possible. (Why do teachers always have projects due in the same week? The world may never know.)

The problem with speeding through homework is that it’s easy to make mistakes. While turning in an assignment is always better than not submitting anything at all, you want to make sure that you’re not compromising quality for speed. Simply put, the goal is to get your homework done quickly and still make a good grade on the assignment! 

Here are our two bonus tips for getting a decent grade on your homework assignments , even when you’re in a time crunch. 

#1: Do the Easy Parts First 

This is especially true if you’re working on a handout with multiple questions. Before you start working on the assignment, read through all the questions and problems. As you do, make a mark beside the questions you think are “easy” to answer . 

Once you’ve finished going through the whole assignment, you can answer these questions first. Getting the easy questions out of the way as quickly as possible lets you spend more time on the trickier portions of your homework, which will maximize your assignment grade. 

(Quick note: this is also a good strategy to use on timed assignments and tests, like the SAT and the ACT !) 

#2: Pay Attention in Class 

Homework gets a lot easier when you’re actively learning the material. Teachers aren’t giving you homework because they’re mean or trying to ruin your weekend... it’s because they want you to really understand the course material. Homework is designed to reinforce what you’re already learning in class so you’ll be ready to tackle harder concepts later.

When you pay attention in class, ask questions, and take good notes, you’re absorbing the information you’ll need to succeed on your homework assignments. (You’re stuck in class anyway, so you might as well make the most of it!) Not only will paying attention in class make your homework less confusing, it will also help it go much faster, too.

What’s Next?

If you’re looking to improve your productivity beyond homework, a good place to begin is with time management. After all, we only have so much time in a day...so it’s important to get the most out of it! To get you started, check out this list of the 12 best time management techniques that you can start using today.

You may have read this article because homework struggles have been affecting your GPA. Now that you’re on the path to homework success, it’s time to start being proactive about raising your grades. This article teaches you everything you need to know about raising your GPA so you can

Now you know how to get motivated to do homework...but what about your study habits? Studying is just as critical to getting good grades, and ultimately getting into a good college . We can teach you how to study bette r in high school. (We’ve also got tons of resources to help you study for your ACT and SAT exams , too!)

These recommendations are based solely on our knowledge and experience. If you purchase an item through one of our links, PrepScholar may receive a commission.

Ashley Sufflé Robinson has a Ph.D. in 19th Century English Literature. As a content writer for PrepScholar, Ashley is passionate about giving college-bound students the in-depth information they need to get into the school of their dreams.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

• Try for free

Homework Checklist

Featured Middle School Resources

Related Resources

The Homework Problems Checklist: Psychometric Properties and Usefulness in teens with and without ADHD

• Original Paper
• Published: 28 October 2022
• Volume 15 , pages 260–271, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Marieke de Vries   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2845-8956 1 ,
• Saskia van der Oord   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2771-0187 2 , 3 ,
• Steven W. Evans   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7283-2274 4 ,
• George J. DuPaul   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4601-3507 5 &
• Bianca E. Boyer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2344-7334 6  

619 Accesses

3 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Homework problems are frequently encountered, especially among youth with ADHD. The Homework Problems Checklist (HPC) is a parent-rated questionnaire to assess homework problems that was studied with children but not extensively with teens. We assessed the psychometric properties of the HPC with teens with and without ADHD. Firstly, the factor structures from previous studies were fitted on a large representative Dutch teen community sample ( N  = 991; 10–18 years), and one Dutch ( N  = 118; 12–16 years) and two American ( N  = 348; 10–14 years, N  = 180; 13–17 years) samples with teens diagnosed with ADHD. Secondly, homework problems of the community sample and the samples of teens with ADHD were compared. Thirdly, the effects of age and sex on homework problems were tested. The results indicated that 1) a two-factor (1. Completion and 2. Management) model fitted the data adequately. Coefficients of congruence confirmed equal factor structures in the samples. 2) The samples with teens with ADHD had more homework problems than the community sample, and among those teens with ADHD the US samples had more homework problems than the Dutch sample. 3) In the community sample, older teens showed fewer homework completion problems than younger teens. Moreover, homework management problems decreased with age in females but not in males. Sex- and age effects for teens with ADHD were minimal. Raw and percentile scores of the community sample are provided. In sum, the HPC can be used to establish the severity and nature of homework problems in teens. In teens without ADHD, particularly females, homework problems decrease with age, but for teens with ADHD, homework problems persist during adolescence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Checklists and Structured Interviews

A Psychometric Investigation of the Ohio Scales, Short Form, Problem Severity Domain, Youth- and Caregiver-Report Versions

Standardised assessment of functioning in adhd: consensus on the icf core sets for adhd.

Note that we chose the terms ‘sex’, ‘male’ and ‘female’ because we only had information about participants’ biological sex, and not about their gender identity.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition. In Arlington. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.744053

Anesko, K. M., Schoiock, G., Ramirez, R., & Levine, F. M. (1987). The homework problem checklist: Assessing children’s homework difficulties. Behavioral Assessment.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2017). Amos (Version 25.0).

Arnold, L. E., Hodgkins, P., Kahle, J., Madhoo, M., & Kewley, G. (2020). Long-term outcomes of ADHD: Academic achievement and performance. Journal of Attention Disorders, 24 (1), 73–85.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bas, G., Senturk, C., & Cigerci, F. M. (2017). Homework and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Issues in Educational Research, 27 (1), 31.

Google Scholar  

Boyer, B. E., Geurts, H. M., Prins, P. J. M., & der OordVan, S. (2015). Two novel CBTs for adolescents with ADHD: the value of planning skills. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 24 (9), 1075–1090.

Article   Google Scholar  

Boyer, B. E., Geurts, H. M., der Oord, S., & Van. (2018). Planning skills of adolescents with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 22 (1), 46–57.

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (2003). Schoolbeleving van de jeugd, 1997, 2001 en 2003. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/cijfers/detail/70630ned?q=huiswerk

Cooper, H. (1989). Homework . Longman.

Book   Google Scholar  

Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76 (1), 1–62.

Crone, E. A. (2009). Executive functions in adolescence: Inferences from brain and behavior. Developmental Science, 12 (6), 825–830.

Danielson, M. L., Bitsko, R. H., Ghandour, R. M., Holbrook, J. R., Kogan, M. D., & Blumberg, S. J. (2018). Prevalence of parent-reported ADHD diagnosis and associated treatment among US children and adolescents, 2016. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47 (2), 199–212.

DuPaul, G. J., Evans, S. W., Owens, J. S., Cleminshaw, C. L., Kipperman, K., Fu, Q., & Benson, K. (2021). School-based intervention for adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Effects on academic functioning. Journal of School Psychology , 87 , 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSP.2021.07.001

DuPaul, G., Power, T., Anastopoulos, A., & Reid, R. (2016). ADHD rating scale-5 for children and adolescents: checklists, norms, and clinical interpretation.

Evans, S. W., Langberg, J. M., Schultz, B. K., Vaughn, A., Altaye, M., Marshall, S. A., & Zoromski, A. K. (2016). Evaluation of a school-based treatment program for young adolescents with ADHD. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84 (1), 15.

Field, A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics 5th ed.

Fleming, M., Fitton, C. A., Steiner, M. F. C., McLay, J. S., Clark, D., King, A., Mackay, D. F., & Pell, J. P. (2017). Educational and health outcomes of children treated for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. JAMA Pediatrics, 171 (7), e170691–e170691.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fletcher, J. M. (2014). The effects of childhood ADHD on adult labor market outcomes. Health Economics, 23 (2), 159–181.

Frazier, T. W., Youngstrom, E. A., Glutting, J. J., & Watkins, M. W. (2007). ADHD and achievement: Meta-analysis of the child, adolescent, and adult literatures and a concomitant study with college students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40 (1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400010401

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1–55.

Kantar TNS. (2016). Market research and market information group Kantar TNS the Netherlands, formerly known as TNS-NIPO.

Kent, K. M., Pelham, W. E., Molina, B. S., Sibley, M. H., Waschbusch, D. A., Yu, J., Gnagy, E. M., Biswas, A., Babinski, D. E., & Karch, K. M. (2011). The academic experience of male high school students with ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39 (3), 451–462.

Kort, W., Schittekatte, M., Bosmans, M., Compaan, E., Dekker, P., Vermeir, G., & Verhaeghe, P. (2005). WISC-III NL : Handleiding en verantwoording.

Kyriazos, T. A. (2018). Applied Psychometrics: Sample Size and Sample Power Considerations in Factor Analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in General. Psychology, 9 , 2207–2230.

Lahey, B. B., & Willcutt, E. G. (2010). Predictive validity of a continuous alternative to nominal subtypes of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder for DSM–V. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39 (6), 761–775.

Langberg, J. M., Arnold, L. E., Flowers, A. M., Altaye, M., Epstein, J. N., & Molina, B. S. G. (2010). Assessing homework problems in children with ADHD: Validation of a parent-report measure and evaluation of homework performance patterns. School Mental Health, 2 (1), 3–12.

Langberg, J. M., Becker, S. P., & Dvorsky, M. R. (2014). The association between sluggish cognitive tempo and academic functioning in youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42 (1), 91–103.

Langberg, J. M., Dvorsky, M. R., & Evans, S. W. (2013). What specific facets of executive function are associated with academic functioning in youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41 (7), 1145–1159.

Langberg, J. M., Dvorsky, M. R., Molitor, S. J., Bourchtein, E., Eddy, L. D., Smith, Z., Schultz, B. K., & Evans, S. W. (2016). Longitudinal evaluation of the importance of homework assignment completion for the academic performance of middle school students with ADHD. Journal of School Psychology, 55 , 27–38.

Langberg, J. M., Epstein, J. N., Becker, S. P., Girio-Herrera, E., & Vaughn, A. J. (2012). Evaluation of the homework, organization, and planning skills (HOPS) intervention for middle school students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as implemented by school mental health providers. School Psychology Review, 41 (3), 342–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087514

Langberg, J. M., Epstein, J. N., Girio-Herrera, E., Becker, S. P., Vaughn, A. J., & Altaye, M. (2011). Materials organization, planning, and homework completion in middle-school students with ADHD: Impact on academic performance. School Mental Health, 3 (2), 93–101.

Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ten Berge, J. M. F. (2006). Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2 (2), 57–64.

Marchal, J. P., De Vries, M., Conijn, J., Rietman, A. B., Ijsselstijn, H., Tibboel, D., Haverman, L., Maurice-Stam, H., Oostrom, K. J., & Grootenhuis, M. A. (2019). Pediatric perceived cognitive functioning: Psychometric properties and normative data of the dutch item bank and short form. Cambridge. Org, 25 (8), 845–856. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617719000572

Marx, I., Hacker, T., Yu, X., Cortese, S., & Sonuga-Barke, E. (2021). ADHD and the choice of small immediate over larger delayed rewards: A comparative meta-analysis of performance on simple choice-delay and temporal discounting. Journals Sagepub Com, 25 (2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054718772138

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Percentage of elementary and secondary school students who do homework, average time spent doing homework, percentage whose parents check that homework is done, and percentage whose parents help with homework, by frequency and selected characteristics: 2007, 2012, 2016, and 2019. In https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_227.40.asp?current=yes .

Patros, C. H. G., Alderson, R. M., Kasper, L. J., Tarle, S. J., Lea, S. E., & Hudec, K. L. (2016). Choice-impulsivity in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A meta-analytic review. In Clinical Psychology Review, 43 , 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.11.001

Pelham, W. E., Evans, S. W., Gnagy, E. M., & Greenslade, K. E. (1992). Teacher ratings of Dsm-Iii-R symptoms for the disruptive behavior disorders - prevalence, factor-analyses, and conditional probabilities in a special-education sample. School Psychology Review, 21 (2), 285–299.

Power, T. J., Werba, B. E., Watkins, M. W., Angelucci, J. G., & Eiraldi, R. B. (2006). Patterns of parent-reported homework problems among ADHD-referred and non-referred children. School Psychology Quarterly, 21 (1), 13.

Ramos, A. A., Hamdan, A. C., & Machado, L. (2020). A meta-analysis on verbal working memory in children and adolescents with ADHD. In Clinical Neuropsychologist, 34 (5), 873–898. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2019.1604998

Sattler, J. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications . Jerome Sattler Publisher Inc.

Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., Lucas, C. P., Dulcan, M. K., & Schwab-Stone, M. E. (2000). NIMH diagnostic interview schedule for children version IV (NIMH DISC- IV): Description, differences from previous versions, and reliability of some common diagnoses. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39 (1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200001000-00014

Sibley, M. H., Altszuler, A. R., Morrow, A. S., & Merrill, B. M. (2014). Mapping the academic problem behaviors of adolescents with ADHD. School Psychology Quarterly, 29 , 422–437.

Sonuga-Barke, E., Bitsakou, P., & Thompson, M. (2010). Beyond the dual pathway model: Evidence for the dissociation of timing, inhibitory, and delay-related impairments in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49 (4), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-201004000-00009

Market research and market information group Kantar TNS the Netherlands, formarly known as TNS-NIPO (Vol. 2016).

Wåhlstedt, C., & Bohlin, G. (2010). DSM-IV-defined inattention and sluggish cognitive tempo: Independent and interactive relations to neuropsychological factors and comorbidity. Child Neuropsychology, 16 (4), 350–365.

Weller, E. B., Weller, R. A., Fristad, M. A., Rooney, M. T., & Schecter, J. (2000). Children’s interview for psychiatric syndromes (ChIPS). Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39 (1), 76–84.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Marieke de Vries and the data collection for the Community Sample were supported by Research Priority Area Yield ( https://yield.uva.nl/ ). Funding for the US samples was provided by a grant awarded to Steve W. Evans from the National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH082864) and the Institute for Educational Sciences (R305A140356). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the funding agencies. Funding for the Dutch sample was provided by the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW) grant (#15700095007).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Jalan Broga, 43500, Semenyih, Malaysia

Marieke de Vries

Clinical Psychology, Psychology and Educational Sciences, Louvain, KU, Belgium

Saskia van der Oord

Leuven Brain Institute, Louvain, Belgium

Center for Intervention Research in Schools, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA

Steven W. Evans

Lehigh University, Bethlehem, USA

George J. DuPaul

Clinical Developmental Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Bianca E. Boyer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marieke de Vries .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

We have no known conflicts of interest for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

de Vries, M., van der Oord, S., Evans, S.W. et al. The Homework Problems Checklist: Psychometric Properties and Usefulness in teens with and without ADHD. School Mental Health 15 , 260–271 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-022-09548-9

Download citation

Accepted : 30 September 2022

Published : 28 October 2022

Issue Date : March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-022-09548-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• ADHD Homework Problems Psychometric Properties
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Homework Problem Checklist (HPC)

Anesko‚ K. M.‚ Schoiock‚ G.‚ Rafael‚ L.‚ Fredric‚ M. (1987). The Homework Problem Checklist : Assessing children’s homework difficulties. Behavioral assessment‚ 9(2)‚ 179-185 .

Foley‚ R. M.‚ & Epstein‚ M. (1993). Evaluation of the homework problem checklist with students with behavior disorders. Special Services in the Schools‚ 7(1)‚ 79-90 .

Power‚ Thomas J.‚ Werba. Branlyn E.‚ Watkins‚ Marley W. et al. (2006). Patterns of Parent-Reported Homework Problems Among ADHD-Referred and Non-Referred Children. School Psychology Quarterly‚ 21(1)‚ 13-33.

Anesko‚ K. M.‚ Schoiock‚ G.‚ Rafael‚ L.‚ Fredric‚ M. (1987). Homework Problem Checklist (HPC). In Fischer‚ Joel.‚ Corcoran‚ Kevin J. (2007). Measures for Clinical Practice and research: A sourcebook. (4th ed.). NY. Oxford University Pr. Vol. 1‚ Page (s): 544-545.

Related terms:

• additional module homework – Münster questionnaire for evaluation (MFE-ZHa)
• Stalking Behavior Checklist
• Life Events Checklist (Modified)
• Problem checklist
• Generative Behavior Checklist (GBC)
• Checklist for Autism in Toddlers- CHAT
• Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC-35)
• Adult ADHD Self Report Scale (ASRS) v1.1. Symptom Checklist
• Burns Depression Checklist (BDC)
• FATIGUE CHECKLIST

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Assessing Homework Problems in Children with ADHD: Validation of a Parent-Report Measure and Evaluation of Homework Performance Patterns

Joshua m. langberg.

Department of Pediatrics University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center

L. Eugene Arnold

Department of Psychiatry, Ohio State University

Amanda M. Flowers

Mekibib altaye, jeff n. epstein, brooke s.g. molina.

Departments of Psychiatry & Psychology, University of Pittsburgh

The factor structure of a parent-report measure of child homework problems, the Homework Problems Checklist, was examined in a geographically and ethnically diverse sample of children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). This measure was completed by the parents of 579 children ages 7.0-9.9 diagnosed with ADHD Combined Type as part of the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD (MTA). Results replicated previous work showing two salient factors that measure homework completion behaviors (Factor I) and homework management behaviors (Factor II). This two-factor solution remained consistent when examined across child sex and ethnicity subgroups. Analysis of patterns revealed that homework problems are greater for children in higher grades and that children with ADHD and comorbid Learning Disabilities experience significantly more homework problems than children with ADHD alone. This study also replicated previous work showing that homework problems and ADHD inattentive symptoms are highly correlated whereas correlations between homework problems and hyperactivity and impulsivity are low to moderate. Implications of the findings for the assessment of homework problems in children with ADHD and for intervention are discussed.

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is the most common neurobehavioral disorder in children with prevalence rates ranging from 3% to 10% ( Brown et al., 2001 ; Froehlich et al., 2007 ). Children with ADHD experience significant impairment across multiple domains of functioning and throughout the developmental lifespan ( Barkley, Fischer, Smallish, & Fletcher, 2002 ; Biederman, 2005 ). Poor academic achievement is arguably the most serious difficulty faced by children who meet criteria for ADHD ( DuPaul & Stoner, 2003 ; Massetti et al., 2008 ). Compared to their peers, children with ADHD have significantly lower standardized achievement test scores and school grades ( Frazier, Youngstrom, Glutting, & Watkins, 2007 ) and experience higher rates of academic failure and school dropout ( Barkley, Fischer, Edelbrock, & Smallish, 1990 ; DuPaul & Stoner, 2003 ; Epstein, Polloway, Foley, & Patton, 1993 ). In fact, although ADHD symptoms decline with increased chronological age ( Biederman, Mick, & Faraone, 2000 & Hart, Lahey, Loeber, Applegate, & Frick, 1995 ), academic impairments persist and may increase as children progress through school ( Massetti et al., 2008 ; Wolraich et al., 2005 ).

Homework and Academic Achievement

Difficulties with homework management and completion contribute to the academic problems experienced by children with ADHD. Children with ADHD have significantly more homework difficulties than their classroom peers ( Epstein et al., 1993 ; Lahey et al., 1994 ; Power, Werba, Watkins, Angelucci, & Eiraldi, 2006 ). Children with ADHD are more likely than their peers to forget to bring materials from school to home and vice versa, to have homework assignments recorded inaccurately, to procrastinate when completing homework assignments, and to have left work incomplete ( Evans et al., 2009 ; Langberg, Epstein, Urbanowicz, Simon, & Graham, 2008 ; Power et al., 2006 ). Children with ADHD often have disorganized school binders, bookbags, lockers, and desks and as a result, frequently lose and cannot find homework materials ( Evans et al., 2009 ; Langberg et al., 2008 ; Zentall, Harper & Stormont-Spurgin, 1993 ). Further, when completing homework, children with ADHD often have difficulties staying on-task, rush through their assignments and make careless mistakes ( Epstein et al., 1993 ; Power, Karustis, & Habboushe, 2001 ).

In the United States, homework completion is a major component of the educational curriculum ( West Chester Institute for Human Services Research, 2002 ) and is positively correlated with school grades and achievement test scores ( Cooper, Lindsay, Nye, & Greathouse, 1998 ; Cooper, 1989 ). The relationship between homework and academic achievement is moderated by grade in school and is stronger in secondary school (i.e. grades 7-12) than in elementary school ( Cooper, Robinson, & Patall, 2006 ). Homework also serves to facilitate family involvement in education ( Olympia, Sheridan, Jenson, & Andrews, 1994 ) which is a strong predictor of children’s academic achievement ( Fantuzzo, McWayne, Perry, & Childs, 2004 ). Accordingly, the homework difficulties that children with ADHD experience are an important area for research and intervention.

Measuring Homework Problems

Children with ADHD often experience difficulties with at least one homework-related behavior that ultimately results in poor homework performance ( Power et al., 2006 ). For example, a child may record homework assignments inaccurately or not at all, mismanage materials, be off-task during homework completion, or have a combination of these difficulties. A reliable and valid measure of homework performance that identifies specific areas of deficit and thoroughly assesses homework behavior is necessary to inform intervention strategy. The Homework Problem Checklist (HPC) is a commonly used instrument for assessing children’s homework performance ( Anesko, Schoiock, Ramirez, & Levine, 1987 ). Several studies support this 20-item, parent-report measure as an adequate screening and outcome tool that encompasses a variety of behaviors that are integral to successful completion of homework ( Anesko et al., 1987 ; Epstein et al., 1993 ; Lahey et al., 1994 ).

Until recently, the HPC was treated as a single factor instrument that broadly assessed the construct of homework performance. To evaluate the accuracy of this assumption, Power et al. (2006) examined the factor structure of the HPC in a sample of general education students ( N = 675) and in a clinic-based sample ( N = 356). Seventy-one percent of the children in the clinic-based sample met diagnostic criteria for ADHD according to the parent completed Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents (DICA-R-P; Reich, Shayka, & Taibleson, 1995 ). Exploratory factor analysis suggested that the HPC measures two distinct aspects of homework performance. These factors were extracted both in the general education sample and the clinic sample ( Power et al., 2006 ).

Factor I relates to problems that occur during homework completion. For example, parents rate their child’s efficiency of work completion, distractibility, inattention, and the parent-child interactions that occur during homework completion. Factor II relates predominately to homework management behaviors. For example, parents rate their child’s consistency in recording homework and in bringing home the necessary school materials. Both HPC factors have moderate to high correlations with the Inattention subscale of the Behavior Assessment Scale for Children (BASC; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992 ) parent version and low to moderate correlations with the Hyperactivity subscale ( Power et al., 2006 ).

The Power et al. (2006) factor analysis findings have not been replicated. A replication study is important because of a number of limitations related to the geographic and ethnic diversity of the sample. First, the ADHD sample was from a single clinic in the Northeast, significantly limiting geographic diversity. Second, the ethnic diversity of the sample was relatively limited (African American 13% and Latino 3%). Third, while Power et al. (2006) found that boys with ADHD had significantly more homework problems than girls, the sample had an insufficient number of girls to test the stability of the factor structure across sex. Finally, Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and Standardized Achievement Test Score data were not available and the contribution of Learning Disabilities to the identified homework problems could not be evaluated.

The primary purpose of this study is to explore patterns of parent-reported homework problems in a geographically and ethnically diverse sample of children with ADHD. The NIMH Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD (MTA) sample examined in this study is geographically (six sites) and ethnically (38% minority) diverse and allows for evaluation of parent-reported homework problems across ethnic subgroups. A secondary goal of this study is to evaluate factors other than ethnicity that may be associated with homework problems in children with ADHD. There is some evidence to suggest that higher homework problem ratings (more severe problems) are associated with ADHD symptoms of inattention ( Power et al., 2006 ), grade in school ( Power et al., 2006 ) and male sex ( Anesko et al., 1987 ; Power et al., 2006 ). Accordingly, this study will examine the relationship between parent-rated homework problems and child sex, grade in school, and parent- and teacher-rated symptoms of ADHD. Further, while it has been demonstrated that children with learning problems ( Epstein et al., 1993 ) and children with ADHD ( Lahey et al., 1994 ) experience more homework problems than their peers, the impact of ADHD/LD comorbidity has not been examined. This study will test the hypothesis that an additive effect exists (i.e., that children with ADHD/LD comorbidity will exhibit significantly more homework problems than children with ADHD alone after accounting for intelligence).

Participants

The sample for this study is from the NIMH Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD (MTA; MTA Cooperative Group, 1999 ). Detailed descriptions of the MTA’s background and rationale, recruitment procedures, assessment and treatment methods, hypotheses, and study design have been reported in other publications ( Arnold et al., 1997 ; Hinshaw et al., 1997 ; MTA Cooperative Group, 1999 ). The MTA sample is geographically and ethnically diverse. The 579 participants were recruited from six separate sites across the United States and Canada. Sixty-two percent of the sample is Caucasian, 23% is African-American, 6% is Latino and 9% is of mixed decent or other ethnicity. The sample is also relatively socioeconomically diverse with 21% of the sample reporting a yearly family income below $20,000, 19% of the receiving welfare, and 23% of caregivers with a high school education or less. Eighty percent of MTA participants are male and 20% are female. All participants were between the ages of 7 and 9.9 at study entry (1 st through 4 th grades) and were diagnosed at baseline with ADHD, Combined Type using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4 th edition ( DSM-IV ) criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). All parents/children signed informed consent/assent forms approved by the local Institutional Review Boards (IRB). As part of a comprehensive assessment battery completed at baseline, participants’ parents completed the HPC.

Homework Problem Checklist (HPC; Anesko et al., 1987 ). The HPC includes 20 items that parents rate regarding their child’s homework-related behavior. Parents are asked to rate the frequency with which these behaviors occur on 4-point Likert scales ranging from “never” to “very often.” Research has shown that the HPC measure has excellent internal consistency for children in 2 nd through 4 th grades, with alpha coefficients ranging from .90 to .92 and corrected item-total correlations ranging from .31 to .72 ( Anesko et al., 1987 ). HPC ratings completed by parents at baseline in the MTA were examined in this study.

SNAP-IV ( Swanson, 1992 ). ADHD and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) symptoms were measured using the SNAP-IV Rating Scale. The SNAP includes the 18 ADHD items (9 DSM inattention and 9 DSM hyperactive/impulsive symptoms) and 8 ODD items from the DSM-IV. Parents and teachers respond on a 4-point Likert scale rating the severity of symptoms (i.e., 0 = not at all, 1 = just a little, 2 = pretty much, and 3 = very much). The scale yields ADHD-related factor scores for Inattention, Hyperactivity and Impulsivity and an ODD factor score. Each factor score is derived by summing the items for each symptom domain and dividing by the number of items on each factor (Inattention = 9 items; Hyperactivity = 6 items; Impulsivity = 3 items). Normative data for the SNAP are provided by Swanson (1992) . The 18 DSM ADHD items on the SNAP parent version were found to have excellent internal consistency in the MTA sample (Cronbach’s alpha = .97).

Statistical Analyses

Given the substantial differences in the Power et al. (2006) sample and the MTA sample (e.g., six sites across the U.S. versus a single site sample) and the fact that the Power et al. factor analysis findings have never been replicated, exploratory factor analysis was selected. As the primary goal of the study was to examine the factor structure reported by Power et al. (2006) , the factor analytic statistical procedures utilized by Power et al. were replicated. We utilized common factor analysis as opposed to principal component analysis because we were interested in the underlying latent structure of the HPC. The number of factors to be retained was determined by using a combination of criteria, including visual Scree plot (Keiser criterion; Eigenvalue > 1), MAP (Minimum Average Partials; Velicer, Eaton, & Fava, 2000 ) and parallel analysis ( O’Connor, 2000 ). Additionally, we looked at sampling adequacy as measured by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic. The KMO predicts, based on correlation and partial correlation data, whether items are likely to load on distinct factors adequately. The values range from 0 to 1 and with 0.6 or higher serving as a cut-point for proceeding with factor analysis (KMO; Kaiser, 1974 ). Anticipating correlated factors, we used oblique rotations and different rotation methods (varimax, equimax and promax) to identify the most interpretable factor structure. Salient factor loadings were defined as those whose values were greater than .40 ( Stevens, 2002 ). In addition, at least three salient item loadings were required to construct a factor ( Stevens, 2002 ). To remain consistent with Power et al. (2006) , we used a congruence coefficient (CC) to investigate the similarity of factor structures across racial/ethnic subgroups and sex. Congruence coefficients range in value from 0 to 1 with values of .85 −.94 corresponding to fair similarity across factors and .95 and above indicating the factor structure is virtually identical/equal ( Lorenzo-Seva & Berge, 2006 ).

The overall KMO ( Kaiser, 1974 ) statistic for all of the HPC items was .93 and ranged from .89 − .95 across the individual items. Examination of the correlation matrix revealed that most correlations were greater than .30. Initially, based on the Keiser criteria, a 3-factor solution was extracted. However, both the MAP and parallel analysis indicated that only two factors were needed. A two factor solution was also supported because only two variables (items 16 and 17) loaded on the third factor suggested by the Keiser criteria. Therefore, the third factor was eliminated and all further analyses using a variety of different rotation methods produced a 2-factor solution. As with Power et al. (2006) , Principal Factor extraction was used for all subsequent analyses followed by Promax rotation.

The two factors accounted for 50% of the variance. Twelve items loaded on Factor I (Cronbach’s alpha = .92) and seven items loaded on Factor II (Cronbach’s alpha = .86). The correlation between the two factors was .66 ( p <.0001). There were no cross-loadings (i.e., loadings greater than .40 on two factors), but items 4, 17, and 18 did not load well on either factor (see Table 1 ). Factor loadings for item 4 (.392 on Factor II) and 17 (.392 on Factor I) approached .4 in this study (see Table 1 ) and reached the .4 cutoff in the Power et al. (2006) general education sample. Item 18 did not load well on either factor in this study or in the Power et al. (2006) study. Accordingly, from this point forward, item 4 was included in calculating the Factor II score, item 17 in calculating the Factor I score, and item 18 was only included when calculating the HPC Total Score. We calculated the HPC Total Score and presented means and standard deviations in the tables primarily to allow comparisons with previous research.

Pattern Coefficients and Communalities Using Principal Axis Extraction and Promax Rotation

Note : Boldface indicates salient pattern coefficient (≥.40). Italics indicate items that approached the significant loading cutoff (.40) and that met the .4 threshold on these factors in the general education sample of the Power et al. (2006) study.

Ethnic Differences

The two factor structure of the HPC was examined across racial and ethnic subgroups (Caucasian N = 344; African American N = 109; Latino N = 40; Other N = 70). When compared across ethnicity, the CCs ranged from .95 − .97 for HPC Factor I and from .90 to .98 for HPC Factor II indicating that the two factor structure fit similarly across ethnicity. An ANOVA testing for differences in the severity of homework problems by each category of ethnicity was not significant ( p = .17; see Table 2 ).

Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations of Parent-Rated Homework Problems by Ethnic Subgroup

Note: ANOVA was not significant across subgroups; p = 0.17

Sex and Grade Differences

The sample was divided into male ( N = 464) and female ( N = 115). A two factor solution was generated and similarity of factor structure across sex was measured using a CC. The CC was .99 for HPC Factor I and .96 for HPC Factor II between the two samples (male and female), indicating that the two factor structures were virtually identical. Males were rated as exhibiting more severe homework problems than females for HPC Factor II ( p <.05) but not for HPC Factor I ( p = .07). Cohen’s d effect size calculations revealed that the differences between males and females on homework problem ratings were small (Factor II Male M = 8.68 & Female M = 7.57, d = .22; Factor I Male M = 24.47 & Female M = 22.92, d = .19).

The sample was next divided by grade in school (1 st grade N = 93; 2 nd grade N = 230; 3 rd grade N = 170; 4 th grade N = 70). An ANOVA conducted using the HPC Factors I and II as the dependent variables revealed a significant effect of grade ( p <.01). Homework problems ratings were highest (i.e. most problems) in grade 4 and lowest in grade 1 (see Table 3 ). Pairwise comparisons revealed that participants in grades 3 and 4 had significantly more homework problems than children in grades 1 and 2 ( p <.05) for both HPC Factor I and Factor II. There was no significant difference between children in grades 1 and 2 or between children in grades 3 and 4. Cohen’s d effect size analyses revealed that the difference in homework problems between children in grade 1 and grade 4 was moderate (Factor I d = .37; Factor II d = .47).

Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations of Parent-Rated Homework Problems by Grade in School

Note: Grades 4 & 3 > Grades 1 & 2; p <.05; Total Score = Sum of items; Item mean = Average item score

Correlations between HPC Factors and ADHD/ODD Symptoms

For these correlational analyses, the SNAP Inattention, Hyperactivity, Impulsivity, and ODD scores were each separately correlated with the two HPC factors. Similar to Power et al., (2006) , both HPC Factors had moderate to high correlations with parent ratings of inattention and low to moderate correlations with parent ratings of impulsivity and hyperactivity (all ps <.0001; see Table 4 ). The correlations between HPC Factors I and II and teacher ratings of inattention were lower but significant ( p <.001). Teacher ratings of hyperactivity and impulsivity were not correlated with parent ratings of homework problems (see Table 3 ). Also similar to Power et al. (2006) , both HPC Factors had moderate correlations with parent ratings of ODD symptoms ( p <.0001). Teacher ratings of ODD had small correlations with HPC Factor II ( p <.01) and were not significantly correlated with HPC Factor I.

Correlation between SNAP and HPC Factor Scores

ADHD/LD Comorbidity

Current best-practice recommendations for diagnosing a LD include documentation of an academic skills deficit as measured by a norm-referenced academic achievement test. An academic skills deficit is defined as a score of more than one standard deviation below the mean (a standardized score of 85 or below on most norm-referenced achievement tests; Dombrowski, Kamphaus, & Reynolds, 2004 ). All participants in the MTA were administered the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT; Wechsler, 1992 ) Reading, Math, and Spelling subtests at baseline. When LD is diagnosed on the basis of a score at or below 85 on one or more of these subtests, about one-third of the children in the MTA sample are identified ( Swanson et al., 2000 ), which is consistent with prevalence rates of ADHD/LD comorbidity ( DuPaul & Stoner, 2003 ). Dombrowski et al. (2004) specified a number of additional criteria that should be assessed as part of a comprehensive LD evaluation, including educational impairment and alternative explanations (e.g. cultural or economic factors). As children in this sample were diagnosed solely upon the < 85 criterion, they should be considered potential LD, rather than as meeting full diagnostic criteria for a LD. Using this definition, 192 participants (33% of sample) met criteria for at least one of the three types of LD. The male to female ratio for the LD sample mirrored the overall MTA sample (19% female). Sixty-five participants met criteria for two different types of LD and 42 participants met for all three types. For the analyses, participants who met for more than one type of LD were included in each group that they met criteria. Overall, N = 108 students met criteria for a potential Reading Disability (RD), N = 95 students for potential Math (MD), and N = 128 students for potential Spelling (SD).

An ANCOVA was conducted in order to control for participants’ Full Scale IQ as assessed by the WISC-III ( Wechsler, 1991 ). Children with ADHD/RD and ADHD/SD had significantly more homework problems than children with ADHD alone on both HPC Factors I and II after controlling for Full Scale IQ ( p <.05). The difference between parent-ratings of homework problems in children with ADHD alone in comparison to children with ADHD/RD (Factor I d = .29; Factor II d = .34) and ADHD/SD (Factor I d = .26; Factor II d = .28) was small. Children with ADHD/MD did not have more homework problems than children with ADHD alone for HPC Factor I ( p =.25) but did for HPC Factor II ( p <.05; d = .20; see Table 5 ). ANCOVA’s were also conducted using the HPC Total Score for comparison with prior research. Children with comorbid ADHD/RD ( d = .34) and ADHD/SD ( d = .30) were rated as having significantly more homework problems as measured by the HPC Total Score than children with ADHD alone after controlling for Full Scale IQ ( p <.01). There was no significant difference in parent-ratings of homework problems for children with ADHD alone as compared to children with ADHD/MD.

Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations of Parent-Rated Homework Problems by ADHD/LD Status

Note: RD = potential Reading Disability; MD = potential Math Disability; SD = potential Spelling Disability; ADHD/RD & ADHD/SD > ADHD Alone for HPC Factors I & II and Total Score ( p <.05); ADHD/MD > ADHD Alone only for HPC Factor II ( p <.05)

The results of an exploratory factor analysis with a geographically and ethnically diverse sample of elementary school-aged students with ADHD support the findings from Power et al. (2006) : the items of the HPC are best described by two distinct factors that measure homework completion behaviors and homework management behaviors. When examined across race and ethnic subgroups and across sex, the HPC two-factor solution was virtually identical. The similarity in findings between this study and the Power et al. (2006) study are remarkable in light of the significant differences between the two samples in relation to both sample diversity (MTA = six sites across U.S. & Power et al. = one clinic in Northeast; MTA = 38% minority & Power et al. = 19% minority) and participant diagnosis (MTA sample = 100% ADHD Combined Type & Power et al. = 75% ADHD with 28% Combined Type).

In both the present study and the Power et al. (2006) study, item 18 did not load well on either factor and items 4 and 17 had marginal loadings around .4. Item 4 “refuses to do homework assignments” loaded best on Factor II in both our study and in the Power et al. study. The loading of item 17 “hurries and makes careless mistakes” was sample dependent (i.e. general education or clinic) in the Power et al. (2006) study. Item 17 loaded on Factor I in the present study and in the Power et al. general education sample. Further, the item fits best conceptually with Factor I as the behavior “hurries and makes careless mistakes” occurs during the process of homework completion. Accordingly, future studies with the HPC should include item 4 in calculating the Factor II score and item 17 when calculating the Factor I score. Given the low loadings for item 18 (“dissatisfied with work, even when does a good job”) in both studies (the only item on HPC below .3 in both studies), it should not be included when calculating either factor and could either be: 1) dropped from the measure; 2) reworded; or 3) included only in calculating the HPC Total Score. Given that a substantial amount of previous research has included item 18 in calculating the HPC Total Score (e.g. Lahey et al., 1994 ; Langberg et al., 2008 ; Power et al., 2006 ), our recommendation is for future studies to continue including item 18 in calculating the HPC Total Score. This strategy should aid in interpretation of findings across studies.

Parent ratings of African American and Latino children did not differ from parent ratings of Caucasian children in homework problem severity (see Table 2 ) and the difference between boys and girls was small to negligible. Further, the two factor structure of the HPC was virtually identical when examined across ethnic subgroups and child sex. The lack of differences across ethnic subgroups and sex could be a function of the MTA sample including only children with ADHD Combined Type. Specifically, variability in homework problems was likely reduced because all children in the sample were referred for ADHD and associated impairments, which typically include poor school performance. Previous research has shown that the African American/Caucasian achievement gap is mediated by higher rates of attention difficulties among African Americans ( Rabiner, Murray, Schmid, & Malone, 2004 ). In fact, Rabiner et al. (2004) found that almost half of teacher-rated achievement differences were explained by the presence of attention problems. Accordingly, potential variability in homework problems across ethnic subgroups was likely limited because all children in MTA, by definition, had high rates of attention problems. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that across studies with the HPC, the difference between boys and girls is larger in general education samples than in samples of children with attention problems ( Anesko et al., 1987 & Power et al., 2006 ).

Anesko et al. (1987) and Power et al. (2006) reported negligible differences in ratings of homework problem severity as a function of grade in school. In contrast, we found that homework problems increased significantly as a function of grade in school and that the difference in homework problems between the 1 st and 4 th grades was moderate (Factor I d = .37; Factor II d = .47; see Table 3 ). One possible explanation for the discrepancy is that Power et al. (2006) only examined the impact of grade in the general education sample and not in the sample of children with ADHD and the Anesko et al. (1987) sample was general education. It may be that the pattern of increasing homework problems with grade in school is only evident for children with learning and behavior problems such as ADHD.

As children progress through school numerous environmental changes occur, including increased demands for independence and greater academic workloads ( Evans, Langberg, Raggi, Allen & Buvinger, 2005 ; Langberg et al., 2008 ). In particular, more homework is assigned in higher grades and students spend greater amounts of time completing homework ( Campbell et al., 1996 ). The relationship between higher grade in school and increased homework problems may be a function of a deficit x environment interaction, an interaction that does not occur for children without certain deficits or difficulties. That is, it may become steadily more difficult for children with ADHD to compensate for certain deficits (e.g. difficulties with focus and materials management) and to be successful with homework as academic expectations increase. Children without these difficulties may be better able to adjust and may even become more adept with practice and challenge. After all, the homework and academic challenges that increase with grade level are designed to promote learning for the average child. It is interesting to note that the relationship between homework and academic achievement gets stronger as children progress through school and is strongest in secondary school ( Cooper et al., 2006 ). This may be partially explained by the fact that certain subsets of children experience steady increases in homework problems which subsequently impacts academic achievement to a greater extent.

Similar to Power et al. (2006) , we found that both HPC factors were highly correlated with parent ratings of inattention and that correlations with parent ratings of hyperactivity and impulsivity and teacher ratings of inattention were low to moderate (see Table 3 ). Lahey et al. (1994) reported similar findings as part of the DSM-IV field trials for children with ADHD. Specifically, symptoms of inattention predicted the parent-completed HPC but symptoms of hyperactivity/impulsivity did not. Further, children with Combined Type and Inattentive Type had significantly more homework problems than children with Hyperactive/Impulsive Type ( Lahey et al., 1994) . This finding has also been replicated with other indices of academic functioning, including grade point average ( Molina, Smith & Pelham, 2001 ) and standardized achievement test scores ( Massetti et al., 2008 ; Molina et al., 2001 ). The strong relationship between academic functioning and ADHD symptoms of inattention may partially explain why the academic impairments of children with ADHD persist over time. Specifically, most ADHD symptom trajectory studies have found that while symptoms of hyperactivity and impulsivity decline during adolescence symptoms of inattention persist ( Biederman, Mick, & Faraone, 2000 ; Hart et al., 1995 ).

We found that children with ADHD and below average reading or spelling achievement test scores exhibited significantly more Factor I and Factor II homework problems than did children with ADHD alone (see Table 5 ). Children with below average math achievement test scores also had more homework problems on Factor II than did children with ADHD alone. ADHD and LD are highly comorbid with approximately 30% of children with ADHD also meeting criteria for LD ( DuPaul & Stoner, 2003 ). There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating that comorbid ADHD/LD is associated with increased functional impairment in a number of areas above and beyond what is typical of either disorder alone (e.g., Mayes et al., 2000 ; McNamara et al., 2005 ). This effect of additive functional impairment may have implications for homework interventions. Children with ADHD/LD will likely require a combination of direct instruction targeting academic skills and behavioral intervention targeting homework management and completion behaviors.

Despite high rates of comorbidity and increased risk for negative outcomes, almost no research has been published on the efficacy of psychosocial or pharmacological interventions for children with comorbid ADHD/LD. Children with a LD have deficits in core skills such as reading, math, and writing that may not be improved with medication ( MTA Cooperative Group, 1999 ) or with psychosocial interventions that target homework management and organization of materials (e.g. Langberg et al., 2008 ; Power et al., 2001 ). One of the few studies to evaluate the efficacy of stimulant medications for children with ADHD/LD found that 55% of children with comorbid ADHD/LD made significant improvements on methylphenidate as compared to 75% of children with ADHD alone ( Grizenko, Bhat, Schwartz, Ter-Stepanian, & Joober, 2006 ). These preliminary findings suggest that traditional ADHD interventions may not be as effective for children with ADHD/LD and that further intervention development research is needed.

Limitations

The HPC is a parent completed measure. Teachers can undoubtedly provide unique and valuable information as part of a homework assessment. For example, teachers may be able to more accurately rate a child’s consistency with recording homework assignments, bringing homework assignments to class, and keeping homework materials organized in a locker or desk. Another limitation is that some of the HPC items overlap with symptoms of ADHD making it hard to measure the constructs independently. Recently, a teacher-report measure of homework problems was developed ( Power, Dombrowski, Watkins, Mautone, & Eagle, 2007 ). This measure, the Homework Performance Questionnaire (HPQ), has both parent and teacher versions and items do not directly overlap with ADHD symptoms. Future research on homework problem assessment and/or intervention should seek to use a multi-informant approach.

We did not find differences in homework problems as a function of ethnicity. While African American and Latino children have historically experienced less academic success and lower academic proficiency when compared to Caucasian children, this is largely attributable to differences in socioeconomic backgrounds ( Tucker & Herman, 2002 ; NCES, 2001 ). With 77% of caregivers in the MTA sample having at least some college education, the sample may have lacked the SES diversity necessary to detect differences in homework problems.

Clinical Implications

This research confirms the Power et al. (2006) finding that homework performance is not a unitary construct. This finding has implications for interventions targeting homework problems. Factor I on the HPC relates to problems that occur during homework completion. For example, parents rate their child’s efficiency of work completion, distractibility, inattention, and the parent-child interactions that occur during homework completion. For children with high scores on Factor I, behavioral interventions that teach parents techniques directly related to these problems are likely to be effective (e.g., Power et al., 2001 ). For example, parents should be taught strategies for structuring the homework environment (e.g. selecting a quiet location to minimize distractions), providing effective instructions, and setting up reward systems to encourage on-task behavior. It is evident from numerous studies that medication produces marked reductions in symptoms of inattention and distractibility. Accordingly, stimulant medication, and particularly a late afternoon dose, would likely produce marked improvements in the inattention and distractibility aspects of homework measured by Factor I.

Factor II on the HPC relates predominately to behaviors that take place outside of actual homework completion time. Most of the items relate to organization and management of homework materials (e.g. does not know what homework has been assigned, fails to bring home assignments, and forgets to bring assignments back to class). For children with high scores on Factor II, behavioral interventions that teach children and families materials organization and homework management skills are likely to be most effective (e.g., Evans, Langberg, Raggi, Allen & Buvinger, 2005 ; Langberg, Epstein, Altaye et al., 2008 ). Stimulant medication may serve to improve some aspects measured by HPC Factor II, but likely not all. For example, medication may improve forgetfulness, but does not teach children skills related to organizing their school materials, planning for tests/projects, accurately recording homework assignments and it does not improve parent-teacher communication. A recent study of the MTA treatments supports this assertion. Specifically, children with ADHD in a medication only group improved significantly on HPC Factor I relative to children in a community control but did improve on HPC Factor II relative to the community control ( Langberg et al., in press ).

In sum, the two-factor solution for the HPC has now been demonstrated in two separate samples. Clinicians are encouraged to utilize the HPC to assess students’ homework completion and homework management problems and to use the factor scores to determine the most appropriate avenues for intervention. Future research should be conducted on the predictive utility of this measure. Specifically, parent ratings of early childhood homework problems may be predictive of later academic underachievement. In particular, studies are needed that examine the relationship between parent-rated homework problems and grades in school.

Contributor Information

Joshua M. Langberg, Department of Pediatrics University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

L. Eugene Arnold, Department of Psychiatry, Ohio State University.

Amanda M. Flowers, Department of Psychiatry, Ohio State University.

Mekibib Altaye, Department of Pediatrics University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Jeff N. Epstein, Department of Pediatrics University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Brooke S.G. Molina, Departments of Psychiatry & Psychology, University of Pittsburgh.

• American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th edition. American Psychiatric Association; Washington, DC: 2000. DSM-IV. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anesko KM, Schoiock G, Ramirez R, Levine FM. The Homework Problem Checklist: Assessing children’s homework problems. Behavioral Assessment. 1987; 9 :179–185. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnold LE, Abikoff HB, Cantwell DP, Conners CK, Elliott GR, Greenhill LL, et al. NIMH collaborative multimodal treatment study of children with ADHD (MTA): Design, methodology, and protocol evolution. Journal of Attention Disorders. 1997; 2 :141–158. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barkley RA, Fischer M, Edelbrock CS, Smallish L. The adolescent outcome of hyperactive children diagnosed by research criteria: I. An 8-year prospective follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 1990; 29 :546–557. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barkley RA, Fischer M, Smallish L, Fletcher K. The persistence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder into your adulthood as a function of reporting source and definition of disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2002; 111 :279–289. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biederman J. Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A selective overview. Biological Psychiatry. 2005; 57 :1215–1220. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biederman J, Mick E, Faraone SV. Age-dependent decline of symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: impact of remission definition and symptom type. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2000; 157 :816–818. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown RT, Freeman WS, Perin JM, et al. Prevalence and assessment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in primary care settings. Pediatrics. 2001; 107 (3) Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/107/3/e43 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell JR, Reese CM, O’Sullivan C, Dossey JA. NAEP 1994 Trends in Academic Progress. U.S. Department of Education; Washington, DC: 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H. Homework. Longman; White Plains, NY: 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H, Lindsay JJ, Nye B, Greathouse S. Relationships among attitudes about homework, amount of homework assigned and completed, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1998; 90 :70–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H, Robinson JC, Patall EA. Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research. 2006; 76 (1):1–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dombrowski SC, Kamphaus RW, Reynolds CR. After the demise of the discrepancy: Proposed learning disabilities diagnostic criteria. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2004; 35 :364–372. [ Google Scholar ]
• DuPaul GJ, Stoner G. ADHD in the schools: Assessment and intervention strategies. 2nd ed. Guildford Press; New York, NY: 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Epstein MH, Polloway EA, Foley RM, Patton JR. Homework: A comparison of teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of the problems experienced by students identified as having behavioral disorders, learning disabilities, or no disabilities. Remedial and Special Education. 1993; 14 :40–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans SW, Langberg J, Raggi V, Allen J, Buvinger E. Development of a school-based treatment program for middle school youth with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders. 2005; 9 :343–353. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans SW, Schultz BK, White LC, Brady C, Sibley MH, Van Eck K. A school-based organization intervention for young adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. School Mental Health. 2009 DOI 10.1007/s12310-009-9009-6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fantuzzo J, McWayne C, Perry MA, Childs S. Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income children. School Psychology Review. 2004; 33 :467–480. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frazier TW, Youngstrom EA, Glutting JJ, Watkins MW. ADHD and achievement: Meta-analysis of the child, adolescent, and adult literatures and a concomitant study with college students. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2007; 40 (1):49–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Froehlich TE, Lanphear BP, Epstein JN, Barberesi WJ, Katusic SK, Kahn RS. Prevalence and treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in a national sample of U.S. children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2007; 161 (9):857–864. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grizenko N, Bhat M, Schwartz G, Ter-Stepanian M, Joober R. Efficacy of methylphenidate in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disabilities: A randomized crossover trial. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience. 2006; 31 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart E, Lahey B, Loeber R, Applegate B, Frick P. Developmental change in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in boys: a four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1995; 23 :729–749. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinshaw SP, March JS, Abikoff H, Arnold LE, Cantwell DP, Conners CK, et al. Comprehensive assessment of childhood attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in the context of a multisite, multimodal clinical trial. Journal of Attention Disorders. 1997; 1 (4):217–234. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974; 39 :31–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lahey BB, Applegate B, McBurnett K, Biederman J, Greenhill L, Hynd GW, et al. DSM-IV field trials for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1994; 151 (11):1673–1685. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Langberg JM, Arnold LE, Flowers AM, Epstein JN, Altaye M, Hinshaw SP, et al. Parent-reported homework problems in the MTA study: Evidence for sustained improvement with behavioral treatment. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. in press. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Langberg JM, Epstein JN, Altaye M, Molina B, Arnold E, Vitiello B. The transition to middle school is associated with changes in the developmental trajectory of ADHD symptomatology in young adolescents with ADHD. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2008; 37 (3):651–663. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Langberg JM, Epstein JN, Urbanowicz C, Simon J, Graham A. Efficacy of an organization skills intervention to improve the academic functioning of students with ADHD. School Psychology Quarterly. 2008; 23 (3):407–417. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lorenzo-Seva U, Berge JMF. Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology. 2006; 2 (2):57–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Massetti GM, Lahey BB, Pelham WE, Loney J, Ehrhardt A, Lee SS, et al. Academic achievement over 8 years among children who met modified criteria for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder at 4-6 Years of Age. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2008; 36 :399–410. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayes SD, Calhoun SL, Crowell EW. Learning disabilities and ADHD: Overlapping spectrum disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2000; 33 (5):417–424. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McNamara JK, Willoughby T, Chalmers H, YLC-CURA Psychosocial status of adolescents with learning disabilities with and without comorbid attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 2005; 20 (4):234–244. [ Google Scholar ]
• Molina BSG, Hinshaw SP, Swanson JM, Arnold LE, Vitiello B, Jensen PS, et al. The MTA at 8 years: Prospective follow-up of children treated for combined type ADHD in a multisite study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2009 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molina BSG, Smith BH, Pelham WE. Factor structure and criterion validity of secondary school teacher ratings of ADHD and ODD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2001; 29 :71–82. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MTA Cooperative Group A 14-month randomized clinical trial of treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) Archives of General Psychiatry. 1999; 56 :1073–1086. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connor BP. SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers. 2000; 32 :396–402. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olympia DE, Sheridan SM, Jenson WR, Andrews D. Using student-managed interventions to increase homework completion and accuracy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1994; 27 :85–99. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Power TJ, Dombrowski SC, Watkins MW, Mautone JA, Eagle JW. Assessing children’s homework performance: Development of multi-dimensional, multi-informant rating scales. Journal of School Psychology. 2007; 45 :333–348. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Power TJ, Karustis JL, Habboushe DF. Homework Success for Children with ADHD: A Family-School Intervention Program. Guilford Press; New York, NY: 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Power TJ, Werba BE, Watkins MW, Angelucci JG, Eiraldi RB. Patterns of parent-reported homework problems among adhd-referred and non-referred children. School Psychology Quarterly. 2006; 21 :13–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rabiner DL, Murray DW, Schmid L, Malone PS. An exploration of the relationship between ethnicity, attention problems, and academic achievement. School Psychology Review. 2004; 33 (4):498–509. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reich W, Shayka MA, Taibleson C. Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents: DSM-IV Revision (Parent Form) Washington University; St Louis, MO: 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds CR, Kamphaus RW. Manual for the Behavior Assessment System for Children. American Guidance Service; Circle Pines, MN: 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevens JP. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. 4th Ed. Allyn and Bacon; Boston: 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swanson JM. School Based Assessments and Interventions for ADD Students. K.C.; Irvine, CA: 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swanson JM, Hanley T, Simpson S, Davies M, Schulte A, Wells K, et al. Evaluation of learning disorders in children with psychiatric disorders: An example from the Multimodal Treatment Study for ADHD. In: Greenhill LL, editor. Learning Disability. Implications for Psychiatric Treatment, Review of Psychiatry. Vol. 19. American Psychiatric Press, Inc.; Washington, DC: 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tucker CM, Herman KC. Using culturally-sensitive theories and research to meet the academic needs of low-income African American children. American Psychologist. 2002; 57 :762–773. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics . The Condition of Education 2001. NCES 2001-072. U.S. Government Printing Office; Washington, DC: 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Velicer WF, Eaton CA, Fava JL. Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In: Goffin RD, Helmes E, editors. Problems and Solutions in Human Assessment. Kluwer; Boston: 2000. pp. 41–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wechsler D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. 3rd ed. The Psychological Corporation; San Antonio, TX: 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wechsler . Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Manual. The Psychological Corporation; San Antonio, TX: 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• West Chester Institute for Human Services Research The balanced view: Homework. 2002 June; Retrieved January 30, 2009 from http://www.sharingsuccess.org/code/bv/homework.pdf .
• Wolraich ML, Wibbelsman CJ, Brown TE, Evans SW, Gotlieb EM, Knight JR, et al. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among adolescents: A review of the diagnosis, treatment, and clinical implications. Pediatrics. 2005; 115 (6):1734–1746. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zentall SS, Harper GW, Stormont-Spurgin M. Children with hyperactivity and their organizational abilities. Journal of Educational Research. 1993; 87 (2):112–117. [ Google Scholar ]

word problem checklist

All Formats

Resource types, all resource types.

• Rating Count
• Price (Ascending)
• Price (Descending)
• Most Recent

Word problem checklist

R.U.L.E.S. Interactive Math Checklist for Solving Word Problems

Two-Step Word Problems Checklist

Multi-Step Math Word Problem Checklist - "Before", "During", & "After"

Math Word Problem Strategy Posters, Charts, and Checklists

Math Word Problem Poster ( Checklist , visuals, examples)

Fractions 55 Worksheets w ICAN Checklist (Includes Word Problems )

• Word Document File

Math Word Problem Steps Checklist

MAY Word Problems (w/ C.U.B.E.S checklist )

RDW Checklist /Anchor Chart for Word Problems EDITABLE

April Word Problems (w/ C.U.B.E.S checklist )

Word Problem Station - Bulletin Board Posters, Desk Checklists , and Bookmarks!

Word Problem Checklist

CUBES Math Word Problem Strategy Student Checklist

Math Word Problem Solving Strategy Plans Checklist Charts for Quick Reference

Math Reference Sheet & Student Checklist — How to Solve Word Problems Steps

3 Read Strategy Checklist for math word problems

☀️ Word Problem Checklist (Editable)

Word Problems Strategy Checklists and Worksheets Bundle | Printable | Special Ed

French Math Reference Sheet & Student Checklist — How to Solve Word Problems

Math Word Problems *With Mathematical Best Practices Checklist

Word Problem Checklist Desk Buddy / Mini Anchor Chart

2 Step Word Problem Checklist -- FREEBIE

Creating multiplication word problem checklist

Math Word Problem Solving Bookmark and GO printable checklist

• We're hiring
• Help & FAQ
• Privacy policy
• Student privacy
• Terms of service
• Tell us what you think