Slow processing speed linked to school difficulties even in bright children

A new study suggests that some children who are highly verbal and intellectually advanced may still face notable challenges in school if they process information more slowly than expected. Despite their cognitive strengths, these children were more likely to be seen by teachers and parents as disorganized, less responsible, and struggling with study-related tasks. The findings come from a research team based at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School and were published in the journal Child Neuropsychology.

Processing speed refers to how quickly and accurately a person can take in information, make sense of it, and respond. It affects how efficiently someone can complete tasks that involve thinking, attention, and coordination.

While slower processing speed is a known difficulty for many children with neurodevelopmental or psychiatric conditions, less is known about how this issue affects children who appear cognitively gifted in some areas. Processing speed refers to how quickly someone can perceive information, make sense of it, and respond.

Earlier studies have linked slower processing to academic struggles, social communication problems, and even job performance in adulthood. But in children who are otherwise cognitively strong—especially in verbal skills—researchers have been curious to learn whether a lag in processing speed might still carry risks.

A 2022 study by the same lead author, Gina Forchelli, pointed toward this possibility. That earlier work showed that children with high verbal intelligence but slower processing had worse outcomes in reading and math than their peers with faster processing. This raised new questions: Even if a child has strong verbal skills, could slower processing hinder how they function day-to-day in school or with peers? And are teachers or parents more likely to notice these struggles?

Free daily newsletter

The current study was designed to explore those questions. The researchers hoped to better understand the “real world” impact of this uneven cognitive profile—strong verbal comprehension paired with slower processing.

“Processing speed difficulties in children has been a growing area of interest in the field and a strong interest of one of my mentors, Dr. Ellen Braaten,” explained Forchelli, a pediatric neuropsychologist and the co-director of postdoctoral training at the Learning and Emotional Assessment Program (LEAP) at Massachusetts General Brigham Hospital.

“Through my clinical training and work as a neuropsychologist, I have found processing weaknesses in the children and adolescents have been a marker for difficulty in the ‘real world.’ Sometimes children with processing speed difficulties have a clinical diagnosis and sometimes they do not, but the majority of them are struggling in some functional capacity. I sought out to explore how processing speed difficulties present across the cognitive spectrum.”

For their study, the researchers analyzed data from 679 children and adolescents between the ages of 6 and 17, all referred to a child psychiatry clinic for evaluation. Each had a verbal comprehension score above 110, placing them in the high-average to superior range for verbal reasoning. The researchers then divided the children into two groups: those with relatively slower processing speed (a 15-point or greater gap between verbal and processing scores) and those without such a gap.

To explore real-world impacts, the researchers looked at parent and teacher responses to questions about academic performance, adaptive behavior, social interactions, and risky behaviors such as substance use. These responses came from standardized behavioral questionnaires and from open-ended clinical history forms.

The findings suggest that slower processing speed, even in otherwise bright children, tends to influence how they manage school tasks. According to parent reports, children with slower processing were more likely to repeat a grade. They were also seen as less organized and less responsible with their schoolwork.

Teachers were even more likely than parents to notice differences. On standardized rating scales, teachers reported that children with slower processing had more problems with leadership, study skills, and functional communication. These children also showed more attention and learning problems, as rated by teachers. Notably, these teacher ratings showed meaningful differences even though most children in the study were not considered clinically impaired overall.

“This study suggests that a relatively lower performance on a measure of processing speed compared to verbal ability is a legitimate concern, even for children with higher cognitive abilities when processing speed falls within the average range for their age,” Forchelli told PsyPost. “In these cases, individuals with higher cognitive ability and relatively lower processing speed were found to be more vulnerable to struggles in their school performance, particularly in approach to academic work, and may be a marker for underperformance compared to peers without processing speed weaknesses in clinically-referred populations (see Forchelli et al., 2022). Results also suggest the need to collaborate and communicate with schools effectively, as teachers reported most concern in our study and may be the first to notice problems in this population.”

The researchers did not find significant differences between the two groups when it came to making friends, social behavior, or risky activities such as substance use or trouble with the law. Even among adolescents, slower processing did not appear linked to higher rates of substance use or legal concerns.

This was somewhat unexpected, given earlier studies that have connected slower processing to weaker social communication and emotional regulation, especially in youth with autism or attention problems. The authors note that their sample was younger on average, and social challenges related to processing speed may emerge more strongly in later adolescence or in broader community samples.

While the findings provide new insight into a subgroup of bright children who may still face challenges, the authors caution that the study has limitations. Most notably, it relies on observations reported by parents and teachers, rather than direct reports from the children themselves. Children and teens may not always share their struggles openly with adults, especially when it comes to internal experiences or risky behavior.

Another limitation is the nature of the sample. All participants were referred to a child psychiatry clinic, so they may already represent a group with more complex or concerning behaviors. It remains unclear whether the same patterns would hold in children who are not receiving clinical evaluations.

“We would benefit from more information from children themselves to possibly learn additional things (e.g. whether processing speed relates to risky behaviors),” Forchelli said. “Our sample was also taken from a clinically-referred population, which makes us also want to understand whether results generalize to children who haven’t been referred for evaluations.”

“Ultimately, my hope is to better understand how to best support success in these individuals. The current literature also has great variability in how processing speed difficulties are operationalized and measured. I am working on another paper currently that hopes to illuminate more recent trends in the literature and the implications for what directions we can take in the field.”

The study, “Influence of slower processing speed (PS) in children with high cognitive ability on parent- and teacher-reported psychosocial outcomes,” was authored by Gina A. Forchelli, Pieter J. Vuijk, Mary K. Colvin, Lauren E. Wolfe, Maya R. Koven, Emily N. Tetreau, Alysa E. Doyle, and Ellen B. Braaten.