Validity and accuracy of the Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Self-Report Scale (ASRS) and the Wender Utah Rating Scale (WURS) symptom checklists in discriminating between adults with and without ADHD
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) and the Wender Utah Rating Scale (WURS) in a well-characterized sample of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) patients and population controls. METHODS: Both the ASRS and the WURS were administered to clinically diagnosed adult ADHD patients (n = 646) and to population controls (n = 908). We performed principal component analyses (PCA) and calculated receiver operating curves (ROC) including area under the curve (AUC) for the full WURS and ASRS, as well as for the PCA generated factors and the ASRS short screener. RESULTS: We found an AUC of 0.956 (95% CI: 0.946-0.965) for the WURS, and 0.904 (95% CI: 0.888-0.921) for the ASRS. The ASRS short screener had an AUC of 0.903 (95%CI: 0.886-0.920). Combining the two full scales gave an AUC of 0.964 (95% CI: 0.955-0.973). We replicated the two-factor structure of the ASRS and found a three-factor model for the WURS. CONCLUSION: The WURS and the ASRS both have high diagnostic accuracy. The short ASRS screener performed equally well as the full ASRS, whereas the WURS had the best discriminatory properties. The increased diagnostic accuracy may be due to the wider symptom range of the WURS and/or the retrospective childhood frame of symptoms.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Structured diagnostic interviews, particularly the DIVA-5, enhance diagnostic precision by systematically assessing developmental history and functional impairment across life domains.
“Structured diagnostic interviews, particularly the DIVA-5, enhance diagnostic precision by systematically assessing developmental history and functional impairment across life domains [119,120].”
From ADHD in Adulthood: Clinical Presentation, Comorbidities, and Treatment Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [119]
The Introduction (page unavailable) says DSM-based clinical assessment is the diagnostic gold standard, and the Discussion (page unavailable) says the patients received comprehensive clinical evaluations. The paper does not identify DIVA-5 or say that structured interviews improve precision by systematically assessing developmental history and functional impairment across life domains. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThere was better performance by the longer WURS than the ASRS for specificity at higher sensitivity levels.
“There was better performance by the longer WURS than the ASRS for specificity at higher sensitivity levels (Brevik et al., 2020).”
From The Australian evidence-based clinical practice guideline for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (2023) · cites this paper as Brevik et al., 2020
Another study found both sensitivity and specificity levels at 80% and above for both the ASRS and WURS.
“Another study of individuals with ADHD and randomly selected controls from the population found both sensitivity and specificity levels at 80% and above for both the ASRS and WURS.”
From The Australian evidence-based clinical practice guideline for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (2023) · cites this paper as Brevik et al., 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 111
- Authors
- Brevik, E. J., Lundervold, A. J., Haavik, J., & Posserud, M.
- Affiliations
- Haukeland University Hospital (NO)
- University of Bergen (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Brevik, Erlend Joramo
- Venue
- Brain and Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-04-13
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e01605-e01605
- ISSN
- 2157-9032 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-3279
- PMC
- PMC7303368
- OpenAlex
- W3016216480
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 7.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2021-03-19)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Brain and Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Helse Vest
- Universitetet i Bergen
- Stiftelsen Kristian Gerhard Jebsen
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- adult ADHD, Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale, Wender Utah Rating Scale, diagnostic accuracy, symptom checklist, factor structure, receiver operating characteristic
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Humans, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Retrospective Studies, Utah, Checklist, Self Report
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
