Cited by 69Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Responsiveness of the Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Quality of Life Scale (AAQoL)

Matza, Louis S., Johnston, Joseph A., Faries, Douglas E., Malley, Karen G., Brod, Meryl·2007·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

Aims This study examined responsiveness of the Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Quality of Life Scale (AAQoL), which was developed to assess health-related quality of life (HRQL) among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods Adults with ADHD completed the AAQoL, Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS), SF-36, and Endicott Work Productivity Scale (EWPS) at baseline and week 8 of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of atomoxetine. Clinicians rated symptom severity and improvement (CGI-ADHD-S, CGI-ADHD-I). Responsiveness was examined through effect sizes and association with change in the measures listed previously (Spearman correlations, GLMs). Results Analyses included 328 patients (58.8% male; mean age = 36.9 years). All AAQoL scales reflected significant improvement from baseline to week 8 (P < 0.0001). AAQoL change scores were significantly correlated with change in the CGI-ADHD-S (r = -0.37 to -0.50), EWPS (r = -0.43 to -0.63), and CAARS (r = -0.35 to -0.62) (all P < 0.001). AAQoL change scores significantly discriminated among patients with various levels of symptom improvement. AAQoL effect sizes (-0.67 to -1.11) were larger than effect sizes for the SF-36 (0.15 to -0.39). Conclusions The AAQoL was responsive to change in symptoms of ADHD, and it appears to be a useful outcome measure for treatments of ADHD in adults.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11136-007-9254-9

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Matza, L. S., Johnston, J. A., Faries, D. E., Malley, K. G., & Brod, M.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
  • Brod Group (US)
Corresponding author
Matza, Louis S.
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2007-09-12
Volume
16
Issue
9
Pages
1511-1520
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W1998550093
Cited by
69
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eli Lilly and Company
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
adult ADHD, health-related quality of life, responsiveness, atomoxetine, labor productivity, symptom improvement, outcome measures, SF-36, Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale
MeSH terms
Atomoxetine Hydrochloride, Adult, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Propylamines, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, United States, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Sickness Impact Profile

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