Cited by 2,160Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentAutism Spectrum Disorder Research

The Prevalence of DSM-IV Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Meta-Analytic Review

Open access
Willcutt, Erik G.·2012·Neurotherapeutics

Abstract

This article describes a comprehensive meta-analysis that was conducted to estimate the prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV). A systematic literature review identified 86 studies of children and adolescents (N = 163,688 individuals) and 11 studies of adults (N = 14,112 individuals) that met inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, more than half of which were published after the only previous meta-analysis of the prevalence of ADHD was completed. Although prevalence estimates reported by individual studies varied widely, pooled results suggest that the prevalence of DSM-IV ADHD is similar, whether ADHD is defined by parent ratings, teacher ratings, or a best estimate diagnostic procedure in children and adolescents (5.9-7.1 %), or by self-report measures in young adults (5.0 %). Analyses of diagnostic subtypes indicated that the predominantly inattentive type is the most common subtype in the population, but individuals with the combined type are more likely to be referred for clinical services. Additional research is needed to determine the etiology of the higher prevalence of ADHD in males than females and to clarify whether the prevalence of ADHD varies as a function of socioeconomic status or ethnicity. Finally, there were no significant prevalent differences between countries or regions of the world after controlling for differences in the diagnostic algorithms used to define ADHD. These results provide important support for the diagnostic validity of ADHD, and argue against the hypothesis that ADHD is a cultural construct that is restricted to the United States or any other specific culture.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13311-012-0135-8

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Only one study documented the prevalence of ADHD in teenagers other than children.

    “Only one study [76] documented the prevalence of ADHD in teenagers other than children, which is consistent with our findings.”

    From The global prevalence of ADHD in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [76]

    Table 3 (Developmental Differences; page not available in our copy) reports ADHD prevalence for 13–18-year-olds from six samples, not one study. The Overall ADHD section likewise reports a prevalence estimate for adolescent samples. The citing authors’ statement about their own findings is not part of the attribution being judged. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Among youths, 5.9% satisfy diagnostic criteria for ADHD.

    “A meta-analysis of 19 studies with over 55,000 participants found that 5.9% of youths meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD”

    From The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement: 208 Evidence-based conclusions about the disorder (2021) · cites this paper as Willcutt, 2012

    The Overall ADHD section reports a 5.9% prevalence among children and adolescents when studies used best-estimate diagnoses. But Table 1 (under Summary and Conclusions) shows that the 19 studies with 55,125 participants used parent ratings and yielded 6.1%, not 5.9%; the citing sentence combines results from different analyses. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Parents have been shown to have better diagnostic determination for ADHD than teachers, although a composite from multiple raters is better diagnostically than relying on one rater.

    “Parents have been shown to have better diagnostic determination for ADHD than teachers (despite bias and reliability issues), although utilizing a composite from multiple raters is better diagnostically than relying on one rater (O’Neill, Schneiderman, Rajendran, Marks, & Halperin, 2014; Willcutt, 2012).”

    From Sensitivity and Specificity of an Executive Function Screener at Identifying Children with ADHD and Reading Disability (2021) · cites this paper as Willcutt, 2012

    The 'Diagnostic Algorithms Used by Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis' section (page unavailable) says parent and teacher raters identify partly nonoverlapping groups, supporting the value of considering more than one rater. The 'Algorithms to Combine Multiple Sources of Clinical Information' section (page unavailable) reports that one combined-rating rule had high positive predictive power, but missed many cases and concludes that no single algorithm is best for every purpose. The paper does not establish that parents are diagnostically better than teachers or that a multi-rater composite is generally better than one rater. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Significant heterogeneity across studies has previously been identified in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of ADHD prevalence in children and adults, mostly due to methodological differences.

    “Significant heterogeneity across studies has previously been identified in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of ADHD prevalence in children and adults, mostly due to methodological differences (Polanczyk et al., 2007;Simon et al., 2009;Willcutt, 2012).”

    From Prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Willcutt, 2012

    The Abstract (page unavailable) reports wide variation across studies of children and adolescents and says methodological factors accounted for a portion of that heterogeneity. The Summary and Conclusions (page unavailable) also notes widely varying estimates across the studies reviewed, including adult studies. Neither passage establishes that methodological differences explain most of the heterogeneity in both children and adults. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The prevalence of ADHD in children aged 6 to 12 years was 11.4% and in youngsters aged 12 to 18 years was 8% in a 2012 study.

    “According to the findings of a 2012 study, the prevalence of ADHD in children aged 6 to 12 years was 11.4%, and in youngsters aged 12 to 18 years was 8%, which was slightly higher than our findings.”

    From The global prevalence of ADHD in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [76]

    Table 3 (Developmental Differences in the Prevalence of DSM-IV ADHD; page not provided) reports 11.4% for ages 6–12 and 8.0% for ages 13–18. The quoted percentages match, but the source's older age group begins at 13, not 12. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [18]18. Lahey BB, Willcutt EG. Predictive validity of a continuous alternative to nominal subtypes of attention-deficit hyperactiv- ity disorder in DSM-IV. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 2010;39:761-775.
  2. [30]30. DuPaul GJ, Power TP, Anastopoulos AD, Reid R. ADHD Rating Scale-IV. New York: Guilford Press, 1998.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Willcutt, E. G.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Corresponding author
Willcutt, Erik G.
Venue
Neurotherapeutics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
490-499
ISSN
1878-7479 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2102388069
Cited by
2,160
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 93 · 2025: 157 · 2024: 153 · 2023: 199 · 2022: 173 · 2021: 180 · 2020: 245 · 2019: 141 · 2018: 169 · 2017: 161 · 2016: 200 · 2015: 140 · 2014: 99 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 3
FWCI
12.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurotherapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH079485, P50MH79485, R01MH063207, R01MH63941, R01 MH62120, R01MH063941, R01MH062120, R01 MH 63207, R01MH070037)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01 DA 24002, R01DA024002)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD068728, R01HD047264, P50-HD27802, R01 HD 68728, R01 HD 47264, R24HD075460, P50HD027802)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD prevalence, DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, children and adolescents, adults, predominantly inattentive type, combined type, sex differences, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, cross-cultural validity, diagnostic validity, parent and teacher ratings
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Humans, Prevalence, Databases, Factual, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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