CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 103Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderHistorical and Modern Theater StudiesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

German validation of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) II: Reliability, validity, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity

Christiansen, H., Kis, B., Hirsch, O., Matthies, S., Hebebrand, J., Uekermann, J., Abdel-Hamid, M., Kraemer, M., Wiltfang, J., Graf, E., Colla, M., Sobanski, E., Alm, B., Rösler, M., Jacob, C., Jans, T., Huss, M., Schimmelmann, B.G., Philipsen, A.·2012·European Psychiatry
DOI 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2010.12.010
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The German version of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) has proven to show very high model fit in confirmative factor analyses with the established factors inattention/memory problems, hyperactivity/restlessness, impulsivity/emotional lability, and problems with self-concept in both large healthy control and ADHD patient samples. This study now presents data on the psychometric properties of the German CAARS-self-report (CAARS-S) and observer-report (CAARS-O) questionnaires. Methods: CAARS-S/O and questions on sociodemographic variables were filled out by 466 patients with ADHD, 847 healthy control subjects that already participated in two prior studies, and a total of 896 observer data sets were available. Cronbach's-alpha was calculated to obtain internal reliability coefficients. Pearson correlations were performed to assess test-retest reliability, and concurrent, criterion, and discriminant validity. Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC-analyses) were used to establish sensitivity and specificity for all subscales. Results: Coefficient alphas ranged from .74 to .95, and test-retest reliability from .85 to .92 for the CAARS-S, and from .65 to .85 for the CAARS-O. All CAARS subscales, except problems with self-concept correlated significantly with the Barrett Impulsiveness Scale (BIS), but not with the Wender Utah Rating Scale (WURS). Criterion validity was established with ADHD subtype and diagnosis based on DSM-IV criteria. Sensitivity and specificity were high for all four subscales. Conclusion: The reported results confirm our previous study and show that the German CAARS-S/O do indeed represent a reliable and cross-culturally valid measure of current ADHD symptoms in adults.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2010.12.010

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [9] Christiansen H, Hirsch, O, Philipsen A, Matthies S, Hebebrand J, Ueckermann J, et al. German validation of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales–self-report (CAARS-S): replication of factor structure in a large patient sample (under review).
  2. Beck, 1987, Beck Depression Inventory - Manual.
  3. Hautzinger, 1994, Beck-Depressions-Inventar (BDI). Bearbeitung der deutschen Ausgabe. Testhandbuch. Bern, Göttingen, Toronto.
  4. Adler, 2003, Adult Self-Report Scale. ASRS-V1. 1 Screener.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Christiansen, H., Kis, B., Hirsch, O., Matthies, S., Hebebrand, J., Uekermann, J., Abdel-Hamid, M., Kraemer, M., Wiltfang, J., Graf, E., Colla, M., Sobanski, E., Alm, B., Rösler, M., Jacob, C., Jans, T., Huss, M., Schimmelmann, B. G., & Philipsen, A.
Affiliations
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
  • University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • Alfried Krupp Hospital (DE)
  • University Medical Center Freiburg (DE)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • Central Institute of Mental Health (DE)
  • Saarland University (DE)
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Christiansen, H.
ORCID
Venue
European Psychiatry
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2012-07
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
321-328
ISSN
  • 0924-9338 (ISSN-L)
  • 1778-3585
DOI
10.1016/j.eurpsy.2010.12.010
OpenAlex
W2006919243
Cited by
103
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 2845 d)
Locations
  • European Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
  • Universität Duisburg-Essen
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
Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale, adult ADHD, German translation, psychometric validation, self-report questionnaire, observer reports, inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity, emotional lability, self-concept, sensitivity and specificity, cross-cultural validity
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Cross-Sectional Studies, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Diagnostic Self Evaluation

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