Cited by 34Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Objective QbTest and subjective evaluation of stimulant treatment in adult attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder

Bijlenga, D., Jasperse, M., Gehlhaar, S.K., Sandra Kooij, J.J.·2015·European Psychiatry

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the QbTest as an objective measure versus self-reported ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) before and during stimulant treatment in adults with ADHD. Patients and methods: We used the subjective ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS), and the objective computerized QbTest, which is a 20-minute unconditional identical pairs test that measures attention, impulsivity, and also hyperactivity using a motion-tracking system. Patients were assessed before (baseline) and during medical treatment with stimulants (follow-up) in an observational study design. Results: Data of n = 145 patients at baseline and n = 82 patients at follow-up were analyzed. There were significant symptom reductions on all symptom domains, but correlations between the tests were weak. Improvement on the QbTest was independent of the patient's age, gender, educational level, ADHD subtype, co-morbid disorders, and use of other medications. Patients with worst QbTest results at baseline showed most improvement at follow-up. The QbTest was more sensitive to medication effects than the ADHD-RS. QbTest objectified clinical significant medication effect in 54% of patients who subjectively did not report any clinical effects. Discussion: Symptoms dimensions of objective and subjective tests refer to different psychological constructs. Conclusion: The QbTest is a valuable addition to existing subjective measures to assess medication effects in ADHD patients who have difficulties reporting treatment effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2014.06.003

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • The Qb+© is sensitive to medication effects, showing an improvement in 54% of patients who reported no changes in the subjective measure.

    “Another study demonstrated that the Qb+© is sensitive to medication effects, showing an improvement in 54% of patients who reported no changes in the subjective measure [79].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bijlenga, D., Jasperse, M., Gehlhaar, S. K., & Sandra Kooij, J. J.
Affiliations
PsyQ (NL)
Venue
European Psychiatry
Published
2015-01
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
179-185
ISSN
  • 0924-9338 (ISSN-L)
  • 1778-3585
OpenAlex
W2073028990
Cited by
34
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
adult ADHD, stimulant medication, ADHD Rating Scale, drug response, attention, impulsivity, hyperactivity, motion tracking, computer-based testing
MeSH terms
Adult, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Male, Middle Aged, Motion, Comorbidity, Treatment Outcome, 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