Zur klinischen Validität einer computergestützten Aufmerksamkeitstestbatterie für Kinder (KITAP) bei 7- bis 10-jährigen Kindern mit ADHS
Open accessAbstract
Obwohl neuropsychologische Tests zwischen Kindern mit und ohne ADHS unterscheiden, ist doch ihr Beitrag zur klinischen Diagnose oft unklar. Daher wurde untersucht, wie gut eine computergestützte Testbatterie zur Aufmerksamkeitsprüfung bei Kindern (KITAP) zwischen Kindern mit und ohne ADHS trennt und welchen Beitrag sie bei der diagnostischen Klassifikation leisten kann. In der Studie führten 50 Kinder mit ADHS und 50 gesunde Kinder im Alter von sieben bis zehn Jahren Untertests zu Alertness, Flexibilität, Inhibitionskontrolle, Daueraufmerksamkeit, geteilter Aufmerksamkeit und Ablenkbarkeit durch. Es zeigte sich, dass vier der sechs Aufgaben zwischen den Gruppen signifikant trennten. Die Kombination von zwei oder mehr beeinträchtigten Untertests erwies sich zwar als bester Prädiktor für ADHS, war aber für klinisch-diagnostische Zwecke unzureichend. Es wird die Schlussfolgerung gezogen, dass eine computergestützte Testbatterie zwar wichtige Hinweise auf das individuelle Leistungsprofil gibt, sich eine diagnostische Klassifikation von Kindern mit und ohne ADHS aber kaum auf Normabweichungen in diesem Leistungstest stützen kann.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Findings on the QbTest 6-12 and Qb+© are inconsistent and often suggest using neuropsychological tests only as an additional resource within a comprehensive assessment strategy.
“Nevertheless, findings are inconsistent, and often suggest using neuropsychological tests only as an additional resource within a comprehensive assessment strategy incorporating a variety of methods [27].”
From Assessing ADHD symptoms in children and adults: evaluating the role of objective measures (2018) · cites this paper as [27]
Drechsler et al. detected significant group differences between children with and without ADHD in four of the KiTAP's six subtests, but did not recommend using it for diagnostic purposes due to weak specificity.
“Drechsler et al. [27] detected significant group differences between children with and without ADHD in four of the KiTAP’s six subtests. Nevertheless, they did not recommend using it for diagnostic purposes due to its weak specificity.”
From Assessing ADHD symptoms in children and adults: evaluating the role of objective measures (2018) · cites this paper as [27]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 36
- Authors
- Drechsler, R., Rizzo, P., & Steinhausen, H.-C.
- Affiliations
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Venue
- Kindheit und Entwicklung
- Publisher
- Hogrefe Publishing Group
- Published
- 2009-07
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 153-161
- ISSN
- 0942-5403 (ISSN-L)
- 2190-6246
- OpenAlex
- W2077594673
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 4.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- de
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Kindheit und Entwicklung (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
- edoc (University of Basel) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Keywords
- attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, clinical validity, diagnostic classification, children, sustained attention, divided attention, distractibility, inhibitory control, flexibility, alertness, neuropsychological assessment
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