Diagnostic efficiency of neuropsychological test scores for discriminating boys with and without attention deficit–hyperactivity disorder.
Abstract
A growing literature has documented group differences between boys with and without attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) on neuropsychological tests; however, whether or not such tests can discriminate individuals with ADHD from non-ADHD controls remains unclear. This study used conditional probability and receiver operating characteristic analyses to examine the efficiency of test-based diagnostic discriminations in a large sample of referred boys with and without ADHD. Single neuropsychological tests had limited discriminating ability at various cutoff scores. When multiple tests were used together, prediction of ADHD status improved but overall diagnostic efficiency remained limited. Diagnostic efficiency did not differ when medicated and nonmedicated index children were considered separately. Results suggest that children with ADHD show variable deficits on neuropsychological tests of attention and executive functions. Impairments on multiple neuropsychological tests are predictive of ADHD, but normal scores do not rule out the diagnosis. The prognostic implications of variable neuropsychological deficits in children with ADHD require further investigation.
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?
Prior studies with samples of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder yielded fairly disappointing results in terms of the discriminatory power of the WISC-III Freedom from Distractibility index.
“Prior studies with samples of children with attention-deficit 0 hyperactivity disorder yielded fairly disappointing results in terms of the discriminatory power of this index (Doyle et al., 2000; Reinecke et al., 1999).”
From Criterion validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition after pediatric traumatic brain injury (2008) · cites this paper as Doyle et al., 2000
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 70 · Cited by 209
- Authors
- Doyle, A. E., Biederman, J., Seidman, L. J., Weber, W., & Faraone, S. V.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 477-488
- ISSN
- 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2117
- OpenAlex
- W2059078842
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 3.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (2r01mh041314-04)
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH41314)
- 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 › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Keywords
- attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, neuropsychological test scores, diagnostic efficiency, diagnostic accuracy, boys, attention deficits, executive dysfunction, cut-off values, ADHD medication, referred children
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Attention, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Cognition, Diagnosis, Differential, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Predictive Value of Tests, ROC Curve, Odds Ratio
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
