Cited by 59Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderPsychometric Methodologies and TestingMental Health Research Topics

Integration of symptom ratings from multiple informants in ADHD diagnosis: A psychometric model with clinical utility.

Open access
Martel, Michelle M., Schimmack, Ulrich, Nikolas, Molly, Nigg, Joel T.·2015·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder-Fifth Edition explicitly requires that attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms should be apparent across settings, taking into account reports from multiple informants. Yet, it provides no guidelines how information from different raters should be combined in ADHD diagnosis. We examined the validity of different approaches using structural equation modeling (SEM) for multiple-informant data. Participants were 725 children, 6 to 17 years old, and their primary caregivers and teachers, recruited from the community and completing a thorough research-based diagnostic assessment, including a clinician-administered diagnostic interview, parent and teacher standardized rating scales, and cognitive testing. A best-estimate ADHD diagnosis was generated by a diagnostic team. An SEM model demonstrated convergent validity among raters. We found relatively weak symptom-specific agreement among raters, suggesting that a general average scoring algorithm is preferable to symptom-specific scoring algorithms such as the "or" and "and" algorithms. Finally, to illustrate the validity of this approach, we show that averaging makes it possible to reduce the number of items from 18 items to 8 items without a significant decrease in validity. In conclusion, information from multiple raters increases the validity of ADHD diagnosis, and averaging appears to be the optimal way to integrate information from multiple raters.

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 · 10.1037/pas0000088

Cites

50 of 50 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?

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: 4

  1. DuPaul GJ Power TJ Anastopolous AD Reid R 1998 ADHD Rating Scale-IV: Checklists, norms, and clinical interpretation New York Guilford Press
  2. Kline RB 2011 Principles and practice of structural equation modelling 3rd New York Guilford Press
  3. Logan GD 1994 A user's guide to the stop signal paradigm Dagenbach D Carr TH Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory, and Language 189 239 San Diego Academic Press
  4. McCartney K Burchinal MR Bub KL 2006 Best practices in quantitative methods for developmentalists Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 71 3 17199773

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martel, M. M., Schimmack, U., Nikolas, M., & Nigg, J. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2015-09
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
1060-1071
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W2315242396
Cited by
59
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
FWCI
4.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH070004-01A2)
  • Sponsor name not included (K12 DA 035150)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD diagnosis, multiple informants, rater agreement, symptom rating, convergent validity, DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, parent and teacher ratings, children
MeSH terms
School Teachers, Adolescent, Anxiety Disorders, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Major Depressive Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Major, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Learning Disabilities, Male, Models, Theoretical, Neuropsychological Tests, Parents, Psychometrics, Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 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