Cited by 13Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderPsychometric Methodologies and TestingDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Rethinking hyperactivity in pediatric ADHD: Preliminary evidence for a reconceptualization of hyperactivity/impulsivity from the perspective of informant perceptual processes.

Open access
Kofler, Michael J., Groves, Nicole B., Singh, Leah J., Soto, Elia F., Chan, Elizabeth S. M., Irwin, Lauren N., Miller, Caroline E.·2020·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

= 1.51; 47 girls; 67% White/non-Hispanic). The current DSM hyperactivity/impulsivity item pool can be reliably reclassified by knowledgeable judges into items reflecting excess physical movement (visual hyperactivity) and auditory interruptions (verbal intrusion). This bifactor structure showed evidence for multidimensionality and superior model fit relative to traditional hyperactivity/impulsivity models. The resultant visual hyperactivity factor was reliable, replicable, and showed strong convergent validity evidence via associations with objectively assessed hyperactivity. The verbal intrusion factor also showed evidence for reliability and explained a substantive portion of reliable variance, but demonstrated lower estimated replicability. These findings provide preliminary support for conceptualizing ADHD symptoms from the perspective of their cognitive-perceptual impact on others, as well as differentiating excess physical movement (hyperactivity) from other behaviors assessed under the hyperactivity/impulsivity umbrella. "Verbal intrusion" appears to provide a better explanation than "impulsivity" for the reliable, non-hyperactivity variance assessed by these items, but the current item set appears insufficient for replicable measurement of this construct. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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/pas0000856

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • The visual hyperactivity factor in that study showed strong convergent validity with actigraph data.

    “In that study, a bifactor model emerged for both informants consisting of two uncorrelated factors – visual hyperactivity and verbal intrusiveness – and showed superior fit relative to a correlated factors model, as well as strong convergent validity between the visual hyperactivity factor and collected actigraph data (Kofler et al., 2020).”

    From Ecological Validity of Clinic-Based Actigraphy for Assessing Hyperactivity in Clinically Evaluated Children with and without ADHD (2025) · cites this paper as Kofler et al., 2020

    The Results (Tier 3: Structural Models; page not provided) report significant associations between parent- and teacher-rated visual hyperactivity and actigraph-measured baseline activity. The correlations were modest (r=.25–.27), however, and associations with task-specific activity were not consistent, so describing the convergent validity as strong overstates the findings. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Kofler et al. (2020) provided strong empirical support for estimating children's hyperactivity from DSM-5 visual hyperactivity symptoms alone rather than from a combination of hyperactivity and impulsivity items.

    “Beyond the definitional issue, the Kofler et al. (2020) study addressed the second of these concerns, and provided robust empirical support for using DSM-5 visual hyperactivity symptoms alone, rather than a combination of hyperactivity and impulsivity (verbal intrusiveness) items, to estimate hyperactivity in children.”

    From Ecological Validity of Clinic-Based Actigraphy for Assessing Hyperactivity in Clinically Evaluated Children with and without ADHD (2025) · cites this paper as Kofler et al., 2020

    The Results (Tier 2a) report strong support for a visual-hyperactivity factor and better fit than traditional combined hyperactivity/impulsivity models. But the Method (Bifactor-(s-1) Models) says the preferred factor was estimated using all items, with verbal-intrusion items also loading on a separate factor; the study did not establish that visual-hyperactivity items alone should be used to estimate hyperactivity. The Discussion describes the findings as a proof-of-concept first step. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Parent and teacher ratings are the accepted benchmark for measuring excessive motor movement in children with ADHD in clinical and diagnostic work and for tracking treatment outcomes.

    “Despite the sophistication and improved reliability of these latter measures, parent/teacher ratings remain the gold standard of quantifying excessive motor movement in children with ADHD for clinical/diagnostic purposes and monitoring treatment related outcomes (Barkley, 2019; DuPaul & Stoner, 2014; Kofler et al., 2020).”

    From Ecological Validity of Clinic-Based Actigraphy for Assessing Hyperactivity in Clinically Evaluated Children with and without ADHD (2025) · cites this paper as Kofler et al., 2020

    The Method sections on Participants and Parent and Teacher-rated Hyperactivity show that parent and teacher ratings assessed hyperactivity symptoms and contributed to ADHD diagnosis (page numbers unavailable). The paper does not call those ratings the gold standard for quantifying motor movement or establish their use for monitoring treatment outcomes; its Limitations section instead notes that ratings may reflect factors beyond how much a child moves. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent clinical trials suggest that clinic-based actigraphy may be useful for assessing the comparative efficacy of psychosocial treatments for ADHD.

    “recent clinical trials suggest that clinic-based actigraphy maybe useful for assessing the comparative efficacy of psychosocial treatments for ADHD (Kofler et al., 2018; cf. Kofler et al., 2020).”

    From Ecological Validity of Clinic-Based Actigraphy for Assessing Hyperactivity in Clinically Evaluated Children with and without ADHD (2025) · cites this paper as Kofler et al., 2020

    The Method (Objectively-measured Hyperactivity; page unavailable) describes laboratory-based actigraphy used to measure children's movement, and the Discussion (Clinical and Research Implications; page unavailable) suggests its potential utility in ADHD assessment. This paper does not report a clinical trial or assess actigraphy's usefulness for comparing the efficacy of psychosocial treatments; the sentence cites Kofler et al. (2018) for that trial-based point and offers this paper only as a comparison. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The mixing of hyperactivity and impulsivity items is well documented.

    “The conflation of hyperactivity and impulsivity items is well documented (DuPaul et al., 2015), and elucidated recently using structural modeling based on parent and teacher ratings of DSM-5 hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms (Kofler et al., 2020).”

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: 11

  1. Ahmed GM, & Mohamed S (2011). Effect of regular aerobic exercise on behavioral, cognitive and psychological response in patients with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Life Science Journal, 8(2), 366– 371.
  2. Baddeley A (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: OUP.
  3. Brabham EG & Lynch-Brown C (2002). Effects of teachers’ reading-aloud styles on vocabulary acquisition and comprehension of students in the early elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 465– 473.
  4. Dockrell JE, & Shield BM (2006). Acoustical barriers in classrooms: The impact of noise on performance in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 32, 509– 525.
  5. Elliott JG, Gathercole SE, Alloway TP, Holmes J, & Kirkwood H (2010). An evaluation of a classroom-based intervention to help overcome working memory difficulties and improve long-term academic achievement. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 9, 227– 250.
  6. Green SB, Akey TM, Fleming KK, Hershberger SL, & Marquis JG (1997). Effect of the number of scale points on chi‐square fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4, 108– 120.
  7. Kline RB (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (4th Ed.). NY: Guilford.
  8. Muthen LK, & Muthen BO (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen.
  9. Platzman KA, Stoy MR, Brown RT, Coles CD, Smith IE, & Falek A (1992). Review of observational methods in ADHD: Implications for diagnosis. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 155.
  10. Siegel S, & Castellan NJ (1988). The case of k related samples Nonparametric statistics for behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 170– 4.
  11. Tryon WW, Pinto LP, & Morrison DF (1991). Reliability assessment of pedometer activity measurements. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 13, 27– 44.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kofler, M. J., Groves, N. B., Singh, L. J., Soto, E. F., Chan, E. S. M., Irwin, L. N., & Miller, C. E.
Affiliations
Florida State University (US)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2020-08
Volume
32
Issue
8
Pages
752-767
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W3031894906
Cited by
13
References
56
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R34 MH102499-01; R01 MH115048)
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 › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, hyperactivity/impulsivity, hyperactivity, impulsivity, bifactor model, convergent validity, measurement reliability
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Cognition, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Hyperkinesis, Impulsive Behavior, Male, Perception, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychomotor Agitation, Reproducibility of Results, Actigraphy

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