Cited by 112Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderMedication Adherence and ComplianceBehavioral and Psychological Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 52 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Medication Adherence in the MTA: Saliva Methylphenidate Samples Versus Parent Report and Mediating Effect of Concomitant Behavioral Treatment

Open access

Abstract

Objective Although research supports the use of appropriately administered stimulant medication to treat children with ADHD, poor adherence and early termination undermine the efficacy of this treatment in real-world settings. Moreover, adherence measures often rely on parent report of medication use, and their validity and reliability are unknown.Method Drawing on data from 254 participants in the NIMH Collaborative Multisite Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, we examine the discrepancy between parents' verbal reports of medication adherence and physiological adherence measures determined via methylphenidate saliva assays collected at four time points during the 14-month treatment period. In addition, we examine the impact of physiologically documented medication adherence on parent- and teacher-reported outcomes through 14 months.Results Overall, nearly one fourth (24.5%) of the saliva samples indicated nonadherence. Among subjects, 63 (24.8%) of the 254 participants were nonadherent on 50% or more of their repeated saliva assays. Only 136 (53.5%) of the subjects were adherent at every time point at which saliva assays were taken, indicating that some degree of nonadherence characterized nearly half of all other NIMH Collaborative Multisite Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder-treated children. Findings also indicated that nonadherence produced greater deleterious effects in children in the medication-only condition compared with those receiving both medication and behavioral treatment.Conclusions Same-day saliva methylphenidate assays suggest that nearly half of the parents are inaccurate informants of their child's ADHD medication adherence and that parents may overestimate actual (physiological) adherence. This finding suggests the need for interventions to improve accuracy of parental report. Clinicians need to focus on adherence enhancement strategies to improve outcomes of children being treated with medication, particularly when benefits are suboptimal.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In the MTA medication-treated sample, same-day saliva methylphenidate assays indicated that nearly one fourth of samples and about one fourth of children were nonadherent, while parent report identified only 3.1% as nonadherent. Physiological nonadherence was associated with worse ADHD symptom outcomes, especially in medication-only treatment.

Key findings

  • Among 254 children with readable saliva assays, 63 (24.8%) were physiologically nonadherent on ≥50% of assays; 136 (53.5%) were adherent at every available time point, and 31 (12.2%) were nonadherent on all collected samples. The abstract reports 24.5% of saliva samples as nonadherent, while the Results report 176 of 748 (23.5%) samples below the detectable threshold.
  • Parent report was much more optimistic: 228 of 254 parents (89.8%) reported adherence on all occasions, and only 8 (3.1%) reported nonadherence using the same ≥50% threshold. Concordance was “slight” (reported κ = 0.12, p < .001); parent report had 10.3% sensitivity (14/136) and 80.3% specificity (496/618) for detecting physiological nonadherence.
  • Physiological adherence mediated ADHD symptom outcomes: significant effects were found for time × adherence (F₁,₄₆₈ = 12.2, p < .0005) and treatment × adherence (F₁,₄₆₈ = 5.73, p = .017), with nonadherence producing greater deleterious effects in medication-only (MedMgt) than in combined medication plus behavioral treatment (Comb). The triple interaction time × treatment × adherence was not significant.

Methods

  • Secondary analysis of the NIMH MTA 14-month randomized trial. The present study focused on 289 children in MedMgt and Comb; 254 had one or more readable saliva assays, providing 748 usable assays (average 2.9 assays/participant, range 1–4).
  • Saliva methylphenidate swabs were collected at 1, 3, 9, and 14 months without prenotification, after parent verbal report. Physiological adherence was defined by detectable MPH; subject-level adherence required >50% positive assays. Parent verbal adherence was obtained from monthly medication visits.
  • Analyses included cross-tabulation of parent report versus saliva assay concordance and random-effects regression on parent- and teacher-rated SNAP-IV ADHD symptom scores, testing site, time, adherence, treatment, and interactions.

Limitations

  • The paper states that saliva assays may miss MPH if the last dose was taken ≥8 hours earlier, that uncertainty remains about the detection window and appropriate threshold, and that findings apply only to the MTA sample (combined-type ADHD, ages 7–10) and principally immediate-release MPH t.i.d.; newer long-acting formulations may yield different adherence rates.
  • The paper also notes possible parent overreporting due to social desirability, therapeutic expectations, and stigma, and that same-day assays cannot capture adherence between visits.
  • Evident from the text: assays per child varied from 1 to 4, and the subject-level >50% threshold is a pragmatic binary classification rather than a continuous measure of adherence.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/chi.0b013e31819c23ed

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 52 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 27 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 28
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 19
36 of 36
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The saliva assays used in the study fairly represent whether the child took medication on the day parents reported compliance.

    “To the extent that our saliva assays were a fair representation of the child's having taken medication on the day that parents reported compliance”
1 of 1

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.

  • Specificity is calculated using the wrong denominator

    Minor

    With parental reports of nonadherence treated as a positive test, Table 3 shows 496 true negatives among 505 physiologically adherent assays. Specificity is therefore 98.2%; 496/618 instead measures the proportion of parental adherence reports that matched the assay.

    Reported 80.3 · recomputed 98.217822

  • Percentage for four children is incorrect

    Minor

    Four of 254 children is 1.6%, not 1.2%.

    Reported 1.2 · recomputed 1.574803

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 42 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–112 of 112

Metadata

Authors
Pappadopulos, E., Jensen, P. S., Chait, A. R., Arnold, L. E., Swanson, J. M., Greenhill, L. L., Hechtman, L., Chuang, S., Wells, K. C., Pelham, W., Cooper, T., Elliott, G., & Newcorn, J. H.
Affiliations
Realistic Education in Action Coalition to Foster Health (US)
Corresponding author
Jensen, Peter S.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-05
Volume
48
Issue
5
Pages
501-510
ISSN
0890-8567 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2129144665
Cited by
112
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 12
FWCI
8.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • U.S. Department of Justice
  • U.S. Department of Education
  • Ohio State University
  • University of Pittsburgh (U01 MH50467, N01MH 12010)
  • McGill University (N01MH12008)
  • York University
  • National Institutes of Health (n01mh12011-0-0-1, n01mh012009-007, n01mh12008-0-0-1, n01mh12010-0-0-1, n01mh12004-0-0-0, n01mh12007-0-0-0, n01mh012012-001)
  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • School of Medicine, New York University
  • Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh
  • University of California, Irvine (N01MH 12004)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (N01MH 12011, U01MH50461, N01 MH12007, N01MH-12012, U01MH50440, N01MH12008,, U01MH050467, MH-50467, U01 MH50477, U01MH050440, N01 MH12009, U01MH050453, U01MH50467, U01MH050461, N01MH 12004, U01MH50453, N01MH 12010, 12010)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research
  • Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
medication adherence, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, methylphenidate, multimodal therapy
MeSH terms
Assessment of Medication Adherence, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Behavior Therapy, Behavioral Symptoms, Child, Combined Modality Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Methylphenidate, Parents, Regression Analysis, Saliva, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome, Drug Monitoring, Medication Adherence

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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