Factorial Structure and Validity of the Quantified Behavior Test Plus (Qb+©)
Abstract
This study investigates the factorial structure and validity of the Quantified Behavior Test Plus (Qb+©), a computerized test to objectively evaluate the three attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder core symptoms, hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity, independently. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were conducted with an outpatient sample of 773 subjects ≥12 years old. In a second sample of 297 patients ≥16 years, a multitrait–multimethod analysis was performed to examine concurrent and discriminant validity. The discriminative power of the Qb+ was investigated using a general linear model and logistic regression analysis. The three factorial structure (Hyperactivity, Inattention, Impulsivity) was verified in the confirmatory factor analysis. Fit indices demonstrated a good model fit and factor loadings were almost all moderate to high. In the multitrait–multimethod analysis, the criterion for convergent validity was fulfilled. The discriminant validity of the Qb+ was partially supported. Significant but small gender and age effects were found. In the logistic regression analysis, omission errors and reaction time variability, belonging to the Inattention factor, were able to discriminate between subjects with and without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The internal structure of the Qb+ was verified. Its validity was partially supported. Results regarding discriminative power were mixed.
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?
In a large sample of patients, the QbTest differentiated patients with confirmed ADHD (66% of 773) versus those with symptoms due to other disorders (34% of 773).
“we were able to differentiate patients for which an ADHD diagnosis was confirmed (66% of 773 subjects) versus patients that had symptoms of inattention, impulsivity or hyperactivity due to other disorders (34% of 773 subjects).”
From Assessing ADHD symptoms in children and adults: evaluating the role of objective measures (2018) · cites this paper as [37]
In the whole sample, the QbTest had a correct classification rate of 76.4%, sensitivity 90%, and specificity 45%.
“In the whole sample, the correct classification rate was 76.4%, sensitivity was 90%, and specificity was just 45% [37].”
From Assessing ADHD symptoms in children and adults: evaluating the role of objective measures (2018) · cites this paper as [37]
In general, there were only few significant correlations between the subjective and the objective variables.
“In general, there were only few significant correlations between the subjective and the objective variables, a fact already shown in previous studies [31, 37].”
From Assessing ADHD symptoms in children and adults: evaluating the role of objective measures (2018) · cites this paper as [37]
Hirsch and Christiansen verified the three factorial structure of Qb+© and provided support for convergent validity, but discriminant validity was only partially supported.
“Hirsch and Christiansen [37] verified the three factorial structure of the Qb+© and provided support for convergent validity using multi-trait, multi-method analyses, but the discriminant validity of this instrument was only partially supported.”
From Assessing ADHD symptoms in children and adults: evaluating the role of objective measures (2018) · cites this paper as [37]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 26
- Authors
- Hirsch, O., & Christiansen, H.
- Affiliations
- Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Hirsch, Oliver
- Venue
- Assessment
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-03-14
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1037-1049
- ISSN
- 1073-1911 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3489
- OpenAlex
- W2305660465
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 2.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Assessment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, hyperactivity, inattention, impulsivity, factor structure, convergent validity, discriminant validity, multitrait-multimethod analysis, discriminatory power, reaction time variability, omission errors, age and gender effects
- MeSH terms
- Behavior Rating Scale, Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Germany, Humans, Hyperkinesis, Impulsive Behavior, Interview, Psychological, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Regression Analysis, Sex Factors, Young Adult
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
