Cited by 108Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The reliability and validity of self-and investigator ratings of ADHD in adults

Adler, Lenard A., Faraone, Stephen V., Spencer, Thomas J., Michelson, David, Reimherr, Frederick W., Glatt, Stephen J., Marchant, Barrie K., Biederman, Joseph·2008·Journal of Attention Disorders

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Little information is available comparing self- versus investigator ratings of symptoms in adult ADHD. The authors compared the reliability, validity, and utility in a sample of adults with ADHD and also as an index of clinical improvement during treatment of self- and investigator ratings of ADHD symptoms via the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS). METHOD: We analyzed data from two double-blind, parallel-design studies of 536 adult ADHD patients, randomized to 10-week treatment with atomoxetine or placebo. Outcome variables included ADHD symptom severity (CAARS self- and investigator ratings), psychiatric symptom comorbidity, and functioning. RESULTS: All five CAARS subscales showed good internal consistency at each time point. Similarly, interrater reliability was acceptable for each subscale. Following treatment, CAARS total scores and subscale scores improved significantly from baseline. CAARS subscales also predicted changes in other psychiatric symptoms and functioning. Overall, baseline investigator ratings were stronger predictors of treatment outcome than baseline self-report scores. CONCLUSIONS: The CAARS demonstrated good internal consistency and inter-rater reliability, as well as sensitivity to treatment outcome. The finding of greater predictive power of investigator-rated baseline scores merits further investigation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1087054707308503

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Adler, L. A., Faraone, S. V., Spencer, T. J., Michelson, D., Reimherr, F. W., Glatt, S. J., Marchant, B. K., & Biederman, J.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • SUNY Upstate Medical University (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Center for Behavioral Genomics
Venue
Journal of Attention Disorders
Published
2007-05-10
Volume
11
Issue
6
Pages
711-719
ISSN
  • 1087-0547 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-1246
OpenAlex
W1980060496
Cited by
108
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Attention Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
adult ADHD, Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale, self-ratings, inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, treatment outcome prediction, atomoxetine, psychiatric comorbidity, functioning, symptom severity
MeSH terms
Atomoxetine Hydrochloride, Adult, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Propylamines, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self-Assessment, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results, Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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