Fading Memories: Retrospective Recall Inaccuracies in ADHD
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This longitudinal study examines the recall accuracy of childhood ADHD symptoms in late adolescence and early adulthood by youth and their parents, compared with reports obtained during childhood. METHOD: Participants (N = 94) are initially evaluated when they are aged between 7 and 11 and reassessed when they are aged between 16 and 22 years. All participants meet full DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for ADHD in childhood. Assessments at baseline and follow-up include clinical interviews and ADHD checklists. RESULTS: Results indicate that both youth and their parents have limited retrospective recall of childhood symptoms. Current ADHD symptoms improve accuracy of recall. Specifically, when current symptoms are endorsed, participants are more likely to recall clinically significant childhood ADHD symptoms. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that late adolescents and young adults with ADHD and their parents have limited ability to accurately recall childhood symptoms, with reporting of past symptoms influenced by reports of severity of current symptoms.
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?
Empirical research on the validity of retrospectively reported ADHD is mixed.
“Empirical research on the validity of retrospectively reported ADHD is mixed [56].”
From ADHD and the externalizing spectrum: direct comparison of categorical, continuous, and hybrid models of liability in a nationally representative sample (2014) · cites this paper as [56]
Retrospective recall of psychiatric symptoms across decades has poor validity and yields false-negative reports of childhood-onset hyperactivity.
“retrospective recall of psychiatric symptoms across decades has poor validity, and yields false-negative reports of childhood-onset hyperactivity(39-41).”
From Is adult ADHD a childhood-onset neurodevelopmental disorder? Evidence from a four-decade longitudinal cohort study (2015) · cites this paper as [40]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 26 · Cited by 101
- Authors
- Miller, C. J., Newcorn, J. H., & Halperin, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Windsor (CA)
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
- Queens College, CUNY (US)
- Corresponding author
- Miller, Carlin J.
- Venue
- Journal of Attention Disorders
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-09-30
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7-14
- ISSN
- 1087-0547 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1246
- OpenAlex
- W2043785923
- Cited by
- 101
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 2.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Attention Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH060698)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Keywords
- attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, childhood ADHD symptoms, retrospective recall, memory accuracy, parent report, self-report, late adolescence, early adulthood, symptom severity, longitudinal follow-up
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Parents, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Mental Recall, Severity of Illness Index, Chi-Square Distribution, 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
