Cited by 14Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyMental Health Research Topics

Two Facets of Emotion Dysregulation Are Core Symptomatic Domains in Adult ADHD: Results from the SR-WRAADDS, a Broad Symptom Self-Report Questionnaire

Weibel, Sébastien, Bicego, Floriane, Muller, Sarah, Martz, Emilie, Costache, Mădălina Elena, Kraemer, Charlotte, Bertschy, Gilles, Lopez, Regis +1 more·2022·Journal of Attention Disorders

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Emotional dysregulation (ED) in adult ADHD is frequent but definition and tools for its evaluation are not consensual. Our aim was to determine the core ADHD symptomatic domains via the Self-Reported Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale (SR-WRAADDS) following its validation in a large clinical sample of adults with ADHD and controls. METHOD: Three hundred sixty-nine adult patients with ADHD and 251 healthy participants completed the SR-WRAADDS and questionnaires about ADHD, depression, and ED. We analyzed the psychometric properties of the SR-WRAADDS and a factor analysis yielded symptomatic domains. RESULTS: The SR-WRAADDS has good reliability. The 30 symptoms were best organized in a four-factor solution: attention/disorganization, hyperactivity/restlessness, impulsivity/emotional outbursts, and emotional lability. CONCLUSIONS: The symptomatic structure of the SR-WRAADDS includes two distinct dimensions related to ED: "impulsivity/emotional outbursts" and "emotional lability." The SR-WRAADDS is a reliable and clinically useful tool that assesses all ADHD symptom domains, including facets of ED.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/10870547211027647

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • Clinical samples or individuals seeking psychiatric care generally exhibit higher ADHD rates than community-based samples, reflecting selection bias.

    “clinical samples or individuals seeking psychiatric care generally exhibit higher ADHD rates than community-based samples, reflecting selection bias”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weibel, S., Bicego, F., Muller, S., Martz, E., Costache, M. E., Kraemer, C., Bertschy, G., Lopez, R., & Weiner, L.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Université de Lorraine (FR)
  • Inserm U1114, Strasbourg, France
  • Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg (FR)
  • National Reference Centre for Orphan Diseases, Narcolepsy- Rare hypersomnias, Sleep Unit, Department of Neurology, CHU Montpellier, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France; University of Montpellier, France
Corresponding author
Weibel, Sébastien
Venue
Journal of Attention Disorders
Published
2021-06-30
Volume
26
Issue
5
Pages
767-778
ISSN
  • 1087-0547 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-1246
OpenAlex
W3174799581
Cited by
14
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4
FWCI
1.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Attention Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
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 › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
adult ADHD, emotional dysregulation, symptom domains, emotional lability, impulsivity, emotional outbursts, psychometric validation, factor structure, self-report questionnaire
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Emotions, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Self Report

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