Cited by 52Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Quantitative and subjective behavioural aspects in the assessment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults

Söderström, Staffan, Pettersson, Richard, Nilsson, Kent W.·2014·Nordic Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Self-rating scales and cognitive tests are instruments used in the assessment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, few studies have examined the differential validity of these kinds of instruments in psychiatric samples. AIMS: To examine the discriminative validity of two self-report scales (ADHD Self-Report Scale [ASRS v.1.1], Current Symptom Scale [CSS]) and a continuous performance test with measures of motor activity (QBTest Plus). METHODS: The interrelation between the instruments, and their abilities to differentiate between patients with an ADHD diagnosis and non-ADHD patients referred for psychiatric assessment were examined in a naturalistic sample of 61 adult patients. RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the dichotomized versions of the test variables in all tests ranged from 0.61 to 0.71. The ASRS and CSS exhibited sensitivity of 90.2% and 85.4%, and specificity of 35.0% and 40.0%, respectively. Variables from the QBTest Plus showed the opposite result for the variables QBImpulsivity and QBInattention, with sensitivity of 58.5% and 36.3% and specificity of 80.0% and 100.0%. Sensitivity and specificity of QBActivity were 68.3% and 65.0%, respectively. A stepwise discriminant function analysis showed that two variables from the QBTest Plus--QBInattention and QBActivity--accounted for 22.8% of the between-group variability, with the strongest predictor being QBInattention. The function yielded an overall correct classification of 72.1%. The classification correctly identified 87.8% of patients diagnosed with ADHD and 40.0% of non-ADHD patients. CONCLUSION: The discriminant validity of self-rating scales and the more objective measure of ADHD symptoms are poor and should be integrated generally with other sources of data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/08039488.2012.762940

Cites

22 of 22 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?

  • Another study reported satisfactory overall classification rates (87.8% correctly identified ADHD patients), but lower correct prediction rates regarding AUC for sensitivity (36.5-58.5%) and specificity (80-100%).

    “Another study reported satisfactory overall classification rates (87.8% correctly identified ADHD patients), but lower correct prediction rates regarding the area under the curve (AUC) range for sensitivity (36.5–58.5%) and specificity (80–100%; [38]).”
  • Omission errors and reaction time variance are generally considered to be indicative of inattention, supported by previous factor analyses.

    “These two variables are generally considered to be indicative of inattention, which has been supported in previous factor analyses [38].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Söderström, S., Pettersson, R., & Nilsson, K. W.
Affiliations
  • Västerås Municipality (SE)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
Corresponding author
Söderström, Staffan
Venue
Nordic Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2013-03-26
Volume
68
Issue
1
Pages
30-37
ISSN
  • 0029-1455 (ISSN-L)
  • 0803-9488
  • 1502-4725
OpenAlex
W1982617517
Cited by
52
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3
FWCI
3.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nordic Journal of Psychiatry (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 › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
adult ADHD, continuous performance test, discriminant validity, self-report scale, inattention, impulsivity, motor activity, psychiatric assessment, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Psychomotor Performance, Surveys and Questionnaires, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sweden, Discriminant Analysis, Qualitative Research, Executive Function, Checklist

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