Reliability and validity of self- and other-ratings of symptoms of ADHD in adults.
ABSTRACT Few studies have examined concordance between raters of ADHD symptoms in adults; there is less information on how well rating scales function in distinguishing adult ADHD from other disorders. This study examined these variables using the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS).
The sample included 349 adults evaluated for attention problems. Correlations and kappa values were calculated using self- and observer-ratings of item-level symptoms; sensitivity, specificity, and discriminant validity of cluster scores in predicting clinician diagnoses were computed for 269 participants.
Item-level concordance rates ranged from slight to fair. Cluster scores demonstrated a poor balance of sensitivity and specificity in predicting ADHD diagnosis; a high percentage of participants with internalizing disorders had scores in the clinical range.
Self-and observer- ratings on the CAARS provide clinically relevant data about attention problems in adults, but the instrument does not effectively distinguish between ADHD and other adult psychiatric disorders.
SourceAvailable from: Margaret Danielle Weiss[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective: To review measures used to assess treatment response in patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) across the life span. Data Sources: Keyword searches of English-language articles in the PubMed database up to and including the May 4, 2011, index date were performed with the search strings (1) (attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity [MeSH] OR ADHD) AND (outcome assessment [MeSH] OR adaptation of life skills OR executive function [MeSH]) and (2) (attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity [MeSH] OR ADHD) AND (function OR functioning OR quality of life [MeSH]). Study Selection: Articles found through this search were then selected based on relevance to the topic area; no specific quality criteria were applied. Data Extraction: Narrative review. Results: The vast majority of studies assessing ADHD treatments have measured treatment response using ADHD symptom measures. Additional domains relevant for assessing treatment response among children and adults with ADHD include functional impairment, quality of life, adaptive life skills, and executive function. Validated rating scales exist for assessing these additional domains, but there has been minimal research evaluating the sensitivity of these instruments for detecting treatment response in pediatric and adult samples. Conclusions: Assessment of treatment outcomes in ADHD should move beyond symptom assessment to incorporate measures of functioning, quality of life, adaptive skills, and executive function, especially when assessing long-term treatment response. The authors recommend a potential battery and schedule of measures that could be used to more comprehensively assess treatment response in patients with ADHD.11/2012; 14(6). DOI:10.4088/PCC.11r01336
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of an oral extended-release (ER) formulation of the nonstimulant metadoxine in the treatment of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This was a 1:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design, phase 2 study of metadoxine ER 1,400 mg/d treatment for 6 weeks, following a 2-week baseline/screening period, involving 120 adults with DSM-IV-defined ADHD. A follow-up assessment occurred 2 weeks after the trial was completed. Efficacy measures included changes in Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Investigator Rated (CAARS-INV) total ADHD symptoms score with adult ADHD prompts (primary measure), response rates (≥ 25% or 40% improvement in CAARS-INV total ADHD symptom score), Test of Variables of Attention (TOVA) performance, and Adult ADHD Quality of Life (AAQoL) total score. The study was conducted from March 15, 2011, to August 21, 2011. Intent-to-treat analysis revealed that subjects receiving metadoxine ER showed statistically significant improvement in CAARS-INV total ADHD symptoms score (P = .02), higher rate of response (≥ 25% [P = .03] or ≥ 40% [P = .04] improvement) on the CAARS-INV total ADHD symptoms score, and improvement in TOVA score (P = .02) and AAQoL score (P = .01) compared with the placebo group. Improvements in ADHD symptoms (scored by CAARS-INV) were significantly different in subjects treated with metadoxine ER versus placebo as early as 2 weeks following treatment initiation. Metadoxine ER was generally well tolerated, with nausea (17% [10/58] vs 0% [0/59]), fatigue (31% [18/58] vs 27% [16/59]), and headaches (29% [17/58] vs 39% [23/59]) being the most frequently reported adverse effects for the metadoxine ER and placebo groups, respectively. Findings suggest that metadoxine ER is a well-tolerated and effective treatment for adults with ADHD. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01243242.The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 12/2012; 73(12):1517-23. DOI:10.4088/JCP.12m07767 · 5.81 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is prevalent in homeless populations, but no studies have assessed the psychometric properties of assessment instruments for this population. Self-other agreement on the ADHD Self-Rating Scale 6 was studied using a cohort of admissions to an outreach clinic for the homeless (n = 72). Alcohol use was assessed with the fast alcohol screening test. Other drug use was assessed by interview. For the six-item ASRS-6, the self-nurse correlation was .63 (p < .001). Discriminant correlations were low. Higher ASRS-6 scores as rated by both nurse and self-report were associated with illicit drug use but not alcohol problems. Concordance was lower at higher levels of alcohol problems (p < .05) CONCLUSION:: The observations of experienced nurses converge well with self-reported symptoms of ADHD. Further research is needed to assess the relative contribution of clinical observation and self-report in assessing homeless patients.Journal of Addictions Nursing 04/2013; 24(2):108-15. DOI:10.1097/JAN.0b013e3182929447 · 0.34 Impact Factor