Validation of Self-Report Instruments to Assess Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms in Adults Attending Community Drug and Alcohol Services

The Ability of Self-Report Methods to Accurately Diagnose Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and analyze all studies validating rating scales or interview-based screeners commonly used to evaluate ADHD in adults.

METHOD

A systematic literature search identified all studies providing diagnostic accuracy statistics, including sensitivity and specificity, supplemented by relevant articles or test manuals referenced in reviewed manuscripts.

RESULTS

Only 20 published studies or manuals provided data regarding sensitivity and specificity when tasked with differentiating those with and without ADHD. While all screening measures have excellent ability to correctly classify non-ADHD individuals (with negative predictive values exceeding 96%), false positive rates were high. At best, positive predictive values in clinical samples reached 61%, but most fell below 20%.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians cannot rely on scales alone to diagnose ADHD and must undertake more rigorous evaluation of clients who screen positive. Furthermore, relevant classification statistics must be included in publications to help clinicians make statistically defensible decisions. Otherwise, clinicians risk inappropriately diagnosing ADHD.

Diagnosing Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in young adults: A qualitative review of the utility of assessment measures and recommendations for improving the diagnostic process

Objective: Identify assessment measures that augment the clinical interview and improve the diagnostic accuracy of adult ADHD assessment.Method: The sometimes limited research literatures concerning the diagnostic efficacies of the clinical interview, standard and novel ADHD behavior rating scales, performance and symptom validity testing, and cognitive tests are critically reviewed.Results: Based on this qualitative review, both clinical interviews alone and ADHD behavior rating scales alone have adequate sensitivity but poor specificity in diagnosing ADHD. Response validity and symptom validity tests have reasonably good sensitivity and very good specificity in detecting invalid symptom presentation. Cognitive test batteries have inadequate sensitivity and specificity in identifying ADHD. Using cognitive tests in conjunction with behavior rating scales significantly improves the specificity of an assessment battery. Executive function behavior rating scales and functional impairment rating scales are unlikely to improve the diagnostic accuracy of ADHD assessment.Conclusions: Based on this review, key clinical interview questions, behavior rating scales, symptom validity tests, and cognitive tests that have promise to enhance current assessment practices are recommended. These are the authors' personal opinions, not consensus standards, or guidelines promulgated by any organization. These measures are incorporated in a practical, somewhat abbreviated, battery that has the potential to improve clinicians' ability to diagnose adult ADHD.

Does collateral retrospective information about childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms assist in the diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adults? Findings from a large clinical sample

OBJECTIVES

In accordance with consolidated clinical practice, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition suggests a key role of collateral information in the evaluation of retrospective childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms in adults despite poor evidence supporting its use. This study aims to assess the incremental value of collateral information on the presence of childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms when evaluating adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

METHODS

Adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (n = 449) and non-attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder subjects (n = 143) underwent an extensive clinical assessment based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition criteria. For patients, retrospective collateral information regarding childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was obtained and used to sort them into two groups: agreement (n = 277) and disagreement (n = 172) between self- and collateral reports. We compared demographic, clinical and response to treatment profiles among groups to test the relevance of collateral information on the specific issue of childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms.

RESULTS

Both attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder groups had higher rates of several comorbidities (oppositional defiant, conduct, substance use and bipolar disorders; all p < 0.001) and impairments than controls. Disagreement between self- and collateral reports on childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms occurred in 38% of patients. Overall, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder disagreement and agreement groups had similar profiles in response to treatment and comorbidity, and the few differences detected in impairment measures were of small magnitude (Eta(2) < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although collateral report has an important role for diagnosing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children, it has no incremental value in the evaluation of childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms in adults with a self-reported history of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder assessed in clinical settings.