OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate a questionnaire, the ADHD Impact Module for Adults (AIM-A), to dimension quality of life for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Six multi-item AIM scales were developed and evaluated in 317 participants enrolled in an open-label trial. Multitrait scaling analysis and correlations between the AIM-A and the ADHD Rating Scale were evaluated. Differences in scale scores based on severity (clinician rated), subtype, previous medication experience, and sensitivity to change were examined, and F statistics were compared for the AIM-A and the ADHD Rating Scale. RESULTS: 100-80% scaling successes were observed for the AIM-A scales. Alpha coefficients were >or=.83. Significant correlations were observed (range: .494 to .200). The AIM-A discriminated based on severity, subtype, and medication experience (p <or= .01) and was sensitive to change (n = 23, p <or= .001). CONCLUSION: Psychometric findings are encouraging. Future efforts will examine validity and responsiveness in larger clinical samples with different therapeutic interventions.
OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate a questionnaire, the ADHD Impact Module for Adults (AIM-A), to dimension quality of life for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Six multi-item AIM scales were developed and evaluated in 317 participants enrolled in an open-label trial. Multitrait scaling analysis and correlations between the AIM-A and the ADHD Rating Scale were evaluated. Differences in scale scores based on severity (clinician rated), subtype, previous medication experience, and sensitivity to change were examined, and F statistics were compared for the AIM-A and the ADHD Rating Scale. RESULTS: 100-80% scaling successes were observed for the AIM-A scales. Alpha coefficients were >or=.83. Significant correlations were observed (range: .494 to .200). The AIM-A discriminated based on severity, subtype, and medication experience (p <or= .01) and was sensitive to change (n = 23, p <or= .001). CONCLUSION: Psychometric findings are encouraging. Future efforts will examine validity and responsiveness in larger clinical samples with different therapeutic interventions.
Authors: Greg Mattingly; Richard Weisler; Bryan Dirks; Thomas Babcock; Ben Adeyi; Brian Scheckner; Robert Lasser Journal: Innov Clin Neurosci Date: 2012-05
Authors: Ann C Childress; Andrew J Cutler; Keith Saylor; Maria Gasior; Mohamed Hamdani; M Celeste Ferreira-Cornwell; Robert L Findling Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 2.576
Authors: Trevor D Pinho; Patricia H Manz; George J DuPaul; Arthur D Anastopoulos; Lisa L Weyandt Journal: J Atten Disord Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 3.256
Authors: Pablo Luis Lopez; Fernando Manuel Torrente; Agustín Ciapponi; Alicia Graciela Lischinsky; Marcelo Cetkovich-Bakmas; Juan Ignacio Rojas; Marina Romano; Facundo F Manes Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-03-23
Authors: Christopher Gibbins; Margaret D Weiss; David W Goodman; Paul S Hodgkins; Jeanne M Landgraf; Stephen V Faraone Journal: Ment Illn Date: 2010-09-09
Authors: Lenard A Adler; Bryan Dirks; Patrick Deas; Aparna Raychaudhuri; Matthew Dauphin; Keith Saylor; Richard Weisler Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 3.630