Jeremy R Sullivan1, Cynthia A Riccio. 1. University of Texas at San Antonio, Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Adult & Higher Education, San Anthonio, TX 78207-4415, USA. jeremy.sullivan@utsa.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Behavioral rating scales are common instruments used in evaluations of ADHD and executive function. It is important to explore how different diagnostic groups perform on these measures, as this information can be used to provide criterion-related validity evidence for the measures. METHOD: Data from 92 children and adolescents were used to examine differences among participants in a No Diagnosis group, ADHD group, and Other Clinical group in terms of parent and teacher ratings on the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) and Conners' Rating Scales Revised-Short Form. RESULTS: Participants in the ADHD and Other Clinical groups generally received similar scores on the scales, and both groups were generally rated higher in ADHD characteristics and executive dysfunction than were participants in the No Diagnosis group. CONCLUSION: Although the measures were successful at distinguishing clinical from nonclinical participants, their ability to distinguish among different clinical groups deserves further investigation.
OBJECTIVE: Behavioral rating scales are common instruments used in evaluations of ADHD and executive function. It is important to explore how different diagnostic groups perform on these measures, as this information can be used to provide criterion-related validity evidence for the measures. METHOD: Data from 92 children and adolescents were used to examine differences among participants in a No Diagnosis group, ADHD group, and Other Clinical group in terms of parent and teacher ratings on the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) and Conners' Rating Scales Revised-Short Form. RESULTS:Participants in the ADHD and Other Clinical groups generally received similar scores on the scales, and both groups were generally rated higher in ADHD characteristics and executive dysfunction than were participants in the No Diagnosis group. CONCLUSION: Although the measures were successful at distinguishing clinical from nonclinical participants, their ability to distinguish among different clinical groups deserves further investigation.
Authors: Atilla Turgay; Lawrence Ginsberg; Elias Sarkis; Rakesh Jain; Ben Adeyi; Joseph Gao; Bryan Dirks; Thomas Babcock; Brian Scheckner; Cynthia Richards; Robert Lasser; Robert L Findling Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.576
Authors: Victoria Fruh; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Chitra Amarasiriwardena; Andres Cardenas; David C Bellinger; Lauren A Wise; Roberta F White; Robert O Wright; Emily Oken; Birgit Claus Henn Journal: Neurotoxicology Date: 2019-09-09 Impact factor: 4.294
Authors: Deborah A Pearson; Michael G Aman; L Eugene Arnold; David M Lane; Katherine A Loveland; Cynthia W Santos; Charles D Casat; Rosleen Mansour; Susan W Jerger; Sarah Ezzell; Perry Factor; Salome Vanwoerden; Enstin Ye; Punya Narain; Lynne A Cleveland Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 2.576
Authors: Tracy Packiam Alloway; Susan E Gathercole; Joni Holmes; Maurice Place; Julian G Elliott; Kerry Hilton Journal: Child Psychiatry Hum Dev Date: 2009-03-12
Authors: Carmel T Collins; Robert A Gibson; Peter J Anderson; Andrew J McPhee; Thomas R Sullivan; Jacqueline F Gould; Philip Ryan; Lex W Doyle; Peter G Davis; Judy E McMichael; Noel P French; Paul B Colditz; Karen Simmer; Scott A Morris; Maria Makrides Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Victoria Fruh; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Brent A Coull; Katrina L Devick; Chitra Amarasiriwardena; Andres Cardenas; David C Bellinger; Lauren A Wise; Roberta F White; Robert O Wright; Emily Oken; Birgit Claus Henn Journal: Environ Res Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 8.431