Alexandra Garcia-Rosales1,2,3, Silia Vitoratou4, Stephen V Faraone5, Daniel Rudaizky6, Tobias Banaschewski7, Philip Asherson8, Edmund Sonuga-Barke8, Jan Buitelaar9, Robert D Oades10, Aribert Rothenberger11, Hans-Christoph Steinhausen12,13,14,15, Eric Taylor8, Wai Chen16,17,18. 1. MRC Social Genetic Developmental and Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neurosciences, King's College London, London, UK. rosales.garcia@kcl.ac.uk. 2. Psychometrics and Measurement Lab, Department of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neurosciences, King's College London, London, UK. rosales.garcia@kcl.ac.uk. 3. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. rosales.garcia@kcl.ac.uk. 4. Psychometrics and Measurement Lab, Department of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neurosciences, King's College London, London, UK. 5. Departments of Psychiatry and of Neuroscience and Physiology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA. 6. Centre for the Advancement of Research on Emotion, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. 7. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim/Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany. 8. MRC Social Genetic Developmental and Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neurosciences, King's College London, London, UK. 9. Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 10. Clinic for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 11. Clinic for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany. 12. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 13. Clinical Psychology and Epidemiology, Department of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 14. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Center, Capital Region Psychiatry, Copenhagen, Denmark. 15. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Southern Denmark University, Odense, Denmark. 16. Complex Attention and Hyperactivity Disorders Service (CAHDS), Child and Adolescent Health Service (CAHS), Department of Health Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. 17. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Paediatrics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. 18. Centre for Child & Adolescent Related Disorders, Graduate School of Education, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consistent research findings indicate that parents and teachers observe genuinely different Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) behaviours in their respective settings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of information provided by teacher informant assessments (INFAs) of ADHD symptoms, and the implications of aggregation algorithms in combing parents' information, i.e. using 'or-rule' (endorsement by either one informant) versus 'and-rule' (endorsement by both informants). METHOD: Teacher ratings on Conners scales and clinical data from parental accounts on 1383 probands and their siblings from the IMAGE study were analysed. The psychometric properties of teacher and combined ratings using the item response theory model (IRT) are presented. Kappa coefficients, intraclass correlations and linear regression were employed. RESULTS: First, teacher endorsement of symptoms is located in a narrow part of the trait continuum close to the average levels. Symptoms exhibit comparable perception in the measurement of the trait(s) with similar discrimination ability and information (reliability). Second, the IRT properties of the 'or-rule' ratings are predominantly influenced by parent-INFAs; and the 'and-rule' ratings predominantly by teacher-INFAs ratings. Third, parent-teacher INFAs agreement was low, both for individual items (κ = 0.01-0.15) and for dimensional scores (r = 0.12-0.16). The 'or-rule' captured milder expressions of ADHD symptoms, whereas the 'and-rule' indexed greater severity of ADHD. CONCLUSIONS: Parent and teacher-INFAs provide different kinds of information, while both are useful. Teacher-INFA and the 'and-rule' provide a more accurate index of severity than an additive symptom count. Parent-INFA and the 'or-rule' are more sensitive for detecting cases with milder ADHD.
BACKGROUND: Consistent research findings indicate that parents and teachers observe genuinely different Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) behaviours in their respective settings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of information provided by teacher informant assessments (INFAs) of ADHD symptoms, and the implications of aggregation algorithms in combing parents' information, i.e. using 'or-rule' (endorsement by either one informant) versus 'and-rule' (endorsement by both informants). METHOD: Teacher ratings on Conners scales and clinical data from parental accounts on 1383 probands and their siblings from the IMAGE study were analysed. The psychometric properties of teacher and combined ratings using the item response theory model (IRT) are presented. Kappa coefficients, intraclass correlations and linear regression were employed. RESULTS: First, teacher endorsement of symptoms is located in a narrow part of the trait continuum close to the average levels. Symptoms exhibit comparable perception in the measurement of the trait(s) with similar discrimination ability and information (reliability). Second, the IRT properties of the 'or-rule' ratings are predominantly influenced by parent-INFAs; and the 'and-rule' ratings predominantly by teacher-INFAs ratings. Third, parent-teacher INFAs agreement was low, both for individual items (κ = 0.01-0.15) and for dimensional scores (r = 0.12-0.16). The 'or-rule' captured milder expressions of ADHD symptoms, whereas the 'and-rule' indexed greater severity of ADHD. CONCLUSIONS: Parent and teacher-INFAs provide different kinds of information, while both are useful. Teacher-INFA and the 'and-rule' provide a more accurate index of severity than an additive symptom count. Parent-INFA and the 'or-rule' are more sensitive for detecting cases with milder ADHD.
Authors: Andrew S Rowland; Betty Skipper; David L Rabiner; David M Umbach; Lil Stallone; Richard A Campbell; Richard L Hough; A J Naftel; Dale P Sandler Journal: J Abnorm Child Psychol Date: 2008-03-18
Authors: Silia Vitoratou; Alexandra Garcia-Rosales; Tobias Banaschewski; Edmund Sonuga-Barke; Jan Buitelaar; Robert D Oades; Aribert Rothenberger; Hans-Christoph Steinhausen; Eric Taylor; Stephen V Faraone; Wai Chen Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Megan E Narad; Annie A Garner; James L Peugh; Leanne Tamm; Tanya N Antonini; Kathleen M Kingery; John O Simon; Jeffery N Epstein Journal: Psychol Assess Date: 2014-09-15
Authors: P J Frick; B B Lahey; B Applegate; L Kerdyck; T Ollendick; G W Hynd; B Garfinkel; L Greenhill; J Biederman; R A Barkley Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Victor B Arias; Daniel E Nuñez; Agustín Martínez-Molina; Fernando P Ponce; Benito Arias Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 3.240