German validation of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) II: Reliability, validity, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 321-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Christiansen ◽  
B. Kis ◽  
O. Hirsch ◽  
S. Matthies ◽  
J. Hebebrand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Adult Adhd ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Self Concept ◽  
Operating Characteristics ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Healthy Control ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Adhd Rating Scales

AbstractBackgroundThe German version of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) has proven to show very high model fit in confirmative factor analyses with the established factors inattention/memory problems, hyperactivity/restlessness, impulsivity/emotional lability, and problems with self-concept in both large healthy control and ADHD patient samples. This study now presents data on the psychometric properties of the German CAARS-self-report (CAARS-S) and observer-report (CAARS-O) questionnaires.MethodsCAARS-S/O and questions on sociodemographic variables were filled out by 466 patients with ADHD, 847 healthy control subjects that already participated in two prior studies, and a total of 896 observer data sets were available. Cronbach's-alpha was calculated to obtain internal reliability coefficients. Pearson correlations were performed to assess test-retest reliability, and concurrent, criterion, and discriminant validity. Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC-analyses) were used to establish sensitivity and specificity for all subscales.ResultsCoefficient alphas ranged from .74 to .95, and test-retest reliability from .85 to .92 for the CAARS-S, and from .65 to .85 for the CAARS-O. All CAARS subscales, except problems with self-concept correlated significantly with the Barrett Impulsiveness Scale (BIS), but not with the Wender Utah Rating Scale (WURS). Criterion validity was established with ADHD subtype and diagnosis based on DSM-IV criteria. Sensitivity and specificity were high for all four subscales.ConclusionThe reported results confirm our previous study and show that the German CAARS-S/O do indeed represent a reliable and cross-culturally valid measure of current ADHD symptoms in adults.

Reliability, Validity, Factor Structure, and Measurement Invariance of the Japanese Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS)

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-349
Author(s):  
Fumio Someki ◽  
Masafumi Ohnishi ◽  
Mikael Vejdemo-Johansson ◽  
Kazuhiko Nakamura
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Factor Structure ◽  
North American ◽  
Adult Adhd ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Dimensional Structure ◽  
Scalar Invariance ◽  
Adhd Rating Scales

To examine reliability, validity, factor structure, and measurement invariance (i.e., configural, metric, and scalar invariance) of the Japanese Conners’ Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) Rating Scales (CAARS), Japanese nonclinical adults ( N = 786) completed the CAARS Self-Report (CAARS-S). Each participant was also rated by one observer using the CAARS Observer Form (CAARS-O). For the test of measurement invariance, excerpts from the original (North American) CAARS norming data ( N = 500) were used. Dimensional structure was examined by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and concurrent validity were satisfactory. Based on the DSM-IV model and Japanese four-factor model, configural and metric invariance were established for the CAARS-S/O across Japanese and North American populations. Scalar invariance was established for the CAARS-O based on the Japanese model. The use of the Japanese CAARS for diagnostic purposes in Japan was supported; however, it should be used with caution for cross-cultural comparison research.

The german version of the conners adult ADHD rating scales (CAARS)

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S2) ◽  
pp. 1195-1195 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Christiansen ◽  
B. Kis ◽  
O. Hirsch ◽  
A. Philipsen ◽  
J. Hebebrand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Adult Adhd ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Control Sample ◽  
Education Level ◽  
Self Report ◽  
German Version ◽  
American Model ◽  
Valid Instrument ◽  
Adhd Rating Scales

IntroductionInstruments for diagnosing Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in childhood are well validated and reliable, but psychometric assessment of ADHD in adults remains problematic. To date the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) are frequently used in the assessment of ADHD.ObjectivesThe CAARS were translated into German and a series of studies planned to establish psychometric properties of the CAARS-self and -observer rating scales.AimsTo evaluate the German version of the CAARS.MethodsWe recruited 847 healthy German subjects and 466 adult ADHD patients to fill out the CAARS-self report and questions on socio-demographic variables. Additionally, 896 CAARS-observer reports were filled out by significant others and clinical experts. Factor analyses were conducted to obtain factor structure and to replicate the structure of the original American-model. Comparisons between patients and controls, and analyses on influences of gender, age, and education level were calculated. Additional analyses established psychometric properties.ResultsConfirmative factor analysis based on the original American-model showed a high model-fit for both the German healthy control and the adult ADHD patient sample. Analyses of normative data showed significant influences of age, gender, and education level on the emerging subscales for the control sample only. Differences on all subscales were highly significant between patients and controls. Test-, test-retest-reliability was very high, and criterion validity could be established with DSM-IV based clinical interviews. Sensitivity and specificity ratings are overall very satisfying.ConclusionThe German version of the CAARS is a cross-culturally valid instrument for the assessment of adult ADHD.

scholarly journals Test–retest reliability of the adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) v1.1 Screener in non-ADHD controls from a primary care physician practice

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 336-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Silverstein ◽  
Samuel Alperin ◽  
Stephen V Faraone ◽  
Ronald C Kessler ◽  
Lenard A Adler
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physician ◽  
Adult Adhd ◽  
Care Physician ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Physician Practice ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

scholarly journals Non-credible symptom report in the clinical evaluation of adult ADHD: development and initial validation of a new validity index embedded in the Conners’ adult ADHD rating scales

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Becke ◽  
Lara Tucha ◽  
Matthias Weisbrod ◽  
Steffen Aschenbrenner ◽  
Oliver Tucha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Classification Accuracy ◽  
Adult Adhd ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Stimulant Medication ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Symptom Report ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Detection Strategies ◽  
Unusual Symptom ◽  
Adhd Rating Scales

AbstractAs attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a feasible target for individuals aiming to procure stimulant medication or accommodations, there is a high clinical need for accurate assessment of adult ADHD. Proven falsifiability of commonly used diagnostic instruments is therefore of concern. The present study aimed to develop a new, ADHD-specific infrequency index to aid the detection of non-credible self-report. Disorder-specific adaptations of four detection strategies were embedded into the Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) and tested for infrequency among credible neurotypical controls (n = 1001) and credible adults with ADHD (n = 100). The new index’ ability to detect instructed simulators (n = 242) and non-credible adults with ADHD (n = 22) was subsequently examined using ROC analyses. Applying a conservative cut-off score, the new index identified 30% of participants instructed to simulate ADHD while retaining a specificity of 98%. Items assessing supposed symptoms of ADHD proved most useful in distinguishing genuine patients with ADHD from simulators, whereas inquiries into unusual symptom combinations produced a small effect. The CAARS Infrequency Index (CII) outperformed the new infrequency index in terms of sensitivity (46%), but not overall classification accuracy as determined in ROC analyses. Neither the new infrequency index nor the CII detected non-credible adults diagnosed with ADHD with adequate accuracy. In contrast, both infrequency indices showed high classification accuracy when used to detect symptom over-report. Findings support the new indices’ utility as an adjunct measure in uncovering feigned ADHD, while underscoring the need to differentiate general over-reporting from specific forms of feigning.

Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale Screener Ratings in College Students: Concurrent Validity and Test–Retest Reliability

2021 ◽  
pp. 073428292110343
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Lovett ◽  
David E. Ferrier ◽  
Tina Wang ◽  
Alexander H. Jordan
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Adult Adhd ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Psychometric Data ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

The Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale screener is commonly used to determine if further evaluation of ADHD is required. However, despite use in college settings, the ASRS was not developed for this population, and limited relevant psychometric data exist. In this study, 190 college students completed the ASRS screener as well as a lengthier measure of the 18 DSM symptoms of ADHD. A subgroup ( n = 141) completed the ASRS twice, with at least 1 week in between measures. Concurrent validity of ASRS scores was substantial ( r = 0.73 with DSM inattentive symptoms and r = 0.57 with DSM hyperactive/impulsive symptoms) and test–retest reliability was adequate ( r = 0.69 with an average interval of 42 days). However, the sensitivity of the screener was only moderate (66%), and approximately one-fifth of the students changed screening status (positive vs. negative) across the time interval. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

The Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales—Short Self-Report and Observer Forms

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. 671-679 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Antonio Amador-Campos ◽  
Juana Gómez-Benito ◽  
Josep Antoni Ramos-Quiroga
Keyword(s):  
Adult Adhd ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Adhd Rating Scales

scholarly journals Fibromyalgia 2016 criteria and assessments: comprehensive validation in a Norwegian population

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 663-672
Author(s):  
Egil A. Fors ◽  
Knut-Arne Wensaas ◽  
Hilde Eide ◽  
Ellen A. Jaatun ◽  
Daniel J. Clauw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Roc Analysis ◽  
Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Widespread Pain ◽  
Operating Characteristics ◽  
Tender Points ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

AbstractBackground and aimsThe ACR1990 criteria of fibromyalgia (FM) have been criticized due to poor reliability of tender points counting (TPC), inconsistent definitions of the widespread pain, and by not considering other symptoms than pain in the FM phenotype. Therefore, several newer self-report measures for FM criteria have emerged. The aim of this study was to translate the fibromyalgia survey questionnaire (FSQ) to Norwegian and validate both the 2011 and the 2016 fibromyalgia survey diagnostic criteria (FSDC) against the ACR1990 criteria.MethodsOne hundred and twenty chronic pain patients formerly diagnosed with fibromyalgia according to the ACR1990 criteria, and 62 controls not diagnosed or where fibromyalgia was not suspected, were enrolled in this study. All responded to a Norwegian version of the FSQ. Also, they had a clinical examination according to ACR1990 fibromyalgia criteria including a counting of significant tender points with an algometer (TPC). The FSQ with the Widespread Pain Index (WPI) and Symptom Severity scale (SSS) subscales, Fibromyalgia Severity (FS) sum score, was examined for correlations with the fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQ) and TPCs. Face-validity, internal consistence, test-retest reliability and construct validity with convergent and divergent approaches were examined and a Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed.ResultsThe internal consistency of FS measured by Cronbach’s alfa was good (=0.904). The test-retest reliability measures using intra class correlation were respectable for the FS, including WPI and SSS subscales (0.86, 0.84 and 0.87). FS, WPI and SSS correlated significantly with FIQ (0.74, 0.59 and 0.85) and TPC indicating an adequate construct, convergent validity. The medians of FS, WPI and SSS in the fibromyalgia-group were significantly different from the non-fibromyalgia-group indicating good construct, divergent validity. Using the 2011 and 2016 FSDC vs. ACR 1990 as a reference, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR +) and negative likelihood ratio (LR−) were identified. The accuracy rate for both 2011 and 2016 FSDC were respectable (84%). ROC analysis using FS revealed a very good Area Under the Curve (AUC) = 0.860.ConclusionThe current study revealed that the Norwegian versions of FSQ is a valid tool for assessment of fibromyalgia according to the 2011 and 2016 (FSDC).

Test-Retest Reliability of a Self-Report Questionnaire for DSM-IV and ICD-10 Personality Disorders

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Ottosson ◽  
Martin Grann ◽  
Gunnar Kullgren
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Anxiety Disorders ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Anxiety State ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Axis I ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Summary: Short-term stability or test-retest reliability of self-reported personality traits is likely to be biased if the respondent is affected by a depressive or anxiety state. However, in some studies, DSM-oriented self-reported instruments have proved to be reasonably stable in the short term, regardless of co-occurring depressive or anxiety disorders. In the present study, we examined the short-term test-retest reliability of a new self-report questionnaire for personality disorder diagnosis (DIP-Q) on a clinical sample of 30 individuals, having either a depressive, an anxiety, or no axis-I disorder. Test-retest scorings from subjects with depressive disorders were mostly unstable, with a significant change in fulfilled criteria between entry and retest for three out of ten personality disorders: borderline, avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Scorings from subjects with anxiety disorders were unstable only for cluster C and dependent personality disorder items. In the absence of co-morbid depressive or anxiety disorders, mean dimensional scores of DIP-Q showed no significant differences between entry and retest. Overall, the effect from state on trait scorings was moderate, and it is concluded that test-retest reliability for DIP-Q is acceptable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document