Validating a Self-Report Screen for ADHD in Early Adulthood Using Childhood Parent and Teacher Ratings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This article evaluates the diagnostic utility of a self-report screening tool for adults based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV) ADHD criteria. METHOD: Children with speech/language (S/L) impairment and typically developing controls had ADHD symptoms rated by parents and teachers at ages 5 and 12. At age 19, participants completed the Adult Attention Problems Scale (AAPS), an 18-item screen. Receiver operative characteristic curve analyses were used to assess the efficiency of this instrument in screening for ADHD. RESULTS: The AAPS had moderate sensitivity and high specificity, but only for adults without a history of communication disorders. CONCLUSION: The AAPS provides clinicians with the only self-report scales for ADHD in adulthood, validated with childhood ADHD symptoms assessed by multiple raters. However, scale characteristics were poor for the S/L-impaired cohort. Given the overlap between language impairment and ADHD, adult ADHD measures validated in S/L-impaired samples are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".