Validation of the adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder quality-of-life scale in European patients: comparison with patients from the USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) quality-of-life (AAQoL) scale was previously validated in adult patients in the USA; here, the AAQoL is validated in adult European patients. Data from a 12-week open-label acute treatment period with atomoxetine (80-100 mg/day) in adults with ADHD were used. Patients (≥ 18 to ≤ 50 years old) had a score ≥ 2 on ≥ 6 items on the inattentive or hyperactive core subscales of Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Investigator Rated: Screening Version (CAARS-Inv:SV); a CAARS-Inv:SV 18-item total ADHD symptom score ≥ 20; and Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Observer: Screening Version 6-item inattentive or hyperactive core subscale scores ≥ 2. Data were stratified based on patients' geographic region (Europe vs USA). Scale validation psychometric properties results were very similar between European (n = 1,217; 57.7 % male; mean age 33.0 years) and US (n = 602; 62.1 % male; mean age 33.5 years) patients, including factor loading, internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, and responsiveness. Exploratory factor analysis confirmed four AAQoL subscales. Internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha > 0.70 for all subscales). The AAQoL total score showed moderate convergent validity with CAARS-Inv:SV 18-item total ADHD symptom and clinical global impression-ADHD-severity (CGI-ADHD-S) scores; and strong convergent validity with Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version: Self-Report Global-Executive-Composite Index scores. Mean AAQoL total scores were significantly different among patients grouped by CGI-ADHD-S scores, suggesting good discriminant validity. The AAQoL total and subscale scores presented good responsiveness from baseline to 12 weeks. The AAQoL scale shows comparable validity in European and US adults with ADHD.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".