Concurrent Validity of the Pediatric Attention Disorders Diagnostic Screener for Children with ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the concurrent validity of a new computer-assisted ADHD screening system, the Pediatric Attention Disorders Diagnostic Screener (PADDS; Pedigo, Pedigo, & Scott, 2006 Pedigo, T., Pedigo, K. and Scott, V. B. Jr. 2006. PADDS Pediatric ADHD Screener: An evidence-based assessment system for screening attention and executive disorders, clinical and users guide, Okeechobee, FL: Targeted Testing, Inc. [Google Scholar]) in relation to the Test of Variables of Attention (TOVA; Greenberg, 1999 Greenberg, L. M. 1999. Test of Variables of Attention, Los Alamitos, CA: The Tova Company. [Google Scholar]), the Conner's Continuous Performance Test- II (CPT-II; Conners & MHS Staff, 2000 Conners, C. K. and MHS Staff. 2000. Conner's continuous performance test II, Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. [Google Scholar]), and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000 Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C. and Kenworthy, L. 2000. Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function: Professional Manual, Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. [Google Scholar]) in three clinically referred samples of children 6 to 12 years of age. The PADDS is a recently published multidimensional screening measure that incrementally merges computer-administered executive tasks with parent and teacher behavior ratings to aid in the diagnostic decision-making process for youth with attention disorders. To date, no published study has examined the concurrent validity of the PADDS. In a clinic-referred sample of 217 subjects diagnosed with ADHD concurrent validity was assessed through correlation coefficients, paired t-tests (p < .001), and Cohen's d effect sizes. In comparison to the TOVA, the CPT-II, and the BRIEF scales, the PADDS demonstrated strong concurrent validity between conceptually similar scales, providing initial evidence for the concurrent validity of the PADDS. Relative to other measures, the PADDS appears to have some unique scales designed to assess attention and various aspects of executive functioning.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".