Validity of the Brown ADD Scales: An investigation in a predominantly inattentive ADHD adolescent sample with and without reading disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Brown ADD Scale for Adolescents is widely used in clinical settings, yet, no published studies have investigated divergent and concurrent validity and specificity and sensitivity to inattentive ADHD symptomatology. Ninety-eight participants (13 to 16 years) were classified as ADHD/I and/or reading disabled (RD) using Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorder and Schizophrenia (K-SADS), Conners' Rating Scales (CRS-R), and Ontario Child Health Study Scales (OCHSS), WRAT3, and WRMT-R. The results were: 29 ADHD/I; 12 RD, 16 ADHD/I with RD; and, 41 controls. The RD group was included to evaluate specificity. The Brown was administered but not used in classification. The ADHD groups scored higher on the Brown subscales compared with the other two groups. The recommended cutoffs resulted in high rates of false negatives but few false positives; this suggests good specificity but poor sensitivity. There were moderate correlations among the Brown, CRS-R, and OCHSS. The Brown can be useful in screening out ADHD; however, its low sensitivity precludes its usefulness in diagnosing 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".