Examining the validity of the ADHD concept in adults and older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It is crucial to clarify the structure of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptomatology in all age groups to determine how to best conceptualize this disorder across the lifespan. We tested the ADHD factor structure across adulthood and investigated independent associations with executive functions. METHOD: Data from 645 adults aged 18-59 and 233 adults aged 60-85 were drawn from the Nathan Kline Institute Rockland Sample. Participants completed the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scale and tests of executive functioning. Invariance of the ADHD factor structure was investigated using confirmatory factor analyses. Associations with cognition were explored using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Results confirmed a bifactor model with 3 specific factors (inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity). Factor loadings and item intercepts were invariant across ages. Levels of hyperactivity and impulsivity were lower in older adults. Inattentive symptoms in young adults were positively related to cognitive flexibility. In older adults, ADHD symptoms predicted poorer working memory. CONCLUSION: ADHD symptoms manifest similarly across adulthood. The lack of robust associations between ADHD symptomatology and executive functions raises concerns about the usefulness of neuropsychological measures in diagnosing adult ADHD. These results support the validity of the ADHD concept in older adults but suggest a need for age-appropriate normative criteria.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".