Screening with an ADHD-specific rating scale in preschoolers: A cross-cultural comparison of the Early Childhood Inventory-4.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Early Childhood Inventory-4 (ECI-4) Hyperactivity-Impulsivity (HI) and Inattention (IA) subscales are screeners for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). There have been few studies of the screening properties of these subscales, particularly outside the United States. We investigated the classification accuracy of the parent and teacher versions of the HI and IA subscales and the cross-cultural validity of the cutoff values based on norms from a United States sample. The present study was part of the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study. Parents and teachers rated boys (n = 332) and girls (n = 319) with the ECI-4 (mean Age 3.5 years). Interviewers who were blind to the ratings used the Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment Interview to assign ADHD diagnoses. The ECI-4 HI and IA subscales showed acceptable accuracy in identifying ADHD in boys and girls (areas under the curve ranged from .67 to .85). In a multivariate regression analysis, the parent and teacher HI subscale scores significantly contributed to ADHD identification, but not the IA subscale scores. To achieve the necessary sensitivity to detect children with ADHD, lower cutoff levels than those specified by the United States ECI-4 norms were needed. For screening purposes, the parent and teacher ECI-4 showed acceptable accuracy in identifying preschoolers at risk for ADHD, and it may be sufficient to use the HI subscale scores. The suggested cutoff values provided by the United States ECI-4 norms had limited cross-cultural validity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".