Reliability, Criterion and Concurrent Validity of the Farsi Translation of DIVA-5: A Semi-Structured Diagnostic Interview for Adults With ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study evaluated the psychometrics of the Farsi translation of diagnostic interview for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults (DIVA-5) based on DSM-5 criteria. Methods: Referrals to a psychiatric outpatient clinic ( N = 120, 61.7% males, mean age 34.35 ± 9.84 years) presenting for an adult ADHD (AADHD) diagnosis, were evaluated using the structured clinical interviews for DSM-5 (SCID-5 & SCID-5-PD) and the DIVA-5. The participants completed Conner’s Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Self Report-Screening Version (CAARS-S-SV). Results: According to the SCID-5 and DIVA-5 diagnoses, 55% and 38% of the participants had ADHD, respectively. Diagnostic agreement was 81.66% between DIVA-5/SCID-5 diagnoses, 80% between SCID-5/CAARS-S-SV, and 71.66% between DIVA-5/CAARS-S-SV. Test–retest and inter-rater reliability results for the DIVA-5 were good to excellent. Conclusion: Findings support the validity and reliability of the Farsi translation of DIVA-5 among the Farsi-speaking adult outpatient population.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".