Psychometric properties of the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale parent and self-reports in a Norwegian clinical sample of adolescents treated for ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To analyze the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale parent and self-reports (WFIRS-P and WFIRS-S) in adolescents with ADHD.Methods 102 clinically referred patients, of which 86% were enrolled in an ongoing RCT program (Clinical trials NCT02937142), were diagnosed with ADHD according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders version IV (DSM-IV). The conceptual framework of the WFIRS-P and the WFIRS-S was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), reliability was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha, convergent and divergent validity was assessed using correlations with the Children’s Global Assessment Scale (C-GAS) and the ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV).Results CFA supported the original factor structure of the questionnaires, both a first-order and a second-order model revealed acceptable model fit. Internal consistency was satisfactory across domains. The parent-adolescent agreement was moderate. The correlations between the C-GAS and the total scores of the WFIRS-P and WFIRS-S were low to moderate (r = –0.29 to −0.38). The ADHD-RS-IV correlated moderately (r = 0.49) with WFIRS-P, the correlation with WFIRS-S was weak (r = 0.28) supporting divergent validity. In multiple regression analyses, the ADHD-RS total score was the strongest predictor of the total score in both the WFIRS questionnaires, with internalizing disorder showing an additional small contribution. Age, gender and full-scale IQ gave no additional contribution in explaining the variance.Conclusions The findings support the use of the Norwegian version of the WFIRS-S and the WFIRS-P in the evaluation of functional impairment in adolescents with 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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".