Problem and purpose. There are few standardized tools for diagnosing ADHD in adults. The purpose of this study was to compare a standardized rating scale (CAARS) used by different observers, with a comprehensive diagnostic interview (CAADID) with respect to their ability to diagnose subtypes of ADHD.
Method. Subjects for this study came from baseline data of 98 patients (18 to 60 years ofage) participating in a drug trial for adult ADHD. The CAADID interview results in a yes-no decision as to whether the patient meets DSM-IV criteria for the subtypes ADHD. A t -test was used to compare the CAADID-diagnosed and Not-Diagnosed subtypes with the CAARS scores as the dependent measures.
Results. The CAADID duplicates results from the CAARS, with one exception: Combined Subtype reported by an observer using the CAARS did not agree with the CAADID diagnosis.
Conclusions. In most cases different rating perspectives reveal the same picture of the patient, except by an outside observer. Data reveals that a childhood history and an extensive interview are needed to supplement ratings by an observer.
","abstract_html":"<p><em>Problem and purpose.</em> There are few standardized tools for diagnosing ADHD in adults. The purpose of this study was to compare a standardized rating scale (CAARS) used by different observers, with a comprehensive diagnostic interview (CAADID) with respect to their ability to diagnose subtypes of ADHD.</p> <p><em>Method.</em> Subjects for this study came from baseline data of 98 patients (18 to 60 years ofage) participating in a drug trial for adult ADHD. The CAADID interview results in a yes-no decision as to whether the patient meets <em>DSM-IV</em> criteria for the subtypes ADHD. A <em>t</em> -test was used to compare the CAADID-diagnosed and Not-Diagnosed subtypes with the CAARS scores as the dependent measures.</p> <p><em>Results.</em> The CAADID duplicates results from the CAARS, with one exception: Combined Subtype reported by an observer using the CAARS did not agree with the CAADID diagnosis.</p> <p><em>Conclusions.</em> In most cases different rating perspectives reveal the same picture of the patient, except by an outside observer. Data reveals that a childhood history and an extensive interview are needed to supplement ratings by an observer.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Cofrancesco, Carolyn Mae"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Leadership PhD","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Elsie P. Jackson","Hinsdale Bernard","C.K. Conners"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2007,"date_issued":"2007-01-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"2007-01-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T00:52:41Z","subjects":["Personality and Social Contexts","Psychology"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/291","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Elsie P. Jackson","Hinsdale Bernard","C.K. Conners"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Cofrancesco, Carolyn Mae"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Leadership PhD"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Personality and Social Contexts","Psychology"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/291"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Problem and purpose. There are few standardized tools for diagnosing ADHD in adults. The purpose of this study was to compare a standardized rating scale (CAARS) used by different observers, with a comprehensive diagnostic interview (CAADID) with respect to their ability to diagnose subtypes of ADHD.
Method. Subjects for this study came from baseline data of 98 patients (18 to 60 years ofage) participating in a drug trial for adult ADHD. The CAADID interview results in a yes-no decision as to whether the patient meets DSM-IV criteria for the subtypes ADHD. A t -test was used to compare the CAADID-diagnosed and Not-Diagnosed subtypes with the CAARS scores as the dependent measures.
Results. The CAADID duplicates results from the CAARS, with one exception: Combined Subtype reported by an observer using the CAARS did not agree with the CAADID diagnosis.
Conclusions. In most cases different rating perspectives reveal the same picture of the patient, except by an outside observer. Data reveals that a childhood history and an extensive interview are needed to supplement ratings by an observer.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Effectiveness of Rating Scales and Semi-Structured Interview in Diagnosing Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Elsie P. Jackson","Hinsdale Bernard","C.K. Conners"],"dc:creator":["Cofrancesco, Carolyn Mae"],"dc:description.abstract":["Problem and purpose. There are few standardized tools for diagnosing ADHD in adults. The purpose of this study was to compare a standardized rating scale (CAARS) used by different observers, with a comprehensive diagnostic interview (CAADID) with respect to their ability to diagnose subtypes of ADHD.
Method. Subjects for this study came from baseline data of 98 patients (18 to 60 years ofage) participating in a drug trial for adult ADHD. The CAADID interview results in a yes-no decision as to whether the patient meets DSM-IV criteria for the subtypes ADHD. A t -test was used to compare the CAADID-diagnosed and Not-Diagnosed subtypes with the CAARS scores as the dependent measures.
Results. The CAADID duplicates results from the CAARS, with one exception: Combined Subtype reported by an observer using the CAARS did not agree with the CAADID diagnosis.
Conclusions. In most cases different rating perspectives reveal the same picture of the patient, except by an outside observer. Data reveals that a childhood history and an extensive interview are needed to supplement ratings by an observer.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/291"],"dc:subject":["Personality and Social Contexts","Psychology"],"dc:title":["The Effectiveness of Rating Scales and Semi-Structured Interview in Diagnosing Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Leadership PhD"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T00:52:41Z"}