Search

Background: Adolescents with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) experience developmentally distinct challenges from children and adults with ADHD. Yet no work in this age group identifies treatment‐related phenotypes that can inform treatment matching, development of tailored treatments, and screening efforts. Method: This study uses Latent Profile Analysis to detect unique presenting problem profiles among adolescents with ADHD and to test whether these profiles differ by key individual characteristics (age, sex, race, family adversity level). Participants were 854 ethnically diverse adolescents (ages 10–17) from the ADHD Teen Integrative Data Analysis Longitudinal (TIDAL) dataset who were assessed at clinical referral. Parent, adolescent, and teacher ratings, educational testing, and school records measured eight key presenting problems at intake. Results: A three‐profile solution emerged. ADHD simplex (63.7%) was characterized by a mix of the ADHD‐Inattentive and ADHD‐Combined subtypes, moderate impairment levels, and infrequent comorbidities. ADHD + internalizing (11.4%) was characterized by higher likelihood of comorbid anxiety and/or depression. The disruptive/disorganized ADHD (24.9%) profile was characterized by severe organization, time management, and planning (OTP) problems, the ADHD‐Combined subtype, and frequent disruptive behavior at school. Age did not vary across these phenotypes. More females were present in the ADHD + internalizing phenotype; males were more likely to be found in the disruptive/disorganized ADHD phenotype. Higher family adversity and African American race were associated with the disruptive/disorganized ADHD phenotype. Conclusions: Adolescents with ADHD demonstrate varying presenting problem phenotypes that vary by sex, family adversity, and race/ethnicity. Consideration of these phenotypes may inform treatment matching and efforts to improve screening among under‐diagnosed groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of 2 clinic-based psychosocial treatment modalities for adolescent attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and identify characteristics that facilitate patient-modality matching. Culturally diverse adolescents with ADHD (N = 123) were randomized to 1 of 2 versions of a parent–teen psychosocial treatment for ADHD (Supporting Teens' Autonomy Daily [STAND]): (a) group parent and adolescent skills training or (b) dyadic skills training blended with motivational interviewing. Participants were assessed at baseline, posttreatment, and 6-month follow-up on ADHD symptom severity and functional treatment targets. Differences in therapy process and cost were documented. Modality differences in outcome were examined using linear mixed and general linear models. Each modality successfully engaged the proposed therapy processes. Dyadic and group STAND produced equivalent overall outcomes. However, the dyadic modality demonstrated superior efficacy when parents had elevated ADHD or depression symptoms or high conflict with the teen. Families with lower parent education level and higher parental depression showed lower overall attendance; married parents were more likely to attend dyadic STAND (vs. group). Naturalistic stimulant medication did not influence treatment outcome. At less than one third of the cost of dyadic treatment, group models may be an economical option for treating parents and adolescents with ADHD. Screening adolescents with ADHD for parental psychopathology and parent–teen conflict may allow clinics to match higher risk patients to more personalized approaches that can enhance efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines how ADHD-related symptoms and impairments interact to predict depression symptoms in young adolescents with ADHD. A sample of 342 adolescents (71% male, mean age = 13 years old) with DSM-IV-TR diagnosed ADHD completed baseline clinical assessments upon entry to a psychosocial treatment study for ADHD. Ratings of ADHD and sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT) symptoms, and social and academic impairment were obtained from parents, while ratings of depressive symptoms and conflict with parents were obtained from youth. Among adolescents with ADHD, elevated depressive symptoms were associated with higher SCT symptom severity, lower hyperactive/impulsive (HI) symptom severity, higher social impairments, higher conflict with parents, and lower academic problems. Interaction effects indicated that clinically significant depressive symptoms were most likely to occur when high levels of parent–youth conflict were present along with high inattentive (IN) symptoms, high SCT, and/or low HI. Among children and adolescents with ADHD, depression prevention efforts might target IN/SCT symptom management, as well as improving interpersonal relationships with parents and peers. Future work is needed to verify these findings longitudinally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) underreport symptoms compared with informants and objective measures. This study applied enhanced statistical methodology (polynomial regression) to the study of ADHD self-reporting to clarify what contributes to symptom underreporting by adolescents with ADHD (N = 107; ages = 11-15 years). Polynomial regression models were conducted to test competing hypotheses about the nature of self-reporting problems. Traditional difference score models were nested within polynomial regression models to examine how modeling strategy influences results. Sixty-six percent of the sample substantially underreported symptoms compared with parents and 23.6% denied all symptoms. Polynomial regression models provided no evidence that the size of the discrepancy between parent and adolescent symptom reports possessed meaningful linear associations with any of the hypothesized predictors. Nested models indicated that the difference score approach led to very poor model fit and increased risk for Type I errors when examining underreporting among youth with ADHD. This finding suggests that past evaluations using a difference score approach should be replicated using polynomial regression to ensure that significant effects do not represent statistical artifact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Adolescents and young adults without childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often present to clinics seeking stimulant medication for late-onset ADHD symptoms. Recent birth-cohort studies support the notion of late-onset ADHD, but these investigations are limited by relying on screening instruments to assess ADHD, not considering alternative causes of symptoms, or failing to obtain complete psychiatric histories. The authors address these limitations by examining psychiatric assessments administered longitudinally to the local normative comparison group of the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD.Method: Individuals without childhood ADHD (N=239) were administered eight assessments from comparison baseline (mean age=9.89 years) to young adulthood (mean age=24.40 years). Diagnostic procedures utilized parent, teacher, and self-reports of ADHD symptoms, impairment, substance use, and other mental disorders, with consideration of symptom context and timing.Results: Approximately 95% of individuals who initially screened positive on symptom checklists were excluded from late-onset ADHD diagnosis. Among individuals with impairing late-onset ADHD symptoms, the most common reason for diagnostic exclusion was symptoms or impairment occurring exclusively in the context of heavy substance use. Most late-onset cases displayed onset in adolescence and an adolescence-limited presentation. There was no evidence for adult-onset ADHD independent of a complex psychiatric history.Conclusions: Individuals seeking treatment for late-onset ADHD may be valid cases; however, more commonly, symptoms represent nonimpairing cognitive fluctuations, a comorbid disorder, or the cognitive effects of substance use. False positive late-onset ADHD cases are common without careful assessment. Clinicians should carefully assess impairment, psychiatric history, and substance use before treating potential late-onset cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been increasing interest in applying integrative data analysis (IDA) to analyze data across multiple studies to increase sample size and statistical power. Measures of a construct are frequently not consistent across studies. This article provides a tutorial on the complex decisions that occur when conducting harmonization of measures for an IDA, including item selection, response coding, and modeling decisions. We analyzed caregivers' self-reported data from the ADHD Teen Integrative Data Analysis Longitudinal (ADHD TIDAL) dataset; data from 621 of 854 caregivers were available. We used moderated nonlinear factor analysis (MNLFA) to harmonize items reflecting depressive symptoms. Items were drawn from the Symptom Checklist 90-Revised, the Patient Health Questionnaire–9, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life questionnaire. Conducting IDA often requires more programming skills (e.g., Mplus), statistical knowledge (e.g., IRT framework), and complex decision-making processes than single-study analyses and meta-analyses. Through this paper, we described how we evaluated item characteristics, determined differences across studies, and created a single harmonized factor score that can be used to analyze data across all four studies. We also presented our questions, challenges, and decision-making processes; for example, we explained the thought process and course of actions when models did not converge. This tutorial provides a resource to support prevention scientists to generate harmonized variables accounting for sample and study differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Longitudinal studies of children diagnosed with ADHD report widely ranging ADHD persistence rates in adulthood (5-75%). This study documents how information source (parent vs. self-report), method (rating scale vs. interview), and symptom threshold (DSM vs. norm-based) influence reported ADHD persistence rates in adulthood. Method Five hundred seventy-nine children were diagnosed with DSM-IV ADHD-Combined Type at baseline (ages 7.0-9.9 years) 289 classmates served as a local normative comparison group (LNCG), 476 and 241 of whom respectively were evaluated in adulthood (Mean Age = 24.7). Parent and self-reports of symptoms and impairment on rating scales and structured interviews were used to investigate ADHD persistence in adulthood. Results Persistence rates were higher when using parent rather than self-reports, structured interviews rather than rating scales (for self-report but not parent report), and a norm-based (NB) threshold of 4 symptoms rather than DSM criteria. Receiver-Operating Characteristics (ROC) analyses revealed that sensitivity and specificity were optimized by combining parent and self-reports on a rating scale and applying a NB threshold. Conclusion The interview format optimizes young adult self-reporting when parent reports are not available. However, the combination of parent and self-reports from rating scales, using an 'or' rule and a NB threshold optimized the balance between sensitivity and specificity. With this definition, 60% of the ADHD group demonstrated symptom persistence and 41% met both symptom and impairment criteria in adulthood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Multimodal Treatment Study ( MTA) began as a 14-month randomized clinical trial of behavioral and pharmacological treatments of 579 children (7-10 years of age) diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD)-combined type. It transitioned into an observational long-term follow-up of 515 cases consented for continuation and 289 classmates (258 without ADHD) added as a local normative comparison group ( LNCG), with assessments 2-16 years after baseline. Methods Primary (symptom severity) and secondary (adult height) outcomes in adulthood were specified. Treatment was monitored to age 18, and naturalistic subgroups were formed based on three patterns of long-term use of stimulant medication (Consistent, Inconsistent, and Negligible). For the follow-up, hypothesis-generating analyses were performed on outcomes in early adulthood (at 25 years of age). Planned comparisons were used to estimate ADHD- LNCG differences reflecting persistence of symptoms and naturalistic subgroup differences reflecting benefit (symptom reduction) and cost (height suppression) associated with extended use of medication. Results For ratings of symptom severity, the ADHD- LNCG comparison was statistically significant for the parent/self-report average (0.51 ± 0.04, p < .0001, d = 1.11), documenting symptom persistence, and for the parent/self-report difference (0.21 ± 0.04, p < .0001, d = .60), documenting source discrepancy, but the comparisons of naturalistic subgroups reflecting medication effects were not significant. For adult height, the ADHD group was 1.29 ± 0.55 cm shorter than the LNCG ( p < .01, d = .21), and the comparisons of the naturalistic subgroups were significant: the treated group with the Consistent or Inconsistent pattern was 2.55 ± 0.73 cm shorter than the subgroup with the Negligible pattern ( p < .0005, d = .42), and within the treated group, the subgroup with the Consistent pattern was 2.36 ± 1.13 cm shorter than the subgroup with the Inconsistent pattern ( p < .04, d = .38). Conclusions In the MTA follow-up into adulthood, the ADHD group showed symptom persistence compared to local norms from the LNCG. Within naturalistic subgroups of ADHD cases, extended use of medication was associated with suppression of adult height but not with reduction of symptom severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a chronic disorder that afflicts individuals into adulthood. The field continues to refine diagnostic standards for ADHD in adults, complicated by the disorder’s heterogeneous presentation, subjective symptoms, and overlap with other disorders. Two key diagnostic questions are from whom to collect diagnostic information and which symptoms should be contained on an adult diagnostic checklist. Using a trifactor model, Martel et al. examine these questions in a sample of adults with and without self-identified ADHD symptoms. In this response, we highlight the importance of their finding that self and informant symptom reports differ in a sample of adults who acknowledge ADHD symptoms. We also review issues that continue to face the field related to model specification, evaluating symptom utility, and sample composition, discussing how these issues influence conclusions that may be drawn from Martel et al. and similar investigations. We conclude that the article makes an important research contribution about the nature of self and informant ADHD symptom reports but emphasize that symptom checklist refinement must occur through a broad lens that considers work from a range of sample types and clinically informative analytic strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]