Skip to main content
ADxS.org

3. Questionnaires for ADHD Diagnosis

3. Questionnaires for ADHD Diagnosis

Last updated:

Author: Ulrich Brennecke
Review: Waldemar Zdero, M.A. in Psychology (August 2024)

Questionnaires are completed by people with ADHD themselves and by significant others (parents, teachers, friends).

Questionnaires are highly subjective and carry the risk that the respondent’s personal opinion about ADHD may itself influence how the questions are answered. It sometimes happens that parents fundamentally reject an ADHD diagnosis, especially when it comes to their own child. Similarly, subjective beliefs held by people with ADHD (perhaps that they “want” a diagnosis in the hope of finding a solution to their suffering, or perhaps because they reject a diagnosis due to their fundamental rejection of ADHD or to avoid stigmatization) or shifts in evaluation criteria resulting from intense prior preoccupation with the topic can distort the results (bias).

For example, in tests involving elimination diets for ADHD, the results of parent questionnaires are consistently far more positive than the results of objective tests.1 Since this occurs even in double-blind studies, there is a significant bias on the part of parents to report the subjectively desired outcome (that ADHD can be treated with a diet rather than with medications that are viewed critically).
It is also possible, however, that the parents were already enthusiastic about the slight improvements that an elimination diet can bring about—or the placebo effect it may have on the affected child—and were unaware of the much better results that could be achieved through medication or therapy, or at least were unaware of them at the time of the evaluation.

Most online self-tests available for free on the Internet provide a rough initial assessment. However, prior exposure to such tests can skew the results of subsequent tests (bias).
However, due to the dramatic shortage of resources for diagnosing ADHD and a lack of knowledge on the part of many doctors and psychologists—which cannot be dismissed out of hand—the benefits outweigh the disadvantages for people with ADHD
can decide for themselves whether a diagnostic test is appropriate for them, given the clear risk of bias.

We have developed our own—quite comprehensive—online self-assessment test, which showed a correlation of about 93% with existing ADHD diagnoses and about 96% with the CAARS-L. Nevertheless, like any online self-assessment, it is only an indicator and can in no way replace a medical diagnosis. There is also a third-party assessment component available. For both tests, evaluations are available that can be presented to the diagnostician, allowing them to understand in detail how the assessment was arrived at. This provides an additional perspective on the symptoms.
⇒ Online ADHD Tests

ADHD RS-IV: ADHD Rating Scale-IV
ASRS 1.1: ADHD Self-Report Scale
ASRS-A 1.1. Adolescent ADHD Self-Report Scale
ASRS-A-S 1.1: Parent-Adolescent ADHD Self-Report Scale
BADDS: Brown Attention-Deficit Disorder Scale
CAARS: Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales
CASQ: Conners’ Abbreviated Symptom Questionnaire
CBCL: Child Behavior Checklist
CBCL-AP scale: Child Behavior Checklist—Attention Problems
CPRS: Conners’ Parent Rating Scales
CPT: Continuous Performance Test
CTRS: Conners’ Teacher Rating Scales
DISC-5: Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children
DIVA 2.0: Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults, Version 2
DIVA 5: Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults, Version 5
PAPA: Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment
PICS: Parent Interview on Child Symptoms
QbCheck: Online Assessment by Qbtech
SNAP-IV: Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Rating Scale-IV
SR-WRAADDS: Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale
SWAN-DE-SB: Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Scale, German Version, Self-Assessment Questionnaire
WURS: Wender Utah Rating Scales
WURS-K: Wender Utah Rating Scales (Abbreviated Version)

1. Self-Assessment Questionnaires for Diagnosis

Name of the instrument/test ; Test type ; Sensitivity (%) ; Specificity (%) ; Target population/Special features
AASS-5, Adult ADHD Symptom Scale for DSM-5, 21 questions, self-report questionnaire, DSM-5, derived from ASRS-6 Cut-off unknown to us; Van Wijk, 20202 95.1% 93.8%
ADHD-SB 22 questions, n = 88, Rösler et al., 20043 Cut-off 10: 88%; Cut-off 15: 77%; Cut-off 18: 65% Cut-off 10: 67%; Cut-off 15: 75%; Cut-off 18: 92%
BAARS-IV, Barkley Adult ADHD Rating Scale versus Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults 2.0 (DIVA-2) in a sample of n = 390 male prison inmates in England4 37.9% 96.3%
BADDS (Brown Attention-Deficit Disorder Scale), Brazilian Portuguese translation, for comorbid SUD5 questionnaire 72% 88%
CAARS (Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scale) Questionnaire, adults, Van Voorhees et al., 20116 65% (Conners Index) 61% (Conners Index)
CAARS for comorbid substance use disorders Questionnaire, Dakwar et al., 20127 80% Adults; Questionnaire
CAARS on cannabis addiction 26 questions, DSM-IV, n = 99, Notzon et al., 20208 80% 91%
SWAN-AD Scale of Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Scale (SWAN-DE-SB), German version questionnaire, cutoff 2.61, n = 405, Blume et al., 20259 93.3% 90.9% ADHD in adults; values at optimal cutoff
SWAN-HI Scale of Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Scale (SWAN-DE-SB), German version questionnaire, cutoff 2.72, n = 405, Blume et al., 20259 95.6% 100% ADHD in adults; scores at the optimal cutoff
SWAN-TOT Scale of Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Scale (SWAN-DE-SB), German version Cut-off 2.64, n = 405, Blume et al., 20259 95.6% 100% ADHD in adults; values at optimal cutoff
Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale (SR-WRAADDS) Questionnaire, Marchant et al., 201510 97% (ADHD vs. non-affected individuals); 87% (ADHD vs. depression or anxiety)

Self-assessment questionnaires:11

  • BADD: Brown Attention Deficit Disorders Scale, a 40-item self-report questionnaire for assessing cognitive ADHD symptoms
    Emotional dysregulation (including in ADHD) can be assessed using the

  • Children with Difficulties (QCD)12

  • Conners’ Scales of Attention and Behavior for Adults – Self-Report (CAARS-S)

  • Cologne ADHD Test for Adults (KATE)

    • Workbook containing various tests and instructions for grading
    • ASRS 1.1.

  • Reactivity, Intensity, Polarity, and Stability Questionnaire (RIPoSt-40)13

  • Wender-Reimherr Self-Assessment (WR-SB)

  • Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale (SR-WRAADDS)

  • Youth Self-Report, YSR/11-18 (Questionnaire for Adolescents)14

  • INDT-ADHD15

    • Indian ADHD Questionnaire with 18 items for ADHD in children, featuring a 4-factor structure
    • ADHD vs. non-affected individuals: sensitivity 87.7%, specificity 97.2%, positive predictive value 98.0%, negative predictive value 83.3%
    • ADHD vs. other neurodevelopmental disorders: sensitivity 87.7%, specificity 42.9%, positive predictive value 58.1%, negative predictive value 79.4%
    • Convergent validity with Conner’s Parents Rating Scale: r = 0.73

  • ADHD RS-IV (short form), 6 items: AUC 98% at a cutoff of 616

  • Quick Delay Questionnaire (QDQ); a self-report questionnaire for assessing delay-related behaviors in adults17

Adolescents with ADHD demonstrated gender-specific abilities to assess their own symptoms:18
Boys tended to underestimate their symptoms, while girls assessed themselves realistically.
Parents tend to underestimate the symptoms in girls.

A meta-analysis of 9 ADHD questionnaires found that only 37% assessed identical symptoms or behaviors.19 Most questionnaires for children were completed by parents, while most questionnaires for adults were self-administered.
With regard to questionnaires, a study revealed significant discrepancies in the assessments made by parents, teachers, and people with ADHD; these discrepancies concerned all existing symptoms—with the exception of emotional dysregulation—but even more so the frequency with which they occurred.20
In self-assessment questionnaires, response biases and unintentional misjudgments can influence the results.
Participants who were asked to report their daily physical activity showed significant discrepancies compared to the actigraphy measurements, even though they were aware that they were being monitored by actigraphy.21
Children with ADHD perform worse on tests with a slow event rate, while their results on exciting, challenging tasks were comparable to those of people without ADHD.22 23 This is consistent with the finding that test results for people with ADHD change when rewards are promised.24 This, too, suggests that it is not the ability to concentrate or the capacity for inhibition that is impaired per se, but rather that insufficient activation by “normally interesting” stimuli is the real key.

  • Behavioral symptoms were assessed in 28% to 81% of the questionnaire items
  • Cognitive symptoms were addressed in 9% to 44% of the questions
  • Emotional symptoms were mentioned in between 0% and 24% of the questions
  • Physical symptoms were assessed in only 3 of the 9 instruments

2. Third-Party Assessment Questionnaires for Diagnosis

Name of the instrument/test ; Test type ; Sensitivity (%) ; Specificity (%) ; Target group/Special features
CTRS/CPRS (Conners’ Teacher/Parent Rating Scales)25 Questionnaire 83.5% 35.7% Children; high sensitivity, low specificity
CTRS-R (Conners Teacher Rating Scale-Revised) (meta-analysis, k = 11)26 Questionnaire 72% 84% Children and adolescents; questionnaire for teachers
CBCL-AP Scale (Child Behavior Checklist-Attention Problem)(meta-analysis, k = 14)26 Questionnaire 77% 73% Children and adolescents
CRS-R (Conners Parent Rating Scale-Revised) (meta-analysis, k = 11)26 Questionnaire 75% 85% Children and adolescents; questionnaire for parents
DISC-5 (Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children) Parent and Teacher Reports 27 Interview 94.7% 64.2% Combined Parent and Teacher Reports
DISC-5 (Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children)27 Interview 80.8% (parents), 82.8% (adolescents) 71.6% (parents), 65% (adolescents) Children; parent report. DRAWBACK: The German version is NOT SUFFICIENT FOR PRESCRIBING STIMULANTS, as it has not yet been validated in German
Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (Present Lifetime Version)28 Questionnaire 86% 80% Questionnaires for parents and teachers; false-positive rate 20%, false-negative rate 14%
PAPA (Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment), a structured diagnostic interview for parents of preschool children, Persian version for DSM-5, Hassanzadeh et al., 202129 92% at a cutoff of 21.5 0.1% at a cutoff of 21.5 PPV: 95.83%, NPV: 98.91%, overall diagnostic accuracy = 98.67%
PICS (Parent Interview for Child Symptoms) with Teacher Telephone Interview (TTI)25 semi-structured interview 91.8% 70.7% children
SNAP-IV (Teacher-Teacher Interview, 2-stage)28 Interview 83 to 86% 80 to 97% Children; combination of teacher questionnaires and teacher interviews
SWAN-AD Scale of the Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Scale (SWAN-DE-SB), German version, cutoff 2.619 Questionnaire 93.3% 90.9% ADHD in adults; values at optimal cutoff
SWAN-HI Scale of the Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Scale (SWAN-DE-SB), German version, cutoff 2.729 Questionnaire 91.2% 90.9% ADHD in adults; scores at the optimal cutoff
SWAN-TOT Scale of the Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Scale (SWAN-DE-SB), German version, cutoff 2.649 Questionnaire 95.6% 100% ADHD in adults; scores at the optimal cutoff
Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale (SR-WRAADDS)10 Questionnaire 97% (ADHD vs. non-affected individuals); 87% (ADHD vs. depression or anxiety)

  • Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA)30

    • Children ages 5 to 10
      • AUC of 74% for the caregiver questionnaire
    • Youth ages 11 to 18
      • AUC of 73% for the caregiver questionnaire
      • AUC of 61% for the teacher questionnaire

  • Attention Deficit Disorders Evaluation Scale (ADDES)

    • Parent questionnaire with 46 items
    • Sensitivity below 70%, even at a low cutoff31

  • ADHD/ODDEFB: ADHD/ODD Parent Questionnaire32

  • Assessment Form for Parents, Teachers, and Educators (FBB-HKS)33

  • CAARS Parent ADHD Index

    • Sensitivity: 94% (cut-off: greater than 53); 43% (cut-off: greater than 60); 86% to 100% (optimized cut-off)34
    • Specificity: 54% (cut-off: greater than 53); 78% (cut-off: greater than 60); 34% to 80% (optimized cut-off)34
    • AUC: 78% (cut-off: greater than 8); 61% to 94% (optimized cut-off)34

  • CAARS Young Adult ADHD Index

    • Sensitivity: 57% (cut-off: greater than 56); 36% (cut-off: greater than 60); 23% to 81% (optimized cut-off)34
    • Specificity: 81% (cut-off: greater than 56); 90% (cut-off: greater than 60); 63% to 92% (optimized cut-off)34
    • AUC: 70% (cut-off: greater than 8); 51% to 90% (optimized cut-off)34

  • CHAOS Scale

    • Rating Scale for Core Symptoms of ADHD and Disruptive Behavior Disorders
    • 22 items
    • is filled out by parents and teachers

  • Child Behavior Checklist, CBCL/1.5–5

    • Parent questionnaire on the behavior of preschool children between the ages of 1.5 and 53536

  • Child Behavior Checklist, CBCL/6-18

    • Parent questionnaire on the behavior of children and adolescents ages 4 to 183736

  • Child and Adolescent Behavior Inventory (CABI)

    • Parent questionnaire with 75 questions
    • The CABI is more accurate than the CBCL for ADHD and anxiety, while the CBCL is more accurate for conduct disorder (CD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD)38

  • Childhood Executive Function Inventory (CHEXI)39

    • Questionnaire for Parents and Teachers
    • Parent ratings on the Inhibition subscale: Sensitivity 03%, Specificity 93%

  • Conners Scales of Attention and Behavior – Observer Assessment (CAARS-O) 40

  • Conners’ Abbreviated Symptom Questionnaire (ASQ)

    • Parent questionnaire with 10 items
    • Sensitivity below 70%, even at a low cutoff31

  • Expression and Emotion Scale for Children (EESC)

    • Questionnaire for Parents of Children with ADHD
    • Sensitivity 75%, specificity 67%, accuracy 71%, Cronbach’s α = 0.76; Pearson correlation r = 0.91; inter-rater reliability (ICC) = 0.66 for the Portuguese version41

  • Parent ABC Hyperactivity Subscale

    • Sensitivity: 91% (cut-off: greater than 3); 79% to 98% (optimized cut-off)34
    • Specificity: 42% (cut-off: greater than 3); 22% to 68% (optimized cut-off)34
    • AUC: 66% (cut-off: greater than 8); 47% to 86% (optimized cut-off)34

  • Parent SDQ ADHD subscale

    • Sensitivity: 60% (cut-off: greater than 6); 45% (cut-off: greater than 7); 41% to 88% (optimized cut-off)34
    • Specificity: 93% (cut-off: greater than 6); 97% (cut-off: greater than 7); 85% to 98% (optimized cut-off)34
    • AUC:
      • 79% (cut-off: greater than 8); 66% to 92% (optimized cut-off)34
      • 67% overall rate for all psychiatric problems in children at 39 months42
      • 61% on the “Internalization” subscale for internalizing problems in children at 39 months42
      • 77% on the “Externalization” subscale for ADHD and other externalizing disorders in children at 39 months42

  • Parent/Teacher Questionnaires (Conner)43

  • Parent Rating of Evening and Morning Behavior Scale, Revised (PREMB-R)44

  • Quantitative Behavior Test (QbTest)4546

    • To be completed by a diagnostician or a parent
    • 70% accuracy in adults aged 55 to 79
    • When combined with self-reported severity of ADHD symptoms, 91% accuracy

  • SDQ ADHD Hyperactivity-Inattention Subscale

    • AUC of 74% for ADHD-C and ADHD-HI47
    • 22% for ADHD-I

  • Teacher Rating Form (TRF 6–18)3736

  • Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Parent Rating Scale

  • Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale - Parent Form (WFIRS-P)

    • Children and adolescents with ADHD vs. non-ADHD controls
    • AUC of 98% for the total WFIRS-P score at a cutoff of 0.4548
    • AUC ranging from 73% to 97% for the subscales48
    • Sensitivity of 88% for the total WFIRS-P score at a cutoff of 0.4548
    • Specificity of 96% for the total WFIRS-P score at a cutoff of 0.4548
    • Sensitivity of 92% for the “Family” subscale at a cutoff of 0.4248
    • Specificity of 96% for the “Family” subscale at a cutoff of 0.4248
    • Low sensitivity of the “Self-Concept” and “Life Skills” subscales48
    • AUC: 91% for the total WFIRS-P score at a cutoff of 0.6549
    • Sensitivity: 83% for the total WFIRS-P score at a cutoff of 0.6549
    • Specificity: 85% for the total WFIRS-P score at a cutoff of 0.6549
    • DeLong test: no significant differences in AUCs between men and women or between the 5- to 12-year-old and 13- to 19-year-old age groups49

  • Young Adult SDQ ADHD Subscale

    • Sensitivity: 28% (cut-off: greater than 8); 31% (cut-off: greater than 6); 4% to 54% (optimized cut-off)34
    • Specificity: 100% (cut-off: greater than 8); 88% (cut-off: greater than 6); 100% to 100% (optimized cut-off)34
    • AUC: 65% (cut-off: greater than 8); 44% to 87% (optimized cut-off)34

Combinations:

  • SNAP-IV (18 items) and SDQ ADHD—hyperactivity-inattention subscale (teacher version) (5 items): AUC 95%47
  • SNAP-IV (18 items) and SDQ ADHD—hyperactivity-inattention subscale (parent version) (5 items): AUC 91%47

3. Questionnaires for the Retrospective Assessment of ADHD in Childhood

For adults, ICD-10, ICD-11, DSM-IV, and DSM-5 require that symptoms (not a full-blown diagnosis) have begun—that is, the presence of several (not all those required for a diagnosis) ADHD symptoms—by age 6 (ICD-10, DSM-IV) or by age 11 (ICD-11, DSM-5). This criterion is strongly questioned by Barkley (in our view, rightly so), since ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder and the brain continues to develop until the age of 23 to 25. Consequently, ICD-11 (like the clinical diagnostic criteria of ICD-10) does not have a “strict” age limit, but instead gives the clinician the discretion to make the diagnosis even if the age limit has not been reached.

To identify symptoms in childhood, tools such as the WURS (50; free, ages 6–10) or the WURS-K (fee required, part of the HASE, ages 8–10) can be used.
With a diagnostic accuracy of 86%, the WURS-K shows a 10% lower diagnostic accuracy for ADHD in childhood than the WURS.51

The WURS-K is likely to systematically lead to diagnostic problems, since women and girls in particular—as well as men with the predominantly inattentive subtype of ADHD-I—often score just below the cutoff, despite otherwise clear ADHD symptoms.51
The WR-SB self-assessment questionnaire is also designed not to identify the predominantly inattentive presentation of ADHD-I.51
Even if the score falls just slightly short of the required threshold, the automated evaluation using the Hogrefe Test System will conclude that the ADHD criteria have not been met.

Name of the instrument/test ; Test type ; Sensitivity (%) ; Specificity (%) ; Target population/Special features
WURS questionnaire, English version ; questionnaire, 4 questions, cutoff 5, n = 69, Bakare et al. 202052 82.6% to 100% 0% to 14.3% retrospective presence of ADHD in childhood among adults; PPV: 66.7% to 90.9%; NPV: 12.5% to 33.3%
WURS-8, English version questionnaire, 8 questions, n = 1,014, Das et al. 201653 Cut-off 8: 86% Cut-off 8: 65% retrospective presence of ADHD in childhood among adults
WURS-25 Questionnaire for adults regarding the retrospective presence of ADHD in childhood, 25 questions
WURS-25 Cut-off 4654 (???), n = 485, Reimherr et al. 202155 62% 86% PPV: 73%; NPV: 79%
89% (ADHD vs. non-affected individuals); 49% (ADHD vs. depression or anxiety) Self-assessment questionnaire for adults; values determined using optimal cut-off adjustment within the group
WURS-25, English version n = 251, Ward et al., 199350 Cut-off 36: 96%; Cut-off 46: 86% Cut-off 36: 96%; Cut-off 46: 99%
WURS-25, English version n = 1,014, Das et al. 201653 Cut-off 20: 86% Cut-off 20: 63% Retrospective presence of ADHD in childhood among adults
WURS-25, Swedish version Cut-off 39, n = 121, Kouros et al. 201856 88% 70% PPV: 59%; NPV: 92%, AUC 87%
WURS-25, factor version n = 485, Reimherr et al. 202155 74% 88% PPV: 79%; NPV: 85%
WURS-25, Norwegian version n = 1,554, Brevik et al. 202057 Cut-off 21: 98%, Cut-off 26: 97%, Cut-off 29: 95%, Cut-off 35: 90%, Cut-off 36: 89%, Cut-off 42: 80%, Cut-off 46: 75%, Cut-off 56: 55% Cut-off 21: 71%, Cut-off 26: 80%, Cut-off 29: 83%, Cut-off 35: 88%, Cut-off 36: 89%, Cut-off 42: 93%, Cut-off 46: 95%, Cut-off 56: 98% , Cut-off 35: AUC 95.6%
WURS-25 for PTSD58 Questionnaire 27.7% 90.3% Retrospective presence of ADHD in childhood among adults
WURS-25 for cannabis dependence Cut-off 36, n = 99, Notzon et al., 20208 88% 75% Adults
WURS-25 + ASRS 18 combined n = 1,554, Brevik et al. 202057 Cut-off scores of 35 for both WURS-25 and ASRS: AUC 96.4%
WURS-45 n = 485, Reimherr et al. 202155 80% 90% PPV: 83%; NPV: 88%
WURS-61 n = 485, Reimherr et al. 202155 84% 94% PPV: 88%; NPV: 91%
WURS for Alcohol Dependence, Outpatients n = 355, Daigre et al. 201559 79.6% 60.3% Adults
WURS-25 + CAARS combined for cannabis addiction Questionnaire, n = 99, Notzon et al., 20208 71% 95% Adults
  • WURS-8
    • Ultra-short version with 8 questions from the WURS
    • Sensitivity of 86% at a cutoff of 853
    • Specificity of 65% at a cutoff of 853
  • WURS-K = German version of WURS 25
    • A 25-item abbreviated version of the WURS (61 items)
    • Sensitivity of
      • 27.7%58
      • 86% at a cutoff of 2053
      • 88% at a cutoff of 39, Swedish translation56
    • Specificity
      • 90.3%58
      • 70% at a cutoff of 39, Swedish translation56
      • 63% at a cutoff of 2053
    • Sensitivity of 60.7% compared to ASRS 1.1.58 (which, as a screening tool, has very limited diagnostic value)
    • Specificity of 60.8% compared to ASRS 1.1.58
    • AUC 87% at a cutoff of 39, Swedish translation56
    • Kappa 0.80–0.94 with a cutoff of 39, Swedish translation56
    • PPV 59% at a cutoff of 39, Swedish translation56
    • NPV 92% at a cutoff of 39, Swedish translation56
  • Q-ADHD-Child: a rating scale for ADHD symptoms in childhood based on the DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria60

Bringing Back Memories of Childhood and School Days

A fundamental problem with questionnaires is that the people with ADHD must answer the questions on their own. Since many people with ADHD have extremely poor long-term memory, they cannot readily recall useful memories from their childhood.
In an interview, it can be helpful to plant emotional “seeds” that aid in recall. Questions that touch on emotional aspects can bring memories to the surface and trigger others, even after some time has passed. Examples:

  • What was the best part of your childhood?
  • What’s the worst thing?
  • What did your school backpack look like? What was its color, material, and smell? Was it heavy? Did it weigh you down?
  • What was it like in there?
  • What did the pencil case look like, and what was inside it? Your favorite pencil?
  • What kinds of notebooks were there? How big were they, and what color were they? What did they look like—clean or crumpled? Did they have dog-ears? Were they drawn on? Or were they often missing?
  • Did you bring anything to eat? Or money to buy candy from the kiosk? What was the best thing?
  • Who were the cool kids in class, and who were the nerds? And were there any mean kids?
  • Which teachers were cool, and which ones were mean?
  • What were the consequences for certain actions? What were the rewards?
  • What were you better at than most kids? What were you worse at?
  • What were the most embarrassing moments? The most shameful ones?
  • What were you proud of?
  • Did you have a nickname? Did you like it?
  • What was the most boring part of school? What was the most exciting?
  • Who were your favorite characters from stories, books, or movies?
  • What were your favorite candies?
  • What secrets did they keep from their parents?

4. Questionnaires for Identifying Comorbidities in Individuals with ADHD

For children who had already been diagnosed with ADHD, the following was helpful in identifying comorbidities:

A combination of two CBCL subscales—the Aggressive Behavior T-Score and the Delinquent Behavior T-Score—identified comorbidities in children with ADHD:61

Comorbidity CBCL Aggressive Behavior T-Score Cut-off CBCL Delinquent Behavior T-Score Cut-off Sensitivity Specificity Positive predictive value Negative predictive value
Any comorbidity 0.60 0.60 67% 45% 60% 65%
Any comorbidity 0.60 0.70 24% 96% 80% 63%
Any comorbidity 0.70 0.60 59% 12% 70% 67%
Any comorbidity 0.70 0.70 10% 97% 71% 59%
Conduct disorder 0.60 0.60 82% 80% 41% 96%
Conduct disorder 0.60 0.70 35% 99% 86% 90%
Conduct disorder 0.70 0.60 29% 94% 45% 89%
Conduct disorder 0.70 0.70 24% 99% 80% 89%
Bipolar 0.60 0.60 71% 74% 15% 98%
Bipolar 0.60 0.70 14% 95% 14% 95%
Bipolar 0.70 0.60 29% 92% 18% 95%
Bipolar 0.70 0.70 14% 96% 20% 95%
Major Depression 0.60 0.60 59% 75% 29% 92%
Major Depression 0.60 0.70 35% 91% 40% 89%
Major Depression 0.70 0.60 24% 95% 44% 88%
Major Depression 0.70 0.70 18% 96% 43% 88%
Multiple Fears 0.60 0.60 65% 75% 51% 84%
Multiple Fears 0.60 0.70 35% 88% 55% 77%
Multiple Fears 0.70 0.60 32% 93% 65% 77%
Multiple Fears 0.70 0.70 21% 95% 64% 75%
  • CBCL-DESR
    • Measures emotional dysregulation in children with ADHD
    • 40.0% of children with ADHD had a positive CBCL-DESR profile, compared with 3.5% of the control group62
    • Sensitivity 97.3%, specificity 79.6% at a cutoff of ≥179, ≤21062

Conversely, the Attention Problems Scale subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) showed the following results for people with ADHD when used to identify ADHD at a cutoff score of 63:63

  • an AUC of 84%
  • 74% of adolescents with GAD and ADHD scored above this cutoff (sensitivity)
  • 91% of adolescents with GAD but without ADHD were below this cutoff value (specificity)

The PTSD subscale of the CBCL is effective at distinguishing trauma from non-trauma cases and ADHD from non-ADHD cases, but it is not effective at distinguishing PTSD from ADHD.64

Reactivity, Intensity, Polarity, and Stability Questionnaire, Screening Version (RIPoSt-SV)

  • accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 80% or higher for clinically significant emotional dysregulation65
Questionnaire on Comorbid Disorders66 ADHD Depression Anxiety OCD Bipolar Disorder Stress Other Number of Questions
BAI (Beck Anxiety Inventory) Anxiety 21
BDI-II (Beck Depression Inventory-II) Depression 21
CES-D (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale) Depression 20
DASS-21 (Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales-21) Depression Anxiety Stress 7 + 7 + 7
EPDS (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale) postpartum depression 10
GAD-7 (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7) generalisated anxiety disorder -7
GDS (Geriatric Depression Scale) Depression in Older Adults 15–30
HADS-D (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – Depression Subscale) Depression Anxiety 7
HAM-D (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) Depression 17–24
MDQ (Mood Disorder Questionnaire) Bipolar 13
PDSS-SR (Panic Disorder Severity Scale – Self-Report) Panic 7
PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) Depression 9
PSQ (Questionnaire on Children’s Sleep Behavior) Sleep 22
SCL-90-R (Symptom Checklist 90-R) -90 (General)
Y-BOCS (Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale) Compulsions 10
PDI-4 (Provisional Diagnostic Instrument 4 ADHD Depression Generalized Anxiety Disorder Mania 17

  1. Rothenberger in Steinhausen, Rothenberger, Döpfner (2010): Handbuch ADHS, Kohlhammer, Seite 188 ↥

  2. Van Wijk, C. H. (2020). Adult ADHD Symptom Scale for DSM-5 (AASS-5) [Database record]. APA PsycTests.https://doi.org/10.1037/t81980-000, zitiert nach Ganzenmüller JL, Ballmann C, Wehrstedt von Nessen-Lapp RM, Schulze M, Sanftenberg L, Berger M, Philipsen A, Gensichen J (2024): Screening tools for adult ADHD patients in primary care. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports, Volume 17, 2024, 100800, ISSN 2666-9153, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2024.100800. ↥

  3. Rösler M, Retz W, Retz-Junginger P, Thome J, Supprian T, Nissen T, Stieglitz RD, Blocher D, Hengesch G, Trott GE (2004): Instrumente zur Diagnostik der Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit-/Hyperaktivitätsstörung (ADHS) im ErwachsenenalterSelbstbeurteilungsskala (ADHS-SB) und Diagnosecheckliste (ADHS-DC) [Tools for the diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adults. Self-rating behaviour questionnaire and diagnostic checklist]. Nervenarzt. 2004 Sep;75(9):888-95. German. doi: 10.1007/s00115-003-1622-2. Erratum in: Nervenarzt. 2005 Jan;76(1):129. PMID: 15378249. ↥

  4. Young, González, Mutch, Mallet-Lambert, O’Rourke, Hickey, Asherson, Gudjonsson (2016): Diagnostic accuracy of a brief screening tool for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in UK prison inmates. Psychol Med. 2016 May;46(7):1449-58. doi: 10.1017/S0033291716000039. PMID: 26867860. n = 390 ↥

  5. Kakubo SM, Mendez M, Silveira JD, Maringolo L, Nitta C, Silveira DXD, Fidalgo TM (2018): Translation and validation of the Brown attention-deficit disorder scale for use in Brazil: identifying cases of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among samples of substance users and non-users. Cross-cultural validation study. Sao Paulo Med J. 2018 Apr 23;136(2):157-164. doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.2017.0227121217. PMID: 29694493; PMCID: PMC9879553. ↥

  6. Van Voorhees EE, Hardy KK, Kollins SH (2011): Reliability and validity of self- and other-ratings of symptoms of ADHD in adults. J Atten Disord. 2011 Apr;15(3):224-34. doi: 10.1177/1087054709356163. PMID: 20424007; PMCID: PMC3556723. ↥

  7. Dakwar E, Mahony A, Pavlicova M, Glass A, Brooks D, Mariani JJ, Grabowski J, Levin FR (2012): The utility of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder screening instruments in individuals seeking treatment for substance use disorders. J Clin Psychiatry. 2012 Nov;73(11):e1372-8. doi: 10.4088/JCP.12m07895. PMID: 23218166; PMCID: PMC3627386. ↥

  8. Notzon DP, Pavlicova M, Glass A, Mariani JJ, Mahony AL, Brooks DJ, Levin FR (2020): ADHD Is Highly Prevalent in Patients Seeking Treatment for Cannabis Use Disorders. J Atten Disord. 2020 Sep;24(11):1487-1492. doi: 10.1177/1087054716640109. PMID: 27033880; PMCID: PMC5568505. ↥ ↥ ↥

  9. Blume F, Buhr L, Kühnhausen J, Köpke R, Weber LA, Fallgatter AJ, Ethofer T, Gawrilow C (2025): Validation of the Self-Report Version of the German Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Scale (SWAN-DE-SB). Assessment. 2025 Jan;32(1):130-146. doi: 10.1177/10731911241236699. PMID: 38523357; PMCID: PMC11571603. ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥

  10. Marchant BK, Reimherr FW, Wender PH, Gift TE (2015): Psychometric properties of the Self-Report Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2015 Nov;27(4):267-77; quiz 278-82. PMID: 26554368. ↥ ↥

  11. Rösler, Retz (2020): Medikamentöse Therapie der ADHS bei Erwachsenen; Psychiatrie up2date 2020; 14: 59–75 ↥

  12. Zheng Y, Du Y, Su LY, Zhang Y, Yuan Z, Chen Y, Liu QQ, Ke XY (2018): Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of Questionnaire - Children with Difficulties for Chinese children or adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a cross-sectional survey. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2018 Aug 27;14:2181-2190. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S166397. PMID: 30214208; PMCID: PMC6120567. ↥

  13. Brancati, Barbuti, Pallucchini, Cotugno, Schiavi, Hantouche, Perugi (2019): Reactivity, Intensity, Polarity and Stability questionnaire (RIPoSt-40) assessing emotional dysregulation: Development, reliability and validity. J Affect Disord. 2019 Oct 1;257:187-194. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.07.028. ↥

  14. http://www.adhs.info/fuer-paedagogen/speziell-sekundarbereich/diagnostik/ysr-11-18.html ↥

  15. Mukherjee S, Aneja S, Russell PS, Gulati S, Deshmukh V, Sagar R, Silberberg D, Bhutani VK, Pinto JM, Durkin M, Pandey RM, Nair MK, Arora NK; INCLEN Study Group (2014): INCLEN diagnostic tool for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (INDT-ADHD): development and validation. Indian Pediatr. 2014 Jun;51(6):457-62. doi: 10.1007/s13312-014-0436-6. PMID: 24986281. ↥

  16. Vallejo-Valdivielso M, de Castro-Manglano P, Vidal-Adroher C, Díez-Suárez A, Soutullo CA (2024): Development of a Short Version of the ADHD Rating Scale-IV.es (sADHD-RS-IV.es). J Atten Disord. 2024 Mar;28(5):600-607. doi: 10.1177/10870547241232314. PMID: 38353419. ↥

  17. Thorell LB, Sjöwall D, Mies GW, Scheres A (2017): Quick Delay Questionnaire: Reliability, validity, and relations to functional impairments in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Psychol Assess. 2017 Oct;29(10):1261-1272. doi: 10.1037/pas0000421. PMID: 27991822. ↥

  18. Frick MA, Lindman L, Meyer J, Isaksson J (2025): Are adolescent males or females more proficient self-raters of symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder? J Psychiatr Res. 2025 Jul;187:248-253. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2025.05.026. PMID: 40388853. ↥

  19. Newson, Hunter, Thiagarajan (2020): The Heterogeneity of Mental Health Assessment. Front Psychiatry. 2020 Feb 27;11:76. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00076. PMID: 32174852; PMCID: PMC7057249. ↥

  20. Krieger, Amador-Campos, Peró-Cebollero (2019): Interrater agreement on behavioral executive function measures in adolescents with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2019 May;19(2):141-149. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2019.02.007. ↥

  21. Alotaibi MM, Motl RW, Lein DH Jr (2024): Reliability and Validity of the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire Health Contribution Score in its Use with Adults with ADHD. Percept Mot Skills. 2024 Aug 30:315125241275199. doi: 10.1177/00315125241275199. PMID: 39212145. ↥

  22. Sergeant, van der Meere (1988): What happens after a hyperactive child commits an error? Psychiatry Research, May 1988, Volume 24, Issue 2, Pages 157–164; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/, zitiert nach Havenstein (2014): Arbeitsgedächtnisleistung und emotionale Interferenzkontrolle bei Erwachsenen mit Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit-/Hyperaktivitätsstörung (ADHS); Dissertation, Seiten 16, 53 ↥

  23. van der Meere, Sergeant (1988): Controlled processing and vigilance in hyperactivity: Time will tell; Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology; December 1988, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 641–655, zitiert nach Havenstein (2014): Arbeitsgedächtnisleistung und emotionale Interferenzkontrolle bei Erwachsenen mit Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit-/Hyperaktivitätsstörung (ADHS); Dissertation, Seiten 16, 53 ↥

  24. Lauth, Minsel (2009): ADHS bei Erwachsenen: Diagnostik und Behandlung von Aufmerksamkeits-/Hyperaktivitätsstörungen; Hogrefe, Seite 28 ↥

  25. Parker A, Corkum P (2016): ADHD Diagnosis: As Simple As Administering a Questionnaire or a Complex Diagnostic Process? J Atten Disord. 2016 Jun;20(6):478-86. doi: 10.1177/1087054713495736. PMID: 23887860. ↥ ↥

  26. Chang LY, Wang MY, Tsai PS (2016): Diagnostic Accuracy of Rating Scales for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2016 Mar;137(3):e20152749. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-2749. PMID: 26928969. METASTUDY ↥ ↥ ↥

  27. Bitsko RH, Holbrook JR, Fisher PW, Lipton C, van Wijngaarden E, Augustine EF, Mink JW, Vierhile A, Piacentini J, Walkup J, Firchow B, Ali AR, Badgley A, Adams HR (2023): Validation of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC-5) Tic Disorder and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Modules. Evid Based Pract Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2023;9(2):231-244. doi: 10.1080/23794925.2023.2191352. PMID: 38883232; PMCID: PMC11177540. ↥ ↥

  28. Coghill D, Du Y, Jiang W, Xian, Lu D, Qian Y, Mulraney M, Su L (2022): A novel school-based approach to screening for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2022 Jun;31(6):909-917. doi: 10.1007/s00787-021-01721-w. PMID: 33515089. ↥ ↥

  29. Hassanzadeh M, Malek A, Norouzi S, Amiri S, Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Shahriari F, Egger HL, Small B (2021): Psychometric properties of the Persian version of preschool age psychiatric assessment (PAPA) for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Based on DSM-5. Asian J Psychiatr. 2021 Apr;58:102618. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2021.102618. PMID: 33652288. ↥

  30. Raiker JS, Freeman AJ, Perez-Algorta G, Frazier TW, Findling RL, Youngstrom EA (2017): Accuracy of Achenbach Scales in the Screening of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in a Community Mental Health Clinic. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017 May;56(5):401-409. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2017.02.007. PMID: 28433089; PMCID: PMC5410964. ↥

  31. Bussing R, Schuhmann E, Belin TR, Widawski M, Perwien AR (1998): Diagnostic utility of two commonly used ADHD screening measures among special education students. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1998 Jan;37(1):74-82. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199801000-00020. Erratum in: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1999 Jan;38(1):103. PMID: 9444903. ↥ ↥

  32. Steinhausen, 2002 ↥

  33. Hohage (2012): Überprüfung der Eignung des Kiddie-SADS-Interviews zur dimensionalen Erfassung der externalen Symptomatik bei Kindern und Jugendlichen mit Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit-/Hyperaktivitätsstörung – Eine empirische Untersuchung. Dissertation. Seite 66 ↥

  34. Palmer M, Fang Z, Hollocks MJ, Charman T, Pickles A, Baird G, Simonoff E (2024): Screening for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Young Autistic Adults: The Diagnostic Accuracy of Three Commonly Used Questionnaires. J Autism Dev Disord. 2024 Dec;54(12):4674-4683. doi: 10.1007/s10803-023-06146-9. PMID: 37898580; PMCID: PMC11549170. ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥

  35. http://www.aseba.org/preschool.html ↥

  36. Gomez, Vance, Watson, Stavropoulos (2019): ROC Analyses of Relevant Conners 3-Short Forms, CBCL, and TRF Scales for Screening ADHD and ODD. Assessment. 2019 Sep 19:1073191119876023. doi: 10.1177/1073191119876023. ↥ ↥ ↥

  37. http://www.aseba.org/schoolage.html ↥ ↥

  38. Cianchetti, Faedda, Pasculli, Ledda, Diaz, Peschechera, Craig, Morelli, Balottin, Guidetti, Zuddas, Margari (2020): Predictive validity for the clinical diagnosis of a new parent questionnaire, the CABI, compared with CBCL. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 2:1359104519895056. doi: 10.1177/1359104519895056. ↥

  39. Thorell LB, Eninger L, Brocki KC, Bohlin G (2010): Childhood executive function inventory (CHEXI): a promising measure for identifying young children with ADHD? J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2010 Jan;32(1):38-43. doi: 10.1080/13803390902806527. PMID: 19381995. ↥

  40. https://www.testzentrale.de/shop/conners-skalen-zu-aufmerksamkeit-und-verhalten-3-70014.html ↥

  41. Simon MAVP, Reed UC, Vaughan B, Simon VA, Casella EB (2017): Validation of the Expression and Emotion Scale for Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder into Brazilian Portuguese. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2017 Aug;75(8):563-569. doi: 10.1590/0004-282X20170105. PMID: 28813087. ↥

  42. Hattangadi N, Kay T, Parkin PC, Birken CS, Maguire JL, Szatmari P, van den Heuvel M, Borkhoff CM, Charach A; TARGet Kids! Collaboration (2024): Screening Accuracy of the Parent-Report Preschool Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in Primary Care. Acad Pediatr. 2024 Jul;24(5):800-809. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2023.10.007. PMID: 37907129. ↥ ↥ ↥

  43. http://www.jeffersonpediatrics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ADHD_Teacher_Packet_Connors_and_Vanderbilt.pdf ↥

  44. Faraone, DeSousa, Komolova, Sallee, Incledon, Wilens (2019): Functional Impairment in Youth With ADHD: Normative Data and Norm-Referenced Cutoff Points for the Before School Functioning Questionnaire and the Parent Rating of Evening and Morning Behavior Scale, Revised. J Clin Psychiatry. 2019 Dec 10;81(1). pii: 19m12956. doi: 10.4088/JCP.19m12956. ↥

  45. Bijlenga, Ulberstad, Thorell, Christiansen, Hirsch, Kooij (2019): Objective assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in older adults compared with controls using the QbTest. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1002/gps.5163. ↥

  46. Hall, Brown, James, Martin, Brown, Selby, Clarke, Williams, Sayal, Hollis, Groom (2019): Consensus workshops on the development of an ADHD medication management protocol using QbTest: developing a clinical trial protocol with multidisciplinary stakeholders. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Jun 18;19(1):126. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0772-2. ↥

  47. Ullebø AK, Posserud MB, Heiervang E, Gillberg C, Obel C (2011): Screening for the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder phenotype using the strength and difficulties questionnaire. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 Sep;20(9):451-8. doi: 10.1007/s00787-011-0198-9. PMID: 21833627. ↥ ↥ ↥

  48. Kiani B, Hadianfard H, Weiss MD, Dehbozorgi S (2024): Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Report for screening children with ADHD: Looking beyond symptoms in ADHD diagnosis. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2024 Jun;18(6):431-438. doi: 10.1111/eip.13484. PMID: 38030566. ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥

  49. Thompson T, Lloyd A, Joseph A, Weiss M (2017): The Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Form for assessing ADHD: evaluating diagnostic accuracy and determining optimal thresholds using ROC analysis. Qual Life Res. 2017 Jul;26(7):1879-1885. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1514-8. PMID: 28220338; PMCID: PMC5486894. ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥

  50. Ward MF, Wender PH, Reimherr FW (1993): The Wender Utah Rating Scale: an aid in the retrospective diagnosis of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 1993 Jun;150(6):885-90. doi: 10.1176/ajp.150.6.885. Erratum in: Am J Psychiatry 1993 Aug;150(8):1280. PMID: 8494063. ↥ ↥

  51. Semmler: ADHS-Testverfahren im Test. Letzter Aufruf 25.09.24. ↥ ↥ ↥

  52. Bakare B, Jordanova V (2020): Psychometric Properties of a Brief Screening Measure for ADHD in Adults. Int J Psychol Res (Medellin). 2020 Jul-Dec;13(2):78-88. doi: 10.21500/20112084.4511. PMID: 33329880; PMCID: PMC7735513. ↥

  53. Das D, Vélez JI, Acosta MT, Muenke M, Arcos-Burgos M, Easteal S (2016): Retrospective assessment of childhood ADHD symptoms for diagnosis in adults: validity of a short 8-item version of the Wender-Utah Rating Scale. Atten Defic Hyperact Disord. 2016 Dec;8(4):215-223. doi: 10.1007/s12402-016-0202-9. PMID: 27510231. ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥

  54. Gift TE, Reimherr ML, Marchant BK, Steans TA, Reimherr FW (2021): Wender Utah Rating Scale: Psychometrics, clinical utility and implications regarding the elements of ADHD. J Psychiatr Res. 2021 Mar;135:181-188. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.01.013. PMID: 33493947. ↥

  55. Reimherr FW, Marchant BK, Gift TE, Steans TA, Reimherr ML (2021): Psychometric data and versions of the Wender Utah Rating Scale including the WURS-25 & WURS-45. Data Brief. 2021 Jun 17;37:107232. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2021.107232. PMID: 34235235; PMCID: PMC8246143. ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥

  56. Kouros I, Hörberg N, Ekselius L, Ramklint M (2018): Wender Utah Rating Scale-25 (WURS-25): psychometric properties and diagnostic accuracy of the Swedish translation. Ups J Med Sci. 2018 Dec;123(4):230-236. doi: 10.1080/03009734.2018.1515797. PMID: 30373435; PMCID: PMC6327570. ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥

  57. Brevik EJ, Lundervold AJ, Haavik J, Posserud MB (2020): Validity and accuracy of the Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Self-Report Scale (ASRS) and the Wender Utah Rating Scale (WURS) symptom checklists in discriminating between adults with and without ADHD. Brain Behav. 2020 Jun;10(6):e01605. doi: 10.1002/brb3.1605. PMID: 32285644; PMCID: PMC7303368. ↥ ↥

  58. Knight AR, Kim S, Currao A, Lebas A, Nowak MK, Milberg WP, Fortier CB (2025): Assessing Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Post-9/11 Veterans: Prevalence, Measurement Correspondence, and Comorbidity With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Mil Med. 2025 Apr 23;190(5-6):e1106-e1113. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usae539. PMID: 39607449; PMCID: PMC12016034. ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥ ↥

  59. Daigre C, Roncero C, Rodríguez-Cintas L, Ortega L, Lligoña A, Fuentes S, Pérez-Pazos J, Martínez-Luna N, Casas M (2015): Adult ADHD screening in alcohol-dependent patients using the Wender-Utah Rating Scale and the adult ADHD Self-Report Scale. J Atten Disord. 2015 Apr;19(4):328-34. doi: 10.1177/1087054714529819. PMID: 24743975. ↥

  60. erwähnt in: Walitza S, Melfsen S, Herhaus G, Scheuerpflug P, Warnke A, Müller T, Lange KW, Gerlach M (2007): Association of Parkinson’s disease with symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in childhood. J Neural Transm Suppl. 2007;(72):311-5. doi: 10.1007/978-3-211-73574-9_38. PMID: 17982908. ↥

  61. Biederman J, Monuteaux MC, Kendrick E, Klein KL, Faraone SV (2005): The CBCL as a screen for psychiatric comorbidity in paediatric patients with ADHD. Arch Dis Child. 2005 Oct;90(10):1010-5. doi: 10.1136/adc.2004.056937. PMID: 16177156; PMCID: PMC1720123. ↥

  62. Donfrancesco R, Innocenzi M, Marano A, Biederman J (2015): Deficient Emotional Self-Regulation in ADHD Assessed Using a Unique Profile of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Replication in an Italian Study. J Atten Disord. 2015 Oct;19(10):895-900. doi: 10.1177/1087054712462884. PMID: 23212599. ↥ ↥

  63. Elkins RM, Carpenter AL, Pincus DB, Comer JS (2014): Inattention symptoms and the diagnosis of comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among youth with generalized anxiety disorder. J Anxiety Disord. 2014 Dec;28(8):754-60. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.09.003. PMID: 25260213; PMCID: PMC4252769. ↥

  64. Butjosa A, Camprodon-Rosanas E, Aizpitarte A, Alvarez-Segura M, Albiac N, Lacasa F (2024): Validation of the post-traumatic stress disorder subscale of the child behaviour checklist (PTSD-CBCL): screening for post-traumatic stress disorder or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder? Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2024 Aug;59(8):1449-1460. doi: 10.1007/s00127-023-02535-8. PMID: 37486355. ↥

  65. Brancati GE, De Rosa U, Acierno D, Caruso V, De Dominicis F, Petrucci A, Moriconi M, Elefante C, Gemignani S, Medda P, Schiavi E, Perugi G (2024): Development of a self-report screening instrument for emotional dysregulation: the Reactivity, Intensity, Polarity and Stability questionnaire, screening version (RIPoSt-SV). J Affect Disord. 2024 Jun 15;355:406-414. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2024.03.167. PMID: 38570039. ↥

  66. basierend auf Grünwald (2025): Mit Expertenwissen T-Wert interpretieren: Psychologie; Novustat.com ↥