ADxS.org Logo
ADxS.org Logo
Search Donations Recent changes ADHD forum Deutsche Version
Register

Already have an account? Login

Header Image
3. Questionnaires for ADHD diagnosis

3. Questionnaires for ADHD diagnosis

Previous page Next page

Author: Ulrich Brennecke
Review: Dipl.-Psych. Waldemar Zdero (08/2024)

Questionnaires are filled out by people with ADHD themselves and their caregivers (parents, teachers, friends).

Questionnaires are very subjective and involve the risk that the respondent’s personal opinion about ADHD itself influences the response scale. It can happen that parents reject the diagnosis of ADHD in principle, especially in their own child. Likewise, subjective ideas of people with ADHD (perhaps that they “want” a diagnosis in the hope of finding a solution to their suffering, perhaps that they reject a diagnosis because they fundamentally reject ADHD or to avoid stigmatization) or the change in assessment standards due to intensive prior employment can distort the results (bias).

For example, in tests of elimination diets for ADHD, the results of parent surveys are always far more positive than the results of objective tests.1 As this occurs even in double-blind studies, there is a considerable bias on the part of parents to report the subjectively desired result (that ADHD can be treated with a diet rather than with critically considered medication).
However, it is also conceivable that the parents were already enthusiastic about the small improvements that an elimination diet can bring or that a placebo effect can have on the child with ADHD and were not even aware of the much better effect that could be achieved through medication or therapy, or at least were not aware of it at the time of the assessment.

Most of the online self-tests freely available on the internet provide a rough initial assessment. However, pre-testing with such tests distorts the test results of subsequent tests (bias).
However, due to the dramatic lack of resources for diagnosing ADHD and an undeniable lack of knowledge on the part of many doctors and psychologists, the advantages of people with ADHD outweigh the disadvantages
the risk of bias is significantly reduced if patients can form their own opinion as to whether a diagnosis makes sense for them.

We have developed our own - quite extensive - online self-test, which showed an agreement of around 93% with existing ADHD diagnoses and around 96% with the CAARS-L. Nevertheless, like any online self-test, it is only an indication and can in no way replace a medical diagnosis. There is also an external assessment base for this. Evaluations are available for both, which can be presented to the subsequent diagnostician, who can use them to understand in detail how the assessment came about. This provides an additional coloring perspective on the symptoms.
⇒ ADHD online 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 of 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 Problem
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 for Child Symptoms
QbCheck: Online assessment from 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-report questionnaire
WURS: Wender Utah Rating Scales
WURS-K: Wender Utah Rating Scales short version

1. Self-assessment questionnaires for diagnostics

Name of the instrument / test Test type Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Target group / 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 against Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults 2.0 (DIVA-2) in 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 SUD Questionnaire, Dakwar et al, 20127 80 % adults; questionnaire
CAARS for 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, cut-off 2.61, n = 405, Blume et al., 20259 93.3 % 90.9 % ADHD in adults; values at optimal cut-off
SWAN-HI Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Scale (SWAN-DE-SB), German version Questionnaire, cut-off 2.72, n = 405, Blume et al., 20259 95.6 % 100 % ADHD in adults; values at optimal cut-off
SWAN-TOT scale of the 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 cut-off
Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale (SR-WRAADDS) Questionnaire, Marchant et al., 201510 97 % (ADHD vs. non-affected); 87 % (ADHD vs. depression or anxiety)

Self-assessment questionnaires:11

  • BADD: Brown Attention Deficit Disorders Scale, a self-completion questionnaire with 40 items to assess cognitive ADHD symptoms
    Emotional dysregulation (also in ADHD) can be tested with the
  • Children with Difficulties (QCD)12
  • Conners Scales of Attention and Behavior for Adults - Self-Assessment (CAARS-S)
  • Cologne ADHD Test for Adults (KATE)
    • Folder with various tests and evaluation instructions
    • 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 young people)14
  • INDT-ADHD15
    • Indian ADHD questionnaire with 18 items for ADHD in children with a 4-factor structure
    • ADHD vs non-affected: 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, 6 items: AUC 98 % at cut-off of 616
  • Quick Delay Questionnaire (QDQ); self-report questionnaire for recording delay-related behavior in adults17

Adolescents with ADHD showed gender-specific abilities to assess their own symptomatology:18
Boys tended to ascribe too low symptoms to themselves, girls assessed themselves realistically.
Parents underestimated the symptoms of girls.

A meta-study of 9 ADHD questionnaires found that only 37% asked identical symptoms/behaviors.19 Most of the questionnaires for children were answered by parents, most of the questionnaires for adults were self-tests.
In questionnaires, a study showed considerable differences in the assessments of parents, teachers and people with ADHD, with the exception of emotional dysregulation, in all existing symptoms, but even more so in the frequency of their occurrence.20
In the case of self-assessment questionnaires, response tendencies and unintentional misjudgments can influence the result.
Subjects who were asked to report their daily physical activity showed considerable deviations from the actigraphy measurement, even though they were aware of the actigraphy measurement.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 with ADHD.22 23 It is consistent with this that the results of tests with people with ADHD change when rewards are promised.24 This also indicates that it is not the ability to concentrate or inhibition that is impaired per se, but rather the insufficient activation by “normally interesting” stimuli that is the actual key.

  • Behavioral symptoms were asked from 28% to 81% of the questions in the questionnaires
  • Cognitive symptoms were addressed by 9% to 44% of the questions
  • Emotional symptoms accounted for between 0% and 24% of the questions
  • Physical symptoms were only surveyed at all in 3 out of 9 instruments

2. External assessment questionnaires for diagnostics

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 + 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. DISADVANTAGE: German version NOT SUFFICIENT TO DESCRIBE STIMULANCIES, as it has not yet been validated in German
Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia Present Lifetime Version28 Questionnaire 86 % 80 % Questionnaires for parents and teachers; false-positive rate 20 %, false-negative rate 14 %
PAPA (Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment), structured diagnostic interview of parents of preschool children, Persian version for DSM 5, Hassanzadeh et al., 202129 92 % at cut-off 21.5 0.1 % at cut-off 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 interview
SWAN-AD Scale of Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Scale (SWAN-DE-SB), German version, cut-off 2.619 Questionnaire 93.3 % 90.9 % ADHD in adults; values at optimal cut-off
SWAN-HI Scale of Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Scale (SWAN-DE-SB), German version, cut-off 2.729 Questionnaire 91.2 % 90.9 % ADHD in adults; values at optimal cut-off
SWAN-TOT Scale of Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Scale (SWAN-DE-SB), German version, cut-off 2.649 Questionnaire 95.6 % 100 % ADHD in adults; values at optimal cut-off
Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale (SR-WRAADDS)10 Questionnaire 97 % (ADHD vs. non-affected); 87 % (ADHD vs. depression or anxiety)
  • Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA)30
    • Children 5 to 10 years
      • AUC 74 % for caregiver questionnaire
    • Teenagers 11 to 18 years
      • AUC 73 % for caregiver questionnaire
      • AUC 61 % for teacher questionnaire
  • Attention Deficit Disorders Evaluation Scale (ADDES)
    • Parent questionnaire with 46 items
    • Sensitivity below 70 %, even with a low cut-off31
  • 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 in by parents and teachers
  • Child Behavior Checklist, CBCL/1.5-5
    • Parent questionnaire on the behavior of preschool children between 1.5 and 5 years of age3536
  • Child Behavior Checklist, CBCL/6-18
    • Parent questionnaire on the behavior of children and adolescents aged 4 to 183736
  • Child and Adolescent Behavior Inventory (CABI)
    • Parent questionnaire with 75 questions
    • CABI is more accurate than CBCL in relation to ADHD and anxiety, CBCL is more accurate in relation to conduct disorder (CD) and oppositional defiant behavior (ODD)38
  • Childhood executive function inventory (CHEXI)39
    • Questionnaire for parents and teachers
    • Parent rating of the Inhibition subscale: sensitivity 03 %, specificity 93 %
  • Conners scales on attention and behavior - external assessment (CAARS-O) 40
  • Conners Abbreviated Symptom Questionnaire (ASQ)
    • Parent questionnaire with 10 items
    • Sensitivity below 70 %, even with a low cut-off31
  • 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; reproducibility ICC = 0.66 for 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% total score for all psychiatric problems in children aged 39 months42
      • 61 % “Internalization” subscale for internalizing problems in children aged 39 months42
      • 77 % “Externalization” subscale for ADHD and other externalizing disorders in children aged 39 months42
  • Parent/Teacher Questionaries (Conner)43
  • Parent Rating of Evening and Morning Behavior Scale, Revised (PREMB-R)44
  • Quantitative Behavior Test (QbTest)4546
    • To be completed by diagnostician or parents
    • 70 % accuracy in adults aged 55 to 79 years
    • In combination with the self-reported severity of ADHD symptoms 91 % accuracy
  • SDQ ADHD-Hyperactivity-inattention subscale
    • AUC 74 % for ADHD-C and ADHD-HI47
    • AUS 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 98 % for the total WFIRS-P score with a cut-off of 0.4548
    • AUC 73 % to 97 % for the subscales48
    • Sensitivity 88 % for the total WFIRS-P score with a cut-off of 0.4548
    • Specificity 96 % for the total WFIRS-P score with a cut-off of 0.4548
    • Sensitivity 92 % for the “Family” subscale with a cut-off of 0.4248
    • Specificity 96 % for the “Family” subscale with a cut-off of 0.4248
    • Sensitivity of the “self-concept” and “life skills” subscales low48
    • AUC: 91% for the total WFIRS-P score with a cut-off of 0.6549
    • Sensitivity: 83 % for the total WFIRS-P score with a cut-off of 0.6549
    • Specificity: 85 % for the total WFIRS-P score with a cut-off of 0.6549
    • DeLong test: no significant differences in AUCs for men vs. women or 5 to 12 years vs. 13 to 19 years49
  • 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 identification of ADHD in childhood

In adulthood, ICD-10, ICD-11, DSM-IV and DSM 5 require an onset of symptoms (not a full picture), i.e. the presence of several (not all) ADHD symptoms required for a diagnosis by the age of 6 (ICD-1o, DSM-IV) or 11 (ICD-11, DSM 5). This criterion is strongly questioned by Barkley (rightly in our view), as ADHD is a brain development disorder and the brain develops up to the age of 23 to 25 years.

The WURS50 (free, 6 - 10 years) or the WURS-K (fee-based, part of the HASE, 8 - 10 years) can be used to identify symptoms in childhood.
At 86%, the WURS-K shows a diagnostic accuracy for ADHD in childhood that is 10% worse than the WURS51

The WURS-K is said to systematically lead to diagnostic problems, as women and girls in particular, as well as men with the predominantly inattentive presentation form ADHD-I, often fall minimally below the scores despite otherwise clear ADHD symptoms51
The WR-SB self-report questionnaire is also designed not to recognize the predominantly inattentive ADHD-I presentation form51
Even if the score is only slightly below the required level, the automated evaluation via the Hogrefe test system determines that the ADHD criteria are not met.

Name of the instrument / test Test type Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Target group / special features
WURS-brief, English version Questionnaire, 4 questions, cut-off 5, n = 69, Bakare et al. 202052 82.6 % to 100 % 0 % to 14.3 % retrospective presence of ADHD in childhood in 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 childhood ADHD in children
WURS-25 Questionnaire for adults on 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); 49 % (ADHD vs. depression or anxiety) Self-assessment questionnaire for adults; values determined with optimal cut-off adjustment in 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 childhood ADHD in 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 childhood ADHD in adults
WURS-25 for cannabis addiction 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 WURS-25 and ASRS 35 each: 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 86 % with cut-off of 853
    • Specificity of 65 % with a cut-off of 853
  • WURS-K = German version of WURS 25
    • Short version with 25 items of the WURS (61 items)
    • Sensitivity of
      • 27,7 %58
      • 86 % with a cut-off of 2053
      • 88 % with a cut-off of 39, Swedish translation56
    • Specificity
      • 90,3 %58
      • 70 % with a cut-off of 39, Swedish translation56
      • 63 % with a cut-off of 2053
    • Sensitivity of 60.7 % compared to the ASRS 1.1.58 (which has very limited diagnostic value as a screening instrument)
    • Specificity of 60.8 % compared to ASRS 1.158
    • AUC 87 % with a cut-off of 39, Swedish translation56
    • Kappa 0.80-0.94 with a cut-off of 39, Swedish translation56
    • PPV 59 % with a cut-off of 39, Swedish translation56
    • NPV 92 % with a cut-off of 39, Swedish translation56
  • Q-ADHD-Child: a rating scale for childhood ADHD symptoms according to DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria60

4. Questionnaires to identify comorbidities with existing ADHD

In children already diagnosed with ADHD, was helpful in recognizing comorbidities:

A combination of two subscales of the CBCL, namely the Aggressive Behavior T-Score and the Delinquent Behavior T-Score, detected comorbidities in children with existing 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 %
Majors Depression 0.60 0.60 59 % 75 % 29 % 92 %
Majors Depression 0.60 0.70 35 % 91 % 40 % 89 %
Majors Depression 0.70 0.60 24 % 95 % 44 % 88 %
Majors Depression 0.70 0.70 18 % 96 % 43 % 88 %
Multiple anxieties 0.60 0.60 65 % 75 % 51 % 84 %
Multiple anxieties 0.60 0.70 35 % 88 % 55 % 77 %
Multiple anxieties 0.70 0.60 32 % 93 % 65 % 77 %
Multiple anxieties 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 to 3.5% of the control group62
    • Sensitivity 97.3 %, specificity 79.6 % with cut-off ≥179, ≤21062

Conversely, the Attention Problems Scale subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) showed a cut-off of 63:63 in the detection of ADHD in people with generalized anxiety disorder

  • an AUC of 84 %
  • 74% of adolescents with GAD and ADHD were above this cut-off (sensitivity)
  • 91% of adolescents with GAD without ADHD were below this cut-off value (specificity)

The PTSD subscale of the CBCL can distinguish trauma well from non-affected and ADHD well from non-affected, but not PTSD from ADHD.64

Reactivity, Intensity, Polarity and Stability questionnaire, screening version (RIPoSt-SV)

  • For clinically relevant emotional dysregulation Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of 80 % or higher65
Questionnaire on comorbid disorders66 ADHD Depression Anxiety Compulsions Bipolar 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 Stress Scales-21) Depression Anxiety Stress 7 + 7 + 7
EPDS (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale) postpartum depression 10
GAD-7 (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7) generalized Anxiety Disorder 7
GDS (Geriatric Depression Scale) Depression in older people 15-30
HADS-D (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression section) 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) universal 90
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 ↥

Diese Seite wurde am 08.03.2026 zuletzt aktualisiert.
Previous page Next page