Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
4, 1998, pp 257-268
The initial Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS) studied. The original scoring procedure required
was developed as a comprehensive checklist for ac- grouping of items according to rationally derived
quiring parental reports of the basic presenting prob- problem groups. Though this scoring procedure was
lems for children referred to an outpatient psychiatric face valid, it was not until a series of factor-analytic
setting (Conners, 1970). This scale was used to form studies of the CPRS were conducted (Blouin, Con-
the basis for a detailed parental interview about the ners, Seidel, & Blouin, 1989; Conners, 1970, 1973)
child's problems. In its original form, the CPRS con- that an empirical scoring methodology was em-
tained items grouped in terms of problems with sleep, ployed. These factor analyses of the CPRS (Blouin
problems eating, problems with temper, problems et al., 1989; Conners, 1970) utilized 316 clinic pa-
with keeping friends, problems in school, etc. Later, tients and 367 normal controls whose parents were
an "additional" problems category was added that in- recruited from Baltimore-area public schools. Using
cluded items covering the cardinal symptoms of at-
the 93 CPRS items as the unit of analysis, eight fac-
tention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): hyper-
tors were identified: Conduct Disorder, Anxious-Shy,
activity, impulsivity, and inattention.
Restless-Disorganized, Learning Problems, Psychoso-
Since its introduction (Conners, 1970), the psy-
chometric properties of the CPRS have been well matic, Obsessive-Compulsive, Antisocial, and Hyper-
active-Immature. The factor structure and norms
from this sample have been used for scoring the 93-
item CPRS (Conners, 1989).
1Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710. With time, the CPRS has developed into a
2York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J-1P3. popular instrument for screening and assessing be-
3Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J-7B8.
4Address all correspondence concerning this article to C. Keith
havior problems and has become a useful and effec-
Conners, Box 3431, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, tive parent rating scale for assessing psychosocial
North Carolina 27710. (e.g., Horn, lalongo, Popovich, & Peradotto, 1987)
257
0091-0627/98/0800-0257$15.00/0 C 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation
258 Conners, Sitarenios, Parker and Epstein
and drug treatment outcomes in children with dis- ably not representative of the wide range of children
ruptive behavior problems (e.g., Fischer & Newby, for whom the CPRS is applied today. Second, as dis-
1991). Several versions of the CPRS are currently in cussed above, the factor structure of the CPRS has
use including a 48-item questionnaire resulting from varied across studies. No studies to date have ever
a restandardization of a subset from the original tested and confirmed the CPRS factor structure us-
scale (Goyette, Conners, & Ulrich, 1978). A 10-item ing cross-validation, replication, or confirmatory fac-
abbreviated questionnaire was also constructed from tor analysis. Therefore, a definitive factor structure
the items with the best factor loadings (Conners, has not been established.
1994). Third, the original item content was developed
Some factor analytic research with the CPRS to provide a comprehensive and broad assessment of
and its related scales on clinical samples have sug- childhood behaviors, including feeding, eating, and
gested slightly differing CPRS factor structures (Co- sleeping problems among others. But many of these
hen, DuRant, & Cook, 1988; O'Connor, Foch, items are unrelated to the most common behavior
Sherry, & Plomin, 1980) than was reported originally. problems typically encountered. The scale has also
For example, Cohen (Cohen et al., 1988) found that been criticized for lacking sufficient emphasis on in-
Learning Problems did not form a separate factor in ternalizing states such as anxiety and depression. Ex-
his clinic sample but instead loaded on the Impul- tensive use has shown that a briefer and more focused
sive-Hyperactive factor, thereby forming an overall scale would be useful. Scale brevity and focus is rele-
ADHD factor. Cohen argued that this factor struc- vant for ease of use and increasing parent compliance.
ture was consistent with some investigators conten- This becomes increasingly important when repeated
tions that attention (Learning Problems) and hyper- administration is necessary (i.e., when monitoring be-
activity (Impulsivity-Hyperactivity) tend to present as havioral or pharmacologic interventions ).
a single disorder in clinical populations (Cohen & Last, item content of the CPRS has not been
Hynd, 1986; Werry, Sprague, & Cohen, 1975). updated to reflect the accumulating body of knowl-
Despite some differences in factor structure edge about behavior disorders. The original item
across studies, the psychometric properties of the content was reflective of conceptualizations of behav-
CPRS have made this scale an attractive research ioral problems during the 1960s-1970's. Some
and clinical tool. Good reliability of the CPRS as as- ADHD-related behaviors (e.g., academic problems)
sessed by test-retest (Glow, Glow, & Rump, 1982) and ADHD symptoms (e.g. excessive talking) were
and interrater reliability (Conners, 1973) has been not included because neither well-developed ADHD
established. In addition, the CPRS's concurrent va- criteria nor information about comorbid disorders
lidity is well established by high correlations with were available at the time of scale development.
similar factors on other parent rating scales, such as Thus, the goal of the present study was to revise
the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edel- the CPRS by (1) deriving norms using a large, rep-
brock, 1983; Mash & Johnston, 1983) and Behavior resentative sample of North American children; (2)
Problem Checklist (Arnold, Barnebey, & Smeltzer, using confirmatory factor analysis to develop a defini-
1981; Campbell & Steinert, 1978). Further evidence tive factor structure; (3) focusing the revised scales
of its validity comes from research demonstrating the on behaviors that are directly related to ADHD and
discriminatory power of the CPRS in differentiating its associated behaviors; and (4) updating the item
behaviorally disordered children from normal chil- content to reflect recent knowledge and develop-
dren (Prior & Wood, 1983; Ross & Ross, 1976, 1982) ments concerning ADHD. In addition, the reliability
and between differing types of behavioral disorders and validity of this revised scale was examined.
(Conners, 1970; Kuehne, Kehle, & McMahon, 1987;
Leon, Kendall, & Garber, 1980).
Though the CPRS continues to experience wide- STUDY 1: SCALE DEVELOPMENT
spread use by both clinicians and researchers, several
issues indicate that an update and restandardization Method
of the CPRS is necessary. First, current norms for
the CPRS are based on normative data from a rela- Subjects
tively small sample of Baltimore-area school children
gathered in the 1960s. The size, geographical repre- Subjects consisted of 2,200 students (1,099 males
sentation, and demographics of this sample are prob- and 1,101 females) ranging in age from 3 to 17 years.
Revised Conners' Parent Rating Scale 259
Females had a mean age of 10.43 years (SD = 3.73) of factors for rotation (Cattell, 1978). In addition, we
and males a mean age of 10.09 years (SD = 3.68). employed the split-half factor comparabilities
The median annual household income of the stu- method (Everett, 1983) to determine the most reli-
dents rated by their parents was between $40,001 and able factor solution.
$50,000. Eighty-four percent of the students were The factor structure for the CPRS-R was tested
European American, 5% African American, 4% His- in the replication sample (n = 1,100) using confir-
panic, and 7% other. matory factor analysis with EQS for Windows (ver-
sion 5.1; Bentler, 1995). As recommended by Cole
(1987) and Marsh, Balla, and McDonald (1988),
Procedure multiple criteria were used to assess the goodness-
of-fit of the six-factor model: the goodness-of-fit in-
Officials and school psychologists from approxi- dex (GFI; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986), the adjusted
mately 200 schools throughout Canada and the GFI (AGFI; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986), and the
United States functioned as site coordinators for the root mean-square residual (RMS). Based on the rec-
present study. Site coordinators were provided with ommendations of Anderson and Gerbing (1984),
consent forms, questionnaires, and forms which out- Cole (1987), and Marsh et al. (1988), the following
lined the background of the study to parents and criteria were used to indicate the goodness-of-fit of
students in the school. Parent who agreed to par- the model to the data: GFI > .85; AGFI > .80;
ticipate were asked to rate as many of their school- RMS < .01.
age children as possible. Children and adolescents
in special education classes were not included in this
study. Results
Many new items were created in order to
strengthen some of the weaker factors (e.g., inter- Scale Development
nalizing behaviors) and those previously underrep-
resented. A preliminary item analysis on approxi- The correlation matrix of the 193 item-pool was
mately 100 ratings was used to remove items with subjected to principal-axis factoring and scree test
restricted variance or comments regarding readabil- and eigenvalue greater than 1.0 criteria (Cattell,
ity, interpretability, or vagueness. Parents were 1978). These criteria indicated the relative suitability
asked to rate each item on the 193 item-pool using of six, seven, and eight factors for rotation. In order
4-point Likert scales (ranging from 0 for not at all to determine the most reliable number of factors to
true to 3 for very much true). Completed forms were retain for rotation, the split-half factor comparabili-
returned to the site coordinators and forwarded to ties method was applied (Everett, 1983). To this end,
the authors. the derivation sample was randomly split into two
subsamples (n = 550 and 550). For each sample six-,
seven-, and eight-factor solutions were rotated to so-
Statistical Analyses lution (varimax rotation). Results indicated that the
seven-factor solution produced the highest factor
The sample was randomly divided into a deri- comparability coefficients. Based on these results, the
vation sample (n = 1,100) and a replication sample entire derivation sample was factor-analyzed and
(n = 1,100). The 193 items from the derivation sam- seven factors were rotated to a varimax solution.
ple were intercorrelated and the resulting matrix sub- Items were eliminated from further analyses because
jected to principal axis factoring. A series of factor they failed to load (above .30) on any one factor, or
analyses was conducted to determine what items because they loaded above .30 on more than one fac-
should be retained. Items were included on the final tor (in several cases items were retained that dou-
version of the scale if the following criteria were met: ble-loaded above .30 because there was a high load-
(1) Items had to load significantly (greater than .30) ing for the target factor and the loading for the
on a given factor and lower than .30 on the other second factor was just above .30). The remaining
factors, and (2) following the rational approach to items were factor-analyzed and seven factors rotated
scale construction, an item was eliminated if it lacked to a varimax solution. This procedure was repeated
conceptual coherence with its factor. Scree test and until 57 items remained. Table I presents the factor
eigenvalues (> 1.0) were used to select the number loadings, eigenvalues, and percentage of variance for
260 Conners, Sitarenios, Parker and Epstein
Table I. Rotated Factor Loadings from a Principal Axis Factor Analysis of Items from the Conners'
Parent Rating Scale— Revised (CPRS-R) (Derivation Sample, n = 1,100)
Factors
CPRS-R items 1 2 3 4 5 6 1
Factor 1: Cognitive Problems
114 Difficulty completing .793 .207 .063 .047 .019 .113 .095
117 Fails to complete .760 .232 .135 .019 007 .048 .078
116 Needs supervision .752 .130 .240 .106 .027 .103 .076
85 Avoids mental effort .737 .280 .230 .161 -.013 .111 .057
78 Trouble concentrating .691 .175 .295 .100 .006 .106 .090
81 Careless mistakes .686 .209 .184 .049 -.062 .144 .073
112 Arithmetic problems .557 .053 .010 .153 .033 .074 .142
111 Sloppy handwriting .604 .119 .074 -.022 -.047 .099 .080
84 Fails to finish .620 .311 .288 .110 -.050 .030 .095
87 Forgetful .600 .294 .269 .100 -.008 .082 .069
175 Loses things .581 .204 .257 .061 -.105 .080 .130
110 Poor spelling .545 .024 .064 .073 -.021 .110 .121
Factor 2: Oppositional
48 Angry .161 .723 .122 .106 .065 .132 .204
43 Argues .194 .638 .187 .049 .057 .049 .117
42 Loses temper .195 .653 .244 .112 .081 .125 .116
20 Irritable .212 .648 .187 .089 .087 .075 .161
44 Defies adults .213 .643 .275 .107 .017 .046 .061
45 Annoy people .210 .611 .200 .069 -.006 .117 .120
47 Touchy .162 .639 .085 .177 .117 .157 .153
46 Blames others .273 .575 .173 .109 .002 .093 .072
24 Spiteful .190 .581 .161 .107 .055 .151 .096
4 Fights .069 .471 .181 .148 -.015 .112 .052
Factor 3: Hyperactivity-Impulsivity
180 Always on the go .192 .121 .708 .012 .123 .024 .030
56 Hard to control .149 .240 .708 .135 -.051 .024 .019
178 Runs excessively .170 .190 .728 .106 -.028 .052 -.006
172 Restless .196 .137 .637 .174 .072 .126 .114
183 Difficulty waiting .228 .275 .644 .105 .055 .138 .056
52 Run around at meals .063 .088 .577 .130 -.012 -.028 .027
179 Difficulty being quiet .225 .284 .627 .117 .023 .219 .003
182 Blurts out answers .230 .218 .506 -.063 .107 .137 .114
60 Excitable .259 .294 .577 .138 .112 .120 .094
Factor 4: Anxious-Shy
95 Timid .055 .136 .038 .726 .141 .081 .116
90 Afraid of people .051 .165 .027 .710 .105 .114 .053
89 Afraid of new situations .174 .187 .063 .700 .067 .114 .079
91 Afraid of being alone .048 .037 .193 .626 .032 .004 .107
94 Many fears .162 .241 .100 .630 .129 .079 .190
170 Afraid of the dark .015 .055 .205 .521 .144 -.036 .086
138 Shy .084 .053 -.033 .538 .146 .179 .034
156 Clings to parents .111 .037 .274 .481 .061 .145 .140
Factor 5: Perfectionism
130 Everything just so -.114 .078 .072 .117 .740 .070 .075
133 Keeps checking -.028 -.029 .038 .067 .698 .039 .056
135 Fussy .036 -.024 -.008 .099 .570 -.054 -.023
131 Things done same way .002 .096 .148 .218 .694 .095 .041
137 Has rituals .052 .112 .094 .151 .632 .075 .029
132 Sets high goals -.148 -.066 -.032 -.053 .647 .042 .087
136 Upset if things moved .043 .179 -.043 .119 .612 .052 .052
(c.ontinued)
Revised Conners' Parent Rating Scale 261
Table I. (Continued)
Factors
CPRS-R items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Factor 6: Social Problems
140 No friends .162 .164 .112 .153 .048 .793 .012
143 Loses friends .203 .212 .192 .046 .045 .725 .043
142 Does not make friends .197 .142 .120 .272 .102 .704 .029
147 Doesn't get invited .137 .180 .115 .070 .075 .636 .133
144 Feels inferior .242 .211 -.004 .215 .096 .424 .162
Factor 7: Psychosomatic
123 Stomach aches .083 .137 .094 .101 .066 .011 .750
124 Aches and pains .091 .154 .032 .144 .095 .055 .616
125 Aches before school .166 .086 .069 .120 .011 -.022 .648
122 Headaches .151 .129 .002 .032 .098 .125 .452
128 Complains .144 .174 .118 .181 -.024 .060 .531
126. Seems tired .187 .243 -.040 .161 .098 .110 .306
Eigenvalues 14.67 4.20 2.59 2.15 2.11 1.86 1.37
% of Variance 25.7 7.4 4.5 3.8 3.7 3.3 2.4
each factor for this analysis. The seven rotated fac- and RMS = .0291).5 All of the parameter estimates
tors accounted for 50.8% of the total variance. The between items and factors were significant: For the
first factor accounted for 25.7% of the total variance Oppositional Factor, the 10-parameter estimates
and the 12 items that loaded on this factor appeared ranged from .603 to .792 (mean = .720); for the Cog-
to tap a "cognitive problems" dimension. The second nitive Problems factor, the 12-parameter estimates
factor accounted for 7.4% of the total variance and ranged from .529 to .866 (mean = .743); for the Hy-
the 10 items that loaded on this factor appeared to peractivity-impulsivity factor, the nine-parameter es-
tap an "oppositional" dimension. The third factor ac- timates ranged from .610 to .791 (mean = .715); for
counted for 4.5% of the total variance and the nine the Anxious/Shy factor, the eight-parameter estimates
items that loaded on this factor appeared to tap a ranged from .518 to .752 (mean = .644); for the Per-
"hyperactivity-impulsivity" dimension. The fourth fectionism factor, the seven-parameter estimates
factor accounted for 3.8% of the total variance and ranged from .528 to .699 (mean = .643); for the So-
the eight items that loaded on this factor appeared cial Problems factor, the five-parameter estimates
to tap an "anxious/shy" dimension. The fifth factor ranged from .597 to .855 (mean = .767); for the Psy-
accounted for 3.7% of the total variance and the chosomatic factor, the six-parameter estimates ranged
seven items that loaded on this factor appeared to from .476 to .751 (mean = .632).
tap a "perfectionism" dimension. The sixth factor ac-
counted for 3.3% of the total variance and the five STUDY 2: RELIABILITY, INTERNAL
items that loaded on this factor appeared to tap a CONSISTENCY, AND AGE AND SEX
"social problems" dimension. The seventh factor ac- DIFFERENCES
counted for 2.4% of the total variance and the six
items that loaded on this factor appeared to tap a Method
"psychosomatic" dimension.
Participants
of 49 children (23 males and 26 females) were rated tions: .60 (p < .05) for Oppositional, .78 (p < .05)
by their parent on the CPRS-R on two occasions ap- for Cognitive Problems, .71 (p < .05) for Hyperac-
proximately 6 weeks apart. tivity-Impulsivity, .42 (p < .05) for Anxious/Shy, .60
(p < .05) for Perfectionism, .13 (p = n.s.) for Social
Problems, and .55 (p < .05) for Psychosomatic.
Results Means and standard deviations for the various
CPRS-R scales (separately by sex and age group) are
Table II presents the internal reliability coeffi- presented in Table III. A series of (Sex x Age Group)
cients for the CPRS-R scales, separately for 3- to 7- analyses of variance were conducted with each of the
year-olds, 8- to 12-year-olds, and 13- to 17-year-olds. CPRS-R scales as the dependent variable. For the
Coefficient alphas for the seven scales on the CPRS- Oppositional scale, males were rated significantly
R ranged from .75 to .94 for males and .75 to .93 higher than females [F(l, 2,194) = 14.55, p < .001],
for females, suggesting that the scales on the CPRS- but the main effect for age group and the interaction
R have excellent internal reliability. Using Pearson were not significant.
product-moment correlations (n = 50), the CPRS-R For the Cognitive Problems scale, males were
scales had the following 6-week test-retest correla- rated significantly higher than females [F(l, 2,194) =
Table III. Means and Standard Deviations for Scales on the Conners' Parent Rating Scale— Revised (CPRS-R)
3 to 7 years 8 to 12 years 13 to 17 years Total
CPRS-R Scale Females Males Females Males Females Males Females Males
Oppositional Mean 4.89 5.61 4.59 5.89 4.82 5.37 4.74 5.66
SD (4.44) (5.00) (4.88) (5.68) (4.96) (5.53) (4.79) (5.46)
Cognitive Problems Mean 3.84 5.93 4.14 8.33 4.87 8.31 4.29 7.65
SD (5.80) (7.07) (5.69) (8.28) (6.79) (8.29) (6.09) (8.03)
Hyperactivity-Impulsivity Mean 3.60 4.83 1.54 3.18 1.26 1.93 1.99 3.28
SD (4.75) (5.79) (2.65) (4.74) (2.18) (3.28) (3.36) (4.83)
Anxious/Shy Mean 4.78 4.19 2.71 2.89 2.12 1.50 3.06 2.85
SD (4.33) (4.28) (3.45) (3.72) (3.04) (2.66) (3.73) (3.76)
Perfectionism Mean 3.97 3.42 3.73 3.36 4.52 4.15 4.04 3.60
SD (4.23) (3.94) (3.80) (3.56) (4.28) (4.29) (4.08) (3.90)
Social Problems Mean .78 .86 .88 1.2 11.0 11.0 8.89 1.07
SD (1.82) (2.03) (1.77) (2.43) (2.13) (2.32) (1.90) (2.29)
Psychosomatic Mean 1.60 1.24 1.55 1.62 1.92 1.58 1.68 1.50
SD (2.42) (2.04) (2.23) (2.16) (2.32) (2.43) (2.31) (2.21)
110.12, p < .001], a significant main effect was found olds [F(1, 2,194) = 8.03, p < .005] and the 8- to 12-
for age group [F(2, 2,194) = 10.16, p < .001], and year-olds [F(l, 2,194) = 15.43, p < .001].
the interaction of Group Age x Sex was significant For the Social Problems scale, the main effects
[F(2, 2,194) = 4.04, p < .05]. Using univariate analy- for sex and age group, and the effect for the inter-
sis of variance for age group, the 3- to 7-year-olds action, were not significant.
were rated significantly higher than the 8- to 12-year- For the Psychosomatic scale, females were rated
olds [F(l, 2,194) = 13.29, p < .001] and the 13- to significantly higher than males [F(l, 2,194) = 4.78,
17-year-olds [F(l, 2,194) = 18.09, p < .001]. p < .05] and a significant main effect was found for
For the Hyperactivity-Impulsivity scale, males age group [F(2, 2,194) = 3.34, p < .05]; the interac-
were rated significantly higher than females [F(l, tion was not significant. Using univariate analysis of
2,194) = 45.23, p < .001] and a significant main ef- variance for age group, the 3- to 7-year-olds were
fect was found for age group [F(2, 2,194) = 69.70, rated significantly higher than the 13- to 17-year-olds
p < .001]; the interaction was not significant. Using [F(l, 2,194) = 6.67, p < .01].
univariate analysis of variance for age group, the 3- The intercorrelation matrix of the CPRS-R
to 7-year-olds were rated significantly higher than the scales is presented in Table IV , separately for males
8- to 12-year-olds [F(l, 2,194) = 77.31, p < .05] and and females. To examine possible gender differences
the 13- to 17-year-olds [F(l, 2,194) = 131.87, p < in the pattern of intercorrelations, the equality of the
.001], and the 8- to 12-year-olds were rated signifi- correlation matrices was tested using EQS for Win-
cantly higher than the 13- to 17-year-olds [F(l, dows (version 5.1; Bentler, 1995). The criteria for de-
2,194) = 13.93, p < .001]. termining the equality of the correlation matrices
For the anxious/shy scale, females were rated were a nonnormed fit index (NNFI; Bentler & Bon-
significantly higher than males [F(l, 2,194) = 4.81, ett, 1980) greater than .900 and a comparative fit in-
p < .05], a significant main effect was found for age dex (CFI; Bentler, 1990) greater than .900. Results
group [F(2, 2,194) = 87.43, p < .001], and the inter- indicated that the pattern of intercorrelations for the
action was significant [F(2, 2,194) = 3.24, p < .05]. CPRS-R scales was virtually identical across the
Using univariate analysis of variance for age group, sexes (NNFI = .988 and CFI = .989). A similar pat-
the 3- to 7-year-olds were rated significantly higher tern of results was found when the equality of the
than the 8- to 12-year-olds [F(l, 2,194) = 79.22, p < correlation matrices among the three age groups was
.001] and the 13- to 17-year-olds [F(l, 2,194) = tested using EQS (NNFI = .956 and CFI = .962).
171.79, p < .001], and the 8- to 12-year-olds were
rated significantly higher than the 13- to 17-year-olds
[F(l, 2,194) = 29.51, p < .001]. STUDY 3: CRITERION VALIDITY
For the Perfectionism scale, females were rated
significantly higher than males [F(l, 2,194) = 6.17, Method
p < .05] and a significant main effect was found for
age group [F(2, 2,194) = 8.12, p < .001]; the inter- Participants
action was not significant. Using univariate analysis
of variance for age group, the 13- to 17-year-olds Two groups of children were used in the present
were rated significantly higher than the 3- to 7-year- study. The first group consisted of 91 children (68
264 Conners, Sitarenios, Parker and Epstein
Table V. Means and Standard Deviations for the Non-ADHD (n = 91) and ADHD (n = 91)
Groups on the Conners' Parent Rating Scale— Revised (CPRS-R)a
Non-ADHD ADHD
CPRS-R Scale Mean (SD) Mean (SD) t P
Oppositional 4.26 (3.99) 10.83 (6.99) 7.79 <.001
Cognitive Problems 5.17 (6.50) 22.64 (7.97) 16.20 <.001
Hyperactivity-Impulsivity 1.97 (3.43) 10.65 (6.70) 11.00 <.001
Anxious/Shy 2.43 (2.90) 4.14 (3.89) 3.36 <.001
Perfectionism 3.78 (4.21) 2.91 (3.83) 1.45 .149
Social Problems 0.62 (1.19) 3.92 (4.03) 7.49 <.001
Psychosomatic 1.28 (2.07) 3.04 (3.07) 4.55 <.001
aADHD = attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
males and 23 females) who met the following crite- bership in the two groups (ADHD vs. non-ADHD).
ria: (a) parent and/or teacher referral to an outpa- Discriminant function scores were subsequently used
tient ADHD clinic due to reported problems with in- to classify the 182 children into ADHD and non-
attention, hyperactivity, and/or impulsivity; (b) ADHD groups. The results of this classification are
independent diagnosis of ADHD by psychologist presented in Table VI. Following the definitions and
and/or psychiatrist using Diagnostic and Statistical procedures outlined by Kessel and Zimmerman
Manual for Neutral Disorders (4th ed.) (DSM-IV; (1993), a variety of diagnostic efficiency statistics
American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria for were calculated for the CPRS-R from these classifi-
ADHD. Eighty-four percent of the participants were cation results: sensitivity was 92.3%, specificity was
European American, 8.8% were African American, 94.5%, positive predictive power was 94.4%, negative
1.1% were Hispanic, and 6.1% were other; the mean predictive power was 92.5%, false positive rate was
age was 10.16 years (SD = 3.40). 5.5%, false negative rate was 7.7%, kappa was .868,
The second group (non-ADHD) consisted of 91 and the overall correct classification rate was 93.4%.
children (68 males and 23 females) from Studies 1 and
2 who were randomly selected and matched with the
ADHD sample on the basis of age, sex, and ethnicity. GENERAL DISCUSSION