Lee Soyoung I, Schachar Russell J, Chen Shirley X, Ornstein Tisha J, Charach Alice, Barr Cathy, Ickowicz Abel
Department of Psychiatry at Soonchunhyang Bucheon Hospital, College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University, Korea.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008 Jan;49(1):70-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01784.x. Epub 2007 Nov 1.
The goal of this study was to compare the predictive validity of the two main diagnostic schemata for childhood hyperactivity - attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual- IV) and hyperkinetic disorder (HKD; International Classification of Diseases- 10th Edition).
Diagnostic criteria for ADHD and HKD were used to classify 419 children ages 6 to 16 years referred to a clinic for behavioral problems into one of four groups: HKD, ADHD combined subtype (ADHD-C), ADHD hyperactive-impulsive subtype (ADHD-HI), ADHD inattentive subtype (ADHD-IA). These groups were compared on clinical characteristics including total symptom severity, overall impairment, exposure to psychosocial and neuro-developmental risks, family history of ADHD in first-degree family members, rate and type of comorbidity, intelligence, academic achievement, and on laboratory tests of motor response inhibition and working memory with each other and with normal controls (47).
Of the 419 cases, there were 46 HKD (11.0%), 200 ADHD-C (47.7%), 60 ADHD-HI (14.3%) and 113 ADHD-IA (27.0%) cases. The HKD group had more symptoms and was more impaired on teachers' ratings than were the other groups. The ADHD-C and HKD groups had poorer inhibitory control than the ADHD-IA, ADHD-HI and control groups, and all four clinic groups showed inhibition deficit compared to controls. Groups did not differ in working memory. Compared to controls, the HKD, ADHD-C, ADHD-HI and ADHD-IA groups had higher familial risk of ADHD, greater psychosocial risk exposure, lower intellectual level and poorer academic attainment. However, we observed no differences among the clinic groups in these characteristics.
Like earlier versions, ICD-10 and DSM-IV continue to delineate diagnostic entities with substantially different prevalence in clinic samples. However, HKD, ADHD-C, ADHD-IA and ADHD-HI groups overlap substantially in terms of important clinical characteristics, although HKD and ADHD-C may be somewhat more severe variants of the condition than ADHD-IA and ADHD-HI.
本研究的目的是比较两种主要诊断模式对儿童多动-注意缺陷多动障碍(ADHD;《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版)和多动障碍(HKD;《国际疾病分类》第十版)的预测效度。
采用ADHD和HKD的诊断标准,将419名6至16岁因行为问题转诊至诊所的儿童分为四组之一:HKD、ADHD混合型(ADHD-C)、ADHD多动-冲动型(ADHD-HI)、ADHD注意力不集中型(ADHD-IA)。比较这些组在临床特征上的差异,包括总症状严重程度、总体损害、接触心理社会和神经发育风险、一级家庭成员中ADHD的家族史、共病率和类型、智力、学业成绩,以及在运动反应抑制和工作记忆的实验室测试方面的差异,同时也将它们与正常对照组(47名)进行比较。
在419例病例中,有46例HKD(11.0%)、200例ADHD-C(47.7%)、60例ADHD-HI(14.3%)和113例ADHD-IA(27.0%)。HKD组比其他组有更多症状,且教师评分的损害程度更高。ADHD-C组和HKD组的抑制控制能力比ADHD-IA组、ADHD-HI组和对照组更差,并且与对照组相比,所有四个临床组均显示出抑制缺陷。各组在工作记忆方面没有差异。与对照组相比,HKD组、ADHD-C组、ADHD-HI组和ADHD-IA组的ADHD家族风险更高、心理社会风险暴露更大、智力水平更低且学业成绩更差。然而,我们在这些临床组之间未观察到这些特征上的差异。
与早期版本一样,ICD-10和DSM-IV在临床样本中继续划分出患病率有显著差异的诊断实体。然而,HKD组、ADHD-C组、ADHD-IA组和ADHD-HI组在重要临床特征方面有很大重叠,尽管HKD组和ADHD-C组可能比ADHD-IA组和ADHD-HI组在病情上更为严重。