Rowland Andrew S, Skipper Betty, Rabiner David L, Umbach David M, Stallone Lil, Campbell Richard A, Hough Richard L, Naftel A J, Sandler Dale P
Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA.
J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2008 Jul;36(5):731-43. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9203-7. Epub 2008 Mar 18.
Research on the correlates of ADHD subtypes has yielded inconsistent findings, perhaps because the procedures used to define subtypes vary across studies. We examined this possibility by investigating whether the ADHD subtype distribution in a community sample was sensitive to different methods for combining informant data. We conducted a study to screen all children in grades 1-5 (N = 7847) in a North Carolina County for ADHD. Teachers completed a DSM-IV behavior rating scale and parents completed a structured telephone interview. We found substantial differences in the distribution of ADHD subtypes depending on whether one or both sources were used to define the subtypes. When parent and teacher data were combined, the procedures used substantially influenced subtype distribution. We conclude the ADHD subtype distribution is sensitive to how symptom information is combined and that standardization of the subtyping process is required to advance our understanding of the correlates of different ADHD subtypes.
对注意力缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)亚型相关因素的研究结果并不一致,这可能是因为不同研究中用于定义亚型的程序各不相同。我们通过调查社区样本中ADHD亚型分布是否对合并信息提供者数据的不同方法敏感来检验这种可能性。我们开展了一项研究,对北卡罗来纳州一个县的所有1至5年级儿童(N = 7847)进行ADHD筛查。教师完成了一份《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM-IV)行为评定量表,家长完成了一次结构化电话访谈。我们发现,根据使用一个还是两个信息源来定义亚型,ADHD亚型的分布存在显著差异。当将家长和教师的数据合并时,所使用的程序对亚型分布有很大影响。我们得出结论,ADHD亚型分布对症状信息的合并方式敏感,并且需要对亚型划分过程进行标准化,以增进我们对不同ADHD亚型相关因素的理解。