Conners C K
Department of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59 Suppl 7:24-30.
Rating scales are valuable tools in both assessment and treatment monitoring. However, caution in their use is indicated because of several types of rater errors. Recent large-scale normative studies provide a set of instruments that cover child, adolescent, and adult ages, with separate gender norms and large representative samples. By including DSM-IV symptoms for ADHD in a proposed nationwide standardization of parent, teacher, and self-report scales, it is apparent that the proposed subtypes of ADHD are reasonable; however, item content in this standardization is somewhat broader than that proposed by DSM-IV. Empirical indexes were created and cross-validated, providing powerful discrimination between ADHD and non-ADHD samples. Separate scoring for the traditional DSM subtypes of ADHD allows both categorical and dimensional measures to be used in assessment and treatment monitoring.
评定量表在评估和治疗监测中都是有价值的工具。然而，由于存在几种类型的评分者误差，所以在使用时需谨慎。近期的大规模常模研究提供了一套涵盖儿童、青少年和成人年龄段的工具，有单独的性别常模和大量具有代表性的样本。通过在拟议的全国性家长、教师和自我报告量表标准化中纳入多动症的《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版（DSM-IV）症状，很明显拟议的多动症亚型是合理的；然而，该标准化中的项目内容比DSM-IV提议的要宽泛一些。创建并交叉验证了实证指标，能在多动症样本和非多动症样本之间进行有力区分。对多动症传统DSM亚型进行单独评分，使得分类和维度测量都可用于评估和治疗监测。
