It has recently been recognized that adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a valid disorder (Gadow & Weiss, 2001). Much less is known, however, about the assessment of ADHD, and about the functional impairments associated with ADHD, in adults compared to children. The objective of the present study was to characterize the functional impairments in DSM-IV diagnosed ADHD adults compared to community control adults and clinic-referred adults reporting symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity and/or impulsivity who did not meet symptom thresholds for the disorder. Method. The sample for this study consisted of 120 adults: 47 adults with ADHD, 43 clinic-referred adults who did not meet criteria for ADHD, and 30 community control adults. All were assessed with a comprehensive battery assessing psychiatric, cognitive, school, and driving impairment. Results. ADHD adults showed significantly more impairment than community control adults on all outcome measures. ADHD adults had subtle cognitive deficits, and higher rates of lifetime conduct problems compared to clinic-comparison adults. ADHD adults did not differ reliably from clinic-comparison adults on measures of internalizing disorders, school problems, or driving impairment. Clinic-comparison adults showed significantly more impairment than community control adults on measures of psychiatric functioning and school impairment. Conclusions. DSM-IV diagnosed ADHD adults show a pattern of clinical features that mirrors well-documented findings among children with the disorder, and show significantly greater impairment than do community control adults. Adults meeting some, but not all, criteria for ADHD fall in between ADHD adults and community control adults, and may warrant treatment. Our results highlight the importance of assessing ADHD in adults in a manner that attends to the potential reduced sensitivity of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for use in adult populations (Faraon

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1994. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [66]-81).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2002. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 78-95). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2002. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 78-95). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (M.S.)--Ohio University, March, 2007. / Title from PDF t.p. Includes bibliographical references.

M.A. (Psychology) / Psychotic Disorders, adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (aADHD) and Substance Use Disorder (SUD). Although the different groups were compared the primary aim was to learn more about the cognitive functioning of aADHD. Although there is greater emphasis on aADHD as it may be included in the new diagnostic systems, a clear clinical picture still eludes us. Participants were recruited from different sources, by means of purposive sampling. As a general rule all potential participants with a history of a head injury or any other neurological disorders were excluded. Due to the fact that participants had to comply with strict including criteria, certain screening tests were used. The group were screened by the research team by means of clinical interviews as well as the ASRS and the MCMI. In order to control for the type of substances as well as their history of substance abuse the Mini Plus Questionnaire was used. Furthermore the psychosis group only consisted of individuals with positive Schizophrenia and Schizoaffective Disorders. The research instrument that was used was the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB), of which a number of subtests of the CANTAB were used to assess the cognitive ability of the groups. The included subtests were the Motor Control Task, the Rapid Visual Information Processing, the Spatial Working Memory and finally the Stop Signal Test.The CANTAB revealed similar impairments the aADHD, SUD and psychotic groups, specifically relating to impairments in attention, memory and impulsivity, however the main difference that has been displayed in this research is the degree of impairment in cognitive functioning, the psychotic group functioned the poorest compared to the ADHD group, showing that the psychotic group may have a greater level of dysfunction in executive functioning, attention and memory. In conclusion the results indicated that the aADHD group had a lower level of cognitive functioning when compared to both the non-clinical and SUD groups, but higher than the psychotic group.

No description available.

The purpose of this study was to accomplish an Evaluability Assessment of Section 504 Policies with an emphasis on children diagnosed as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Assessments of program objectives, activities, outcomes, and cost factors where accomplished at state and local education agencies in Mid-Atlantic States. The eight steps of Evaluability Assessment, as defined by Wholey (1979), were used. The process included review of pertinent documentation regarding Section 504 and ADHD and on-site interviews with Federal policy-makers to ascertain the intended resources (cost), activities (assessment procedures and eligibility criteria), and outcomes (placement, treatment, and due process procedures) for ADHD children with a Section 504 Plan. A "Logic Model" was developed to compare to state and local agencies' policies. On-site visits were made to eight state agencies and a sampling of six local agencies in each state. Telephone interviews were conducted with two administrators and two teachers in each local agency. An Equivalency Model was developed to compare the federal, state, and local objectives. An Evaluability Model was developed for each state education agency in the study. The model included resources, activities, and outcomes. A comparison was completed of the local agencies. The model also included evaluator's suggestions of performance objectives that appear feasible. This study was expected to clarify Section 504 goals and objectives for ADHD children at both the state and local levels. The evaluability assessment indicates Section 504 in the local education agencies is not ready to be evaluated. Based on the criteria set forth by Wholey (1987), there is a lack of definition in the problem addressed and a lack of clear logic on the implementation of Section 504. There are no resources authorized for the implementation of Section 504 therefore cost becomes a barrier to the implementation. / Ed. D.

Diss. (sammanfattning) Stockholm : Karolinska institutet, 2010.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Indiana University, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available online (PDF file) by a subscription to the set or by purchasing the individual file.