Journal of Psychopathologyand BehavioralAssessment, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1995

Reported Prevalence of Attentional Difficulties in a General Sample of College Students 1 Lisa L Weyandt, 2,3 Ian Linterman, 2 and John A. Rice 2

Accepted: .rune 21, 1995

The present study investigated the self-reported prevalence of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in 770 college students using the Adult Rating Scale and the Wender Utah Rating Scale. Psychometric properties of these scales were explored. The study also investigated the performance of students with ADHD symptoms, relative to students without ADHD symptoms, on a battery of neuropsychological tasks. Results revealed that 7 and 8% of the students reported significant symptoms (i.e., 1.5 SD above the mean) on the Adult Rating Scale and the Wender Utah Rating scale, respectively, and 2.5% reported significant symptoms on both the Adult Rating Scale and the Wender Utah Rating Scale. Using more stringent criteria (two standard deviations), fewer (i.e, 4, 3.8%, and 0.5%) subjects reported significant symptoms associated with ADHD. Between-group differences were found on one of the neuropsychological tasks. The construct validity of the rating scales was supported. Limitations and implications for future research are advanced. KEY WORDS: attention-deficithyperactivitydisorder (ADHD) symptoms; college students; executive functioning; self-report.

INTRODUCTION Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), characterized by an inability to sustain attention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity (American PsyIPresented at the International NeuropsychologicalSociety'sSixteenthEuropean Conference, Angers, France, June 1994, and the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA, August 1994. 2Department of Psychology,Central Washington University,Ellensburg, Washington 98926. 3To whom correspondence should be addressed. 293

0882-2689/95/I~00-0293507~50/0© 1995PlenumPublishingCorporation

294

Weyandt, Linterman, and Rice

chological Association, 1987), was previously believed to be a disorder of childhood, with symptoms disappearing with the onset of puberty (MunozMillan & Casteel, 1989). Recent studies, however, suggest that the majority of children with ADHD continue to exhibit ADHD symptoms throughout adolescence and possibly adulthood, and are often beset with academic and social difficulties (Barkley, Fischer, Edelbrok, & Smallish, 1990; Klein & Mannuzza, 1991; Mannuzza, Klein, Malloy, Giampino, & Addalli, 2991; Weiss & Hechtman, 1986). Adolescents with ADHD, for example, have been found to be at greater risk for low academic achievement, grade retention, substance abuse, peer rejection, social skill deficits and antisocial behavior (Barkley, Fischer, Edelbrok, & Smallish, 1990, Fischer, Barkley, Fletcher, & Smallish, 1993; Weiss, Hechtman, & Perlman, 1978). During young adulthood, studies suggest that individuals with ADHD are frequently involved in theft and pranks, verbal abuse toward others, frequent changes in employment, and many are diagnosed as having Antisocial Personality Disorder (Mannuzza, Klein, Bessler, Malloy, & LaPadula, 1993). In addition to social-behavioral difficulties, research suggests that children and adolescents with ADHD may have neuropsychological deficits, particularly in the area of frontal lobe functioning. Specifically, children with ADHD have been found to perform poorly, relative to controls, on executive function tasks, (i.e., tasks that require planning, problem solving, sustained effort, and impulse control) which are believed to be subserved by the frontal lobes (Luria, 1966). Chelune, Ferguson, Koon, and Dickey (1986), for example, found that children with ADHD performed poorly relative to non-ADHD children on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) and Progressive Figures. Similar results were found by Boucagnani and Jones (1989), who investigated the performance of children with ADHD and controls on the WCSq~ Trail Making Test, and Stroop Test. Research by Parry (1973), Gorenstein, Mammanto, and Sandy (1989), and Shue and Douglas (1989) reported differences between children with ADHD and controls on neuropsychological tasks thought to measure frontal lobe functioning. A number of studies, however, have not found differences between children with and without ADHD on frontal lobe tasks. Loge, Statton, and Beatty (1990), for example, compared the performance of controls and children with ADHD on the WCS~ a Continuous Performance Test (CPT), and additional neuropsychological measures and found no difference between groups. Similar null results were reported by Cohen, Weiss, and Minde (1972) and Carlson, Lahey, and Neeper (1986) using the Stroop Test. Thus, it remains equivocal whether neuropsychological deficits are characteristic of children and adolescents with ADHD, and whether the presence or absence of deficits is task specific.

Prevalence of Attentional Difficulties

295

Although a substantial amount of information is available concerning ADHD in children, and recent information has become available concerning ADHD in adolescents, relatively little knowledge is available concerning ADHD in adults. In particular, information is lacking concerning ADHD in young adults, such as college students. Although follow-up studies suggest that adolescents with ADHD are at a greater risk for dropping out of high school, a longitudinal study by Mannuzza et al. (1993) found that approximately 12% of their sample of ADHD subjects had completed a bachelor's degree or higher. Thus, it appears that a percentage of individuals with ADHD continue their education beyond the high-school level, however, information regarding these students is lacking. It is unknown, for example, if college students with ADFID experience academic or social difficulties, are in need of special services, adopt learning strategies, or drop out of college or if they compensate for their difficulties by pursuing certain majors and occupations. Shaw and Giambra (1993) conducted one of the few studies investigating college students with ADHD and found that these subjects had more spontaneous intrusive thoughts than control subjects while completing a vigilance task. Findings also revealed that students with ADHD made more errors of commission (i.e., "false alarms") relative to controls. The results were interpreted as supporting hypoarousal and poor inhibition control models of ADHD. In other words, when individuals with ADHD are bored, internal activation processes attempt to seek optimal levels of sensation which results in uncontrolled spontaneous thoughts that produce deficits in attentional and inhibitional processes. Given the research findings that suggest that ADHD symptoms often continue into adulthood, and that more students with ADHD pursue a college education than previously thought, there is a need for very basic research in this area. For example, one important question that deserves exploration is the degree to which ADHD syrnptornology is evident in the college student population. In other words, what is the prevalence of ADHD symptoms in college students? Buchsbaum et aL (1985) were among the first to explore the prevalence of attention problems in college students, using a measure of vigilance or sustained attention (i.e., CPT). Four hundred males participated in the study, and 43 of the participating students were identified by the CPT screening measure as falling in the upper and lower 5% of the scoring distribution. These students were subsequently administered several neuropsychological tasks and tests (e.g., Stroop Test, memory tasks, reaction time, eye movements, visual and auditory evoked potentials). Results revealed significant between-group differences between the "poorattention CPT group" and the "good-attention CPT group" on evoked potential, reaction time, memory and learning, and Stroop tasks. The groups

Weyandt, IAnterman, and Rice

296

did not differ on the eye-tracking measure. The poor attention group also reported a higher incidence of "hyperactivity" than the good attention group, as assessed by a self-report instrument (i.e., the Gittleman Scale). Overall results suggest that a percentage of college students appear to experience attention problems and that these problems may be related to deficits in neuropsychological functioning. What remains unclear is whether students falling between the good/poor groups experienced symptoms associated with ADHD and whether similar results would have been found using additional neuropsychological tasks. Clearly, basic research is needed in this area, and the first logical step before exploring ADHD in college students is to examine prevalence of ADHD symptoms in students. The purposes of the present study were (a) to investigate the prevalence of self-reported ADHD symptoms in a large sample of college students, (b) to explore the performance of students with ADHD symptoms relative to students without reported symptoms, on a series of neuropsychological tasks, and (c) to investigate the psychometric properties of two rating scales designed to assist in the assessment of ADHD in adults. It was hypothesized that students who reported ADHD symptoms would perform more poorly on neuropsychological tasks relative to control subjects. It was also hypothesized that the rating scales designed to measure ADHD symptomology in adults would correlate more strongly with each other than with a non-ADHD rating scale.

METHOD Subjects

Participants in the first phase of the study included 770 college students (323 males, 447 females), age 17 to 54 years (mean age, 23 years 2 months). Participants were recruited campus wide from 59 majors and were provided with extra course credit for participation. All participants provided written consent, in accordance with American Psychological Association (1993) ethical guidelines for research with human subjects. Participation in phase one of the study involved completion of three self-report rating scales. Phase 2 of the study involved neuropsychological testing on a subset of this sample. Measures and. Procedures

During the first phase of the study, the 770 participants were asked to complete three rating scales: the Adult Rating Scale (ARS; Weyandt, see

Prevalence of Attentional Difficulties

297

Appendix), the Wender Utah Rating Scale (WURS; Ward, Wender, & Reimherr, 1993), and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1992). The ARS is a self-report instrument consisting of 25 items pertaining to attention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. Questions included in the scale were derived from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (3rd edition, revised) criteria for ADHD (American Psychological Association, 1987). Scoring consists of a 4-point scale ("not at all, just a little, pretty much, very much"), with points ranging from 0 to 3. The format of the scale is consistent with ADHD rating scales for children [e.g., The ADHD Rating Scale (DuPaul, 1995). The psychometrics of the scale were under investigation during the study, and information concerning reliability and convergent validity is included under Results. The WURS is a 61 item, self-report instrument, designed to assess adults' descriptions of their childhood behavior. Although several scoring methods are available, ratings between adults with ADHD and controls have been found to differ significantly on the WURS, using total score and the "Utah criteria method" (Ward et al., 1993), which is the total score on a subset of WURS items. The WURS has also been found to correlate moderately with the Parents' Rating Scale (a 10-item modification of the Conner's Abbreviated Rating Scale) (Ward et al., 1993). The BSI is a 53-item, self-report instrument designed to reflect the psychological symptom patterns of patient and nonpatient respondents. The BSI has been found to have adequate psychometric properties and was included as a discriminant validity measure. In other words, the BSI was included to ensure that the ARS and WURS were indeed measuring ADHD symptomology rather than symptom patterns of psychological disorders in general. In order to assess the test-retest reliability of the ARS and the WURS, a subset of 46 psychology undergraduates from the original sample of 770 was given the ARS and the WURS 2 weeks after the scales were first completed. The neuropsychological tasks included in the present study were the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) (Grant & Berg, 1981), the Stroop Screening Test (Trennery, Crossen, DeBoe, & Leber, 1987), the Visual Search Attention Test (Trennery, Crossen, DeBoe, & Leber, 1989), and Raven's (1965) Coloured Progressive Matrices. These tasks have been discussed in detail elsewhere (for a review see Lezak, 1983). Those students whose ratings were 1.5 standard deviations above the group mean (i.e., 93rd percentile or above) on the ARS and the WURS (total score) were considered high on ADHD symptoms and were asked to participate in the second phase of the study. Of the 19 students who met the criteria, 17 agreed to participate in the second phase. Control subjects were established by identifying ratings that were within _+0.5 SD of the mean on the ARS and the WURS. Of the 770, 134 (17.4%) students met this criterion, and 18 were randomly selected from the original sample

298

Weyandt, Linterman, and Rice

to serve as controls. The neuropsychological tasks were administered to the 35 participants (17 high A D H D symptom and 18 controls) in a counterbalanced order.

RESULTS Means and standard deviations for each rating scale are presented in Table I (n = 770). Higher means are associated with more symptoms. Resuits-revealed that 7% of students reported significant symptoms (i.e., 1.5 standard deviation above the mean; raw score = 33.0) on the ARS, 8.7% reported significant symptoms on the WURS (raw score = 93.3), and 11.6% reported significant symptoms on the BSI (Global Severity Index). From the sample, 2.5% fell 1.5 SD above the mean on both the ARS and the WURS. Using a more stringent criterion of 2 SD above the mean, results revealed that 4% of participants reported significant symptoms on the ARS (raw score = 37.5), 3.8% reported significant symptoms on the WURS (raw score = 104.74), and 0.5% reported significant symptoms on both the ARS and WURS. Follow-up analyses using the "Utah criteria method" for scoring the WURS indicated that 3.2% of the sample fell 1.5 SD above the mean on the ARS and WURS. Two separate groups of items were assessed on the ARS. The first and second groups contained items consistent with DSM-III-R and DSMIV criteria, respectively, for ADHD. The means and standard deviations for the sample of 770 are in Table II. Item analyses revealed that 9.2%

Table I. Group Means and Standard Deviations for Rating Scales Scale Adult Rating Scale Wender Utah Rating Scale (total score) Brief Symptom Inventory (Global Severity Index)

Mean

SD

19.43 59.32 0.63

9.04 22.71 0.50

Note. n = 770

Table II. Group Means and Standard Deviations for ARS Item Analyses Item DSM-III-R criteria items DSM-IV criteria items Note. n = 770

Mean

SD

8.27 11.11

3.73 4.81

299

Prevalence of Attentionai Difficulties

of participant ratings fell 1.5 SD above the mean (raw score = 14.61), and 3.5 % fell 2 SD (raw score = 16.63) above the mean on 10 items corresponding to DSM-III-R criteria. Using the 12 items that corresponded to DSM-IV criteria, results indicated that 6.8 and 4.7% of participant ratings were 1.5 and 2 SD above the mean (raw scores, 19.16 and 21.69). To explore the relationship between rating scales, Pearson r correlations were computed: ARS and WURS, .54 (p < .05); ARS and BSI, .44, Co < .05); and WURS and BSI, .49 (p < .05). Results of follow-up t tests (n = 770) revealed that the ARS had a greater correlation with the WURS than the BSI [t(767) = 3.35, p < .01]. The internal consistency of the ARS and WURS, as measured by Cronbach's tx, was .86 and .87, respectively. Reliability coefficients are presented in Table III. To explore potential differences in group performance between the high A D H D symptom group and controls on the frontal lobe tasks, a repeated one-way analysis of variance (ANOVAs) was performed and revealed a significant difference on Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices, with the A D H D symptom group performing better than the control group [F(1,33) = 4.80, p < .05] (see Table IV). Significant differences were not found between the A D H D symptom group and the control group on the WCS'I~ Visual Search Attention Test, or Stroop Screening Test. In addition, follow-up exploratory t tests were performed between males and females on both the rating scales and the neuropsychological tasks to assess any gender differences. No such differences were found.

Table IlL Test-Retest Reliability Coefficients

Scale

Coefficient

Adult Rating Scale Wender Utah Rating Scale Brief Symptom Inventory

.80 .86 .49

Note. n = 46.

Table IV. Analysis of Variance Summary Table

Source Between groups Within groups Total

*p < .05.

SS

MS

F

"101.6 218.3 320.0

33.8 7.0

4.80*

300

Weyandt, Linterman, and Rice

DISCUSSION The purposes of the present study were (a) to investigate the prevalence of ADHD symptoms in college students, (b) to explore the neuropsychological performance of students with and without self-reported ADHD symptoms, and (c) to examine the psychometric properties of the ARS and WURS. Results revealed that a substantial proportion of students (7% at 1.5 SD and 4% at 2 SD) reported difficulties with attention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity, as adults and a similar percentage report such symptoms during childhood (8.7% at 1.5 SD and 3.8% at 2 SD). Fewer students (2.5%), however, reported ADHD symptoms during childhood and adulthood, as assessed by the WURS and the ARS. These findings, if generalizable, have implications for the assessment of ADHD in adulthood, namely, that ADHD symptoms may be relatively common in college students and that information concerning symptoms during childhood and adulthood is critical. Given the descriptive (rather than diagnostic) nature of the present study, information is lacking concerning the percentage of students with documented ADHD, which may have influenced the results. It is interesting to note that the percentage of students who reported ADHD symptoms during childhood and adulthood (2.5%) is quite similar to the estimated prevalence (3-5%) of ADHD in the school-age population (Barkley, 1990). Clearly, the 2.5% is unexpectedly high considering that few students with ADHD are believed to attend college (e.g., 5-12%). Using more stringent inclusion criteria (i.e., 2 SD), the percentage drops to 0.5%, suggesting that very few participants viewed themselves as having attention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity symptoms during both childhood and adulthood. Thus the question arises whether the ADHD symptom group in the present study included a number of false positives. If so, this may account for the lack of difference in performance on the neuropsychological tasks. Alternatively, the 8% (93rd percentile) and 4% (98th percentile) figures suggest that a substantial portion of college students do report problems with attention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. If these percentages are representative of college students in general (which of course requires additional research), ADHD symptomology may be more common than expected. Certainly, this area warrants further investigation. Clearly more research is needed to explore further the prevalence and nature of ADHD in college students. Unfortunately, valid and reliable instruments to assist in the diagnosis-and identification of adult ADHD, such as rating scales, are virtually nonexistent. The results of the present study support the construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability of both the ARS and the WURS. A limitation of the present

Prevalence of Attmtioaal Difficulties

301

study concerns the lack of information regarding the prevalence of documented A D H D in the sample, hence the ability of the scales to differentiate clinical groups remains uncertain. Additional research employing students with documented ADHD, as well as other clinical groups (i.e., a double dissociation paradigm), is needed to assess further the psychometric properties of the ARS and the WURS. The lack of difference between the high A D H D symptom and the nonsymptom group on the frontal lobe tasks is intriguing, but not unexpected given the inclusion criteria, small sample size, and low statistical power. As mentioned previously, the inclusionary criteria for the high A D H D symptom group may have been overly inclusive. Different results may have been found with college students with documented A D H D or perhaps not, given the inconsistent findings in the literature. Barkley, Grodzinsky, and DuPaut (1992), for example, reviewed 22 studies of frontal lobe functions in children with and without hyperactivity and found highly variable results across studies. In addition, some measures presumed to assess frontal lobe functioning were insensitive to differences between clinical groups and controls, as well as among clinical groups. The WCST and the Stroop, for example, have been used extensively in research, although their ability to differentiate reliably clinical from nonclinical groups is equivocal (Barkley et aL, 1992; Weyandt & Willis, 1994). Thus one possible explanation for the null results, in addition to those identified previously, involves the insensitivity of the measures. A second explanation, assuming reliability and validity of the tasks, is that frontal lobe deficits are not characteristic of individuals with A D H D symptoms. More research is necessary to explore these hypotheses further. An alternative explanation for the lack of difference on the neuropsychological tasks relates to the significant difference between the A D H D symptom and control group on Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices. Specifically, the superior performance of the high A D H D symptom group suggest that these students may have been significantly more intelligent that the nonsymptom group, and consequently intelligence may have been confounded with performance. Given the small sample size, it was inappropriate to perform an ANCOVA in order to control for scores on Raven's. These results should also be interpreted cautiously, however, as Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices are only a screening instrument which measures a limited aspect of intellectual ability (e.g., spatial reasoning). In addition, it should be noted that Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices are typically recommended for use with children and adolescents, although its use with young adults is also permissible. The Coloured Matrices were chosen in an attempt to decrease the possibility of impulsive, inaccurate responding. This decision was based on results obtained by Zentall and

302

Weyandt, Linterman, and Rice

Dwyer (1989), who found that adding color to a similar task (Matching Familiar Figures Test) reduced the impulsivity of hyperactive children as compared to normal controls. It remains unknown if better performance by the high ADHD symptom group would have been found with a more difficult version such as the Standard Progressive Matrices. In any event, the present findings raise the question whether college students with ADHD symptoms are cognitively more capable than non-ADHD symptom students and are therefore able to compensate for their attention and impulsivity deficits. If this is the case, a second question is raised--whether there exists a percentage of intellectually capable students with ADHD who are. unidentified due to their compensatory skills. Perhaps these students are adequate achievers during the elementary and secondary years but encounter difficulty with advanced education, which requires sustained attention (e.g., lectures, substantial amounts of reading) and inhibition (e.g., impulse control, planning). Future research could provide answers to these questions by identifying and studying students with a history of ADHD. In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that ADHD symptoms may be relatively common in college students and that multiple sources of information are necessary to obtain an adequate view of ADHD symptomology. The study raises questions concerning the sensitivity of frontal lobe tasks, as well as the prevalence of ADHD in the college student population. Preliminary support was found for the validity and reliability of the ARS and the WURS, although future research is needed to explore further the psychometric properties of these scales. Future research is also needed to examine neuropsychological performance of college students with documented ADHD.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to express their appreciation to Michelle Schae, Linda Mitzlaff, Noella Wyatt, and students at CWU for their contribution to the project. The study was partially supported by a CWU Small Faculty Grant.

REFERENCES American Psychological Association (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed. rev.). Washington, DC: APA. American Psychological Association (1993). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-I628.

Prevalence of Attentional Difficulties

303

Barkley, R. A. (1990). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment. New York: Guilford Press. Barkley, R. A., Fischer, M., Edelbrok, C. S., & Smallish, L. (1990). The adolescent outcome of hyperactive children diagnosed by research criteria: I. An 8-year prospective follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 546-557. Barkley, R. A., Grodzinsky, G., & DuPaul, G. J. (1990). Frontal lobe functions in attention deficit disorder with and without hyperactivity: A review and research report. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20, 163-188. Boucagnani, L. L., & Jones, R. W. (1989). Behaviors analogous to frontal lobe dysfunction in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 4, 161-173. Buchsbaum, M. S., Haler, R. J., Sostek, A. J., Weingarner, H., Zahn, T. P., Siever, L. J., Murphy, D. L., & Brody, L. (1985). Attention dysfunction and psychopathology in college men. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 354-360. Carlson, C. L., Lahey, B. G., & Neeper, R. (1986). Direct assessment of the cognitive correlates of attention deficits disorders with and without hyperactivity. Journal of Behavioral Assessment and Psychopathology, 8, 69-86. Chelune, G. J., Ferguson, W., Koon, R., & Dickey, T. O. (1986). Frontal lobe disinhibition in attention deficit disorder. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 16, 221-234. Cohen, N. J., Weiss, G., & Minde, K. (1972). Cognitive styles in adolescents previously diagnosed as hyperactive. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 13, 203-209. Deragotis, J. P. (1992). The Brief Symptom Inventory. New York: Clinical Psychometric Research. DuPaul, G.. (1995). The ADHD Rating Scale: Normative data, reliability, and validity (in press). Fischer, M., Barktey, R., Fletcher, K., & Smallish, L. (1993). The stability of dimensions of behavior in ADHD and normal children over an 8-year follow-up. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 315-33Z G o r e n s t e i n , E. E., M a m m a n t o , C. A., & Sandy, J. M. (1989). Performance of inattentive-over-active children on selected measures of prefrontal type function. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 619-632. Grant, D., & Berg, E. (1981). 14r~sconsincard sorting test. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Klein, R., & Mannuzza, S. (1991). Long term outcome of hyperactive children: A review. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 383-387. Lezak, M. (1983). Neuropsychological assessment, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford Press. Loge D. V., Statton, R, D., & Beatty, W. W. (1990). Performance of children with ADHD on tests sensitive to frontal lobe dysfunction. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 540-545. Luria, A. R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. New York: Basic Books. Mannuzza, S., Klein, R. G., Malloy, P., Giampino, T. L., & Addalli, K. A. (1991). Hyperactive boys almost grown up. V. Replication of psychiatric status. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 77-83. Mannuzza, S., Klein, R., Bessler, A., Malloy, P., & LaPadula, M. (1993). Adult outcome of hyperactive boys: Educational achievement, occupational rank, and psychiatric status. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 565-576. Munoz-Millan, R., & Casteet, C. (1989). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Recent literature. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 40, 699-707. Parry, P. (1973). The effects of reward on the performance of hyperactive children, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Montreal: McGill University. Raven, J. (1965). Guide to using the cotoured progressive matrices. New York: Psychological Corp. Shaw, G., & Giambra, L. (1993). Task unrelated thoughts of college students diagnosed as hyperactive in childhood. Developmental Neuropsychology, 9, 17-30. Shue, K., & Douglas, V. (1989). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, normal development and the frontal lobe syndrome. Canadian Psychology, 30, 498.

304

Weyandt, Linterman, and Rice

Trennery, M., Crosson, B., DeBoe, J., & Leber, W. R. (1987). The Stroop neuropsychological screening test. FL: PAR, Inc. Trennery, M., Crosson, B., DeBoe, J., & Leber, W. R. (1998). The visual search and attention test. FL: PAR, Inc. Ward, M., Wender, P., & Reimherr, F. (1993). The Wender Utah Rating Scale: An aid in retrospective diagnosis of children with ADHD. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 245-256. Weiss, G., & Hechtman, L. T. (1986). Hyperactive children grown up. New York: Guilford Press. Weiss, G., Hechtman, L T., & Perlman, L. C. (1978). Hyperactives as young adults: School, employer, and self rating scales obtained during ten year follow-up evaluation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 48, 438-445. Weyandt, L L., & Willis, G. (1994). Executive functions in school-age children: Potential efficacy in tasks in discriminating clinical groups. Developmental Neuropsychology, 10, 27-38. Zentall, S. S., & Dwyer, A. M. (1989). Color effects on the impulsivity and activity of hyperactive children. The Journal of School Psychology, 27, 165-173.

APPENDIX ADULT RATING SCALE 1

N a m e / l D Number: Age:

_

Birth Date' Gender: ( M ) / (F~

_

-

-

Current Date:

Status: ~ n h l e / Divorced / Married

Below ts a hst of behaviors or probMms that some people have. opinion, how much of a problem each

TO the right of each Item indicate, in your an

answer

Net at all I

Physical

2.

D,ffficulty

restlessness+

3

Easily

4

Impatient

to

J~t a little

Pretty much

Very much

fide;elm~

concentratm~

distracted

5

"Hot" or explostv* temper

6

Unpredictable

7

Shift often from one uncompleted task to another

8.

D i f f i c u l t y completin~ t~sks

behavior

......

9

Impulsive

lO

Taik excessively

1l

Often

interrupt others

I2

Oft~

{os¢~ thm~s

13

Forget to do things

{4

En~a~e m physically d~rm~ ~tiv~ttes. reckless

{5

Always on the ~o. difficulty Sltt~n~ still

i6.

Does not appear to listen ~o c~hers when spoken to

17.

D i f f i c u l t y sustatnm~z attention

I g.

D~ffieuity do~ng things alotte

19.

Frequently get into trouble with the law .....

20.

Dtfficx~Ity d e l a y i n ~

21.

Lack of o*~amzatton skills

22

Inconsistent

23

Inability to estab{igh and maintain a routine

24

Perfotmm~ below level of competence m school/work

25.

Overexcttabl]ttv

,,,

~ratiftcation

school/work

performance

] Lisa L. Weyandt. Ph.D.. Central Washington Un,verstty. Ellensburg. WA nkw/M,A/Weyandt

......

98926

(5O9) 963-2381 Ext. 3688