Validation and bifactor structure of the French Adult ADHD Symptoms Rating Scale v1.1 (ASRS)

IF 1.2 4区医学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES

Encephale-Revue De Psychiatrie Clinique Biologique et Therapeutique Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.encep.2022.11.007

H. Caci , C. Didier , D. Wynchank

{"title":"Validation and bifactor structure of the French Adult ADHD Symptoms Rating Scale v1.1 (ASRS)","authors":"H. Caci , C. Didier , D. Wynchank","doi":"10.1016/j.encep.2022.11.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Three scoring methods for the widely available Adult ADHD Symptoms Rating Scale v1.1 (ASRS) have been proposed to screen for ADHD, but these three methods have rarely been compared against formal clinical diagnoses. We aimed to validate the French version of the ASRS against a clinical interview using DSM-IV and DSM-5 diagnostic algorithms.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>One hundred five adults from a convenience sample were evaluated with the ASRS and the DIVA 2.0, using both DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria. We used Confirmatory Factor Analysis to investigate the underlying structure of the ASRS. Sensitivity, specificity, and classification accuracy were compared between the rating algorithms of the ASRS.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The full score method had worse predictive performance than the Screener and the 2-stage scoring method. All characteristics of the three scoring methods for the ASRS were worse when applying DSM-5 criteria. The best-fitting structure was a bi-factor model with a general ADHD factor and three specific factors.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>ADHD was best conceived as a one-dimensional construct. The 2-stage scoring method superseded the Screener with comparable sensitivity and specificity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51042,"journal":{"name":"Encephale-Revue De Psychiatrie Clinique Biologique et Therapeutique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Encephale-Revue De Psychiatrie Clinique Biologique et Therapeutique","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013700622002743","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Three scoring methods for the widely available Adult ADHD Symptoms Rating Scale v1.1 (ASRS) have been proposed to screen for ADHD, but these three methods have rarely been compared against formal clinical diagnoses. We aimed to validate the French version of the ASRS against a clinical interview using DSM-IV and DSM-5 diagnostic algorithms.

Methods

One hundred five adults from a convenience sample were evaluated with the ASRS and the DIVA 2.0, using both DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria. We used Confirmatory Factor Analysis to investigate the underlying structure of the ASRS. Sensitivity, specificity, and classification accuracy were compared between the rating algorithms of the ASRS.

Results

The full score method had worse predictive performance than the Screener and the 2-stage scoring method. All characteristics of the three scoring methods for the ASRS were worse when applying DSM-5 criteria. The best-fitting structure was a bi-factor model with a general ADHD factor and three specific factors.

Conclusions

ADHD was best conceived as a one-dimensional construct. The 2-stage scoring method superseded the Screener with comparable sensitivity and specificity.

查看原文本刊更多论文

法国成人多动症症状评定量表 v1.1 (ASRS) 的验证与双因素结构

背景针对广泛使用的成人多动症症状评定量表 v1.1（ASRS）提出了三种评分方法来筛查多动症，但这三种方法很少与正式的临床诊断进行比较。我们的目的是根据使用 DSM-IV 和 DSM-5 诊断算法进行的临床访谈，对法文版 ASRS 进行验证。方法我们使用 ASRS 和 DIVA 2.0 对 155 名方便抽样的成人进行了评估，同时使用了 DSM-IV 和 DSM-5 标准。我们使用确证因子分析来研究 ASRS 的基本结构。我们比较了 ASRS 各评分算法的灵敏度、特异性和分类准确性。在应用DSM-5标准时，ASRS三种评分方法的所有特征都较差。最佳拟合结构是一个双因素模型，包含一个一般多动症因素和三个特殊因素。两阶段评分法的灵敏度和特异性均优于筛查法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Encephale-Revue De Psychiatrie Clinique Biologique et Therapeutique 医学-精神病学

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

7.40%

发文量

162

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Une revue française de renommée internationale. - Un comite de rédaction représentant tous les aspects de la prise en charge psychiatrique du patient. - Une sélection rigoureuse d''articles faisant l''objet de plusieurs expertises. - Des travaux d''auteurs et de chercheurs de renommée internationale. - Des indexations dans les grandes bases de données (Current Contents, Excerpta Medica, etc.). - Un facteur d''impact qui témoigne de la grande notoriété de la revue. La tribune des publications originales de haut niveau. - Une très grande diversité des sujets traités, rigoureusement sélectionnés à travers des sommaires dynamiques : - des éditoriaux de médecins référents, - une revue de presse sur les actualités internationales, - des articles originaux pour approfondir vos connaissances, - des mises au point et des cas cliniques pour engager votre réflexion sur les indications et choix possibles au travers de mises en situation clinique, - des dossiers thématiques pour faire le tour d''une question. - L''actualité de l''AFPB : L''Encéphale publie régulièrement des comptes rendus de l''Association française de psychiatrie clinique.