{"title":"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","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 The 2-stage scoring method superseded the Screener with comparable sensitivity and specificity.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":"{\"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}","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}
Validation and bifactor structure of the French Adult ADHD Symptoms Rating Scale v1.1 (ASRS)
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.
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.