Kaj Sparle Christensen, Ole Jakob Storebø, Bo Bach
{"title":"评估DSM-5成人ADHD自述量表的构效度和丹麦人群样本中ADHD的患病率。","authors":"Kaj Sparle Christensen, Ole Jakob Storebø, Bo Bach","doi":"10.1177/10870547241312575","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examines the validity of the ASRS-5 as a new screening tool for ADHD and evaluates its proposed screening cut-off in a general population context.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A nationally representative sample of 2,002 individuals aged 18 to 80 years was surveyed using the ASRS-5, with complete data obtained from 714 participants. Psychometric analysis evaluated fit to the Rasch model, response categories, dimensionality, differential item functioning, local dependency, and reliability. A cut-off score of 14, based on a simple additive scale, was applied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ASRS-5 generally conformed to the expectations of the Rasch model. However, disordered response categories were observed for item 6, and gender-related differential item functioning was noted in items 3, 4, and 6. The ASRS-5 demonstrated a unidimensional construct, and a cut-off score of 14 identified 6.0% of the sample as potential ADHD cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the ASRS-5 aligns well with the Rasch model, certain measurement challenges exist. The recommended cut-off score effectively identifies an ADHD prevalence consistent with the 6.5% reported in the original ASRS-5 study.</p>","PeriodicalId":15237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Attention Disorders","volume":" ","pages":"437-444"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Construct Validity of the Adult ADHD Self-report Scale for DSM-5 and Prevalence of ADHD in a Danish Population Sample.\",\"authors\":\"Kaj Sparle Christensen, Ole Jakob Storebø, Bo Bach\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10870547241312575\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examines the validity of the ASRS-5 as a new screening tool for ADHD and evaluates its proposed screening cut-off in a general population context.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A nationally representative sample of 2,002 individuals aged 18 to 80 years was surveyed using the ASRS-5, with complete data obtained from 714 participants. Psychometric analysis evaluated fit to the Rasch model, response categories, dimensionality, differential item functioning, local dependency, and reliability. A cut-off score of 14, based on a simple additive scale, was applied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ASRS-5 generally conformed to the expectations of the Rasch model. However, disordered response categories were observed for item 6, and gender-related differential item functioning was noted in items 3, 4, and 6. The ASRS-5 demonstrated a unidimensional construct, and a cut-off score of 14 identified 6.0% of the sample as potential ADHD cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the ASRS-5 aligns well with the Rasch model, certain measurement challenges exist. The recommended cut-off score effectively identifies an ADHD prevalence consistent with the 6.5% reported in the original ASRS-5 study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Attention Disorders\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"437-444\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Attention Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10870547241312575\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Attention Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10870547241312575","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessing the Construct Validity of the Adult ADHD Self-report Scale for DSM-5 and Prevalence of ADHD in a Danish Population Sample.
Objective: This study examines the validity of the ASRS-5 as a new screening tool for ADHD and evaluates its proposed screening cut-off in a general population context.
Method: A nationally representative sample of 2,002 individuals aged 18 to 80 years was surveyed using the ASRS-5, with complete data obtained from 714 participants. Psychometric analysis evaluated fit to the Rasch model, response categories, dimensionality, differential item functioning, local dependency, and reliability. A cut-off score of 14, based on a simple additive scale, was applied.
Results: The ASRS-5 generally conformed to the expectations of the Rasch model. However, disordered response categories were observed for item 6, and gender-related differential item functioning was noted in items 3, 4, and 6. The ASRS-5 demonstrated a unidimensional construct, and a cut-off score of 14 identified 6.0% of the sample as potential ADHD cases.
Conclusion: Although the ASRS-5 aligns well with the Rasch model, certain measurement challenges exist. The recommended cut-off score effectively identifies an ADHD prevalence consistent with the 6.5% reported in the original ASRS-5 study.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Attention Disorders (JAD) focuses on basic and applied science concerning attention and related functions in children, adolescents, and adults. JAD publishes articles on diagnosis, comorbidity, neuropsychological functioning, psychopharmacology, and psychosocial issues. The journal also addresses practice, policy, and theory, as well as review articles, commentaries, in-depth analyses, empirical research articles, and case presentations or program evaluations.