Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is presumed to be heterogeneous, but the best way to describe this heterogeneity remains unclear. Considerable evidence has accrued suggesting that inattention versus hyperactivity-impulsivity symptom domains predict distinct clinical outcomes and may have partially distinct etiological influence. As a result, some conceptualizations emphasize two distinct inputs to the syndrome. Yet formal testing of models that would accommodate such assumptions using modern methods (e.g., second-order factor and bifactor models) has been largely lacking. METHODS: Participants were 548 children (321 boys) between the ages of 6 and 18 years. Of these 548 children, 302 children met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD, 199 were typically developing controls without ADHD, and 47 were classified as having situational or subthreshold ADHD. ADHD symptoms were assessed via parent report on a diagnostic interview and via parent and teacher report on the ADHD Rating Scale. RESULTS: A bifactor model with a general factor and specific factors of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity fit best when compared with one-, two-, and three-factor models, and a second-order factor model. CONCLUSIONS: A bifactor model of ADHD latent symptom structure is superior to existing factor models of ADHD. This finding is interpreted in relation to multi-component models of ADHD development, and clinical implications are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martel et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: