Task Specificity of Responses to Stimulant Drugs in Laboratory Tests

The mere presence of typical symptoms of hyperactivity (e.g., impulsive and/or inattentive behavior) does not ensure that stimulant drugs will have a effect on the patient (Bradley, 1937, 1950; Fish, 1976). Therefore, a trial on stimulants can be an aid to diagnosis. Laufer & Denhoff (1957) have suggested that a response to stimulants, in addition to the behavioral symptoms, be considered supplementary evidence for the diagnosis of hyperactivity. Presumably, then, an response to stimulants should be taken as evidence against the diagnosis of hyperactivity (Swanson & Kinsbourne, 1978). Cantwell (1975), Eisen berg (1972), Safer & Allen (1976), Solomon (1971), Swanson, Kinsbourne, Roberts, & Zucker (1978), and Wender (1971) all recommend a trial on stimulant medication as an integral part of diagnosing hyperactivity. The logic behind this procedure is that the response of normal people to stimulants is adverse and that an abnormal condition presumed to exist in hyperactive children before treatment accounts for their favorable response to stimulant therapy. Central nervous system underarousal or underactivation may charac terize the abnormal condition of hyperactive children, but this view is still controversial (Barkley & Jackson, 1977; Rosenthal & Allen, 1978). For this reason the behavioral response to drug treatment has been used for assessment instead of a baseline comparison with established no rmsbasedon physiological or neurological tests.