Conners

parent rating scale short pdf

Conners rating scale age range.

Conners rating scale short form. Conners rating scale scoring. What is conners parent rating scale. What is the conners rating scale.

What are the best screening tools for the evaluation and diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)? The Conners Abbreviated Symptom Questionnaire has the best combination of positive and negative likelihood ratios (eTable A). (Strength of Recommendation [SOR]: B, based on a meta-analysis of observational studies.) The
Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Teacher and Parent Rating Scales also have moderate sensitivity and specificity in elementary school–aged children. (SOR: B, based on a single cohort study.) A 2016 meta-analysis of 25 cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies evaluated the accuracy of the Child Behavior Checklist–Attention Problem Scale (CBCL-
AP) and three versions of the Conners Rating Scales–Revised (CRS-R) for diagnosing ADHD in children and adolescents three to 18 years of age.1 Patients had all three types of ADHD: predominantly hyperactive/impulsive, predominantly inattentive, and combined. In addition to the CBCL-AP (14 studies) and the three versions of the CRS-R, the
Conners Parent Rating Scale–Revised short form (four studies), the Conners Teacher Rating Scale–Revised short form (five studies), and the Conners Abbreviated Symptom Questionnaire (five studies) were evaluated. The reference standard was a clinical examination performed by a qualified professional using diagnostic criteria from the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), 3rd or 4th ed., and corresponding diagnosis codes from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th or 10th revision. All scales had moderate sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for diagnosing ADHD. The Conners Abbreviated Symptom Questionnaire may be the most
effective diagnostic tool for ADHD because of its brevity and high diagnostic accuracy, and the CBCL-AP could be used for more comprehensive assessments. A 2013 cohort study compared the Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Parent/Teacher Rating Scales with a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview using DSM-IV criteria.2,3 Participants were
selected from a random sample of elementary school students in urban, suburban, and rural school districts in Oklahoma. The Vanderbilt parent and teacher scales were moderately sensitive and specific for diagnosing ADHD. Copyright © Family Physicians Inquiries Network. Used with permission. Page 2 A 10-year-old girl was brought to the family
medicine clinic by her mother with a painful lesion on the left upper gum.

The lesion was first noted about two months before the visit, when it was approximately 3 mm in diameter.

The lesion had gradually increased in size. There was no discharge, but the patient had noticed a change in sensation in her gum. She had no constitutional symptoms or history of injury to the permanent tooth. However, the mother recalled that one of her baby teeth was pulled in preparation for braces two years earlier. Physical examination
revealed a lesion on the left upper anterior gingiva above the canine tooth (Figure 1). The round, erythematous lesion measured 8 mm in diameter. It was firm, nonpulsatile, and tender to palpation, and it did not bleed. The answer is A: dental abscess. Dental abscess is a subtype of odontogenic infection, which is one of the most common diseases of
the oral and maxillofacial region.1 Classifications of dental abscess include periapical, periodontal, gingival, pericoronal, and combined periodontal-endodontic. Pain is one of the most common symptoms of dental abscess for which patients seek medical attention. The pain is usually moderate to severe and can be intermittent or persistent and sharp,
throbbing, or shooting. Pain is absent in some acute cases. Swelling is almost always present, whether it is the acute or subacute phase. Patients sometimes describe a toothache with sensitivity to hot and cold and may have a history of a recent dental procedure. Odontogenic infection is diagnosed with physical examination and imaging findings. The
choice of imaging study varies with clinical setting. Computed tomography is particularly sensitive for osseous structures and is the modality of choice for most odontogenic infections.2 Fluid collection and tissue biopsies should be examined for evidence of acute or chronic inflammation and infection.
A spreading infection is more serious than localized swelling of gingival tissue, because the infection could spread outward from the root of the tooth throughout the bone and periosteum.3 Failure to recognize a systemic infection can lead to chronic infections or life-threatening complications, such as airway obstruction, mediastinitis, necrotizing
fasciitis, cavernous sinus thrombosis, cerebral abscess, orbital abscess, and sepsis.4 Severe complications require intravenous antibiotics, incision and drainage, and probable removal of the source of infection.3 A localized infection is usually not urgent and can be managed in the outpatient setting.
Langerhans cell histiocytosis is a rare histiocytic disorder that most commonly affects children one to three years of age, although it can occur at any age. In young children, it is an acute disseminated multisystem disease.5 Bone and skin are most commonly affected. There is oral involvement in about 13% of cases,6 usually manifesting as an
intraoral mass, gingivitis, mucosal ulcers, and loose teeth. Lesions of the bones or soft tissue are painful.7 Mucocele is an area of mucin drainage in soft tissue resulting from rupture of a salivary duct. Mucocele is most common in children and young adults who usually have multiple episodes of swelling lesions with periodic rupture. Long-standing
lesions may develop fibrosis, which is nontender on palpation.8 Mucocele is most commonly located on the inside of the lower lip.9 Pyogenic granuloma is a rapidly growing lesion that develops in response to local irritations, such as poor hygiene, overhanging dental fillings, and trauma. The lesion can be from millimeters to centimeters in diameter.
Pyogenic granulomas are erythematous, nonpainful, and smooth, and bleed easily when touched.8 Page 3 What do cardiologists recommend for the management of hyperlipidemia? These updated guidelines, made without any input from primary care physicians who manage most patients with hyperlipidemia, are more complex than the 2013
guidelines and will likely lead to even more recommendations for statins, ezetimibe (Zetia), and PSK9 inhibitors. Rather than a “fire and forget” strategy involving a risk-based prescription of a moderate- or high-intensity statin, we are supposed to go back to monitoring low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels and targeting a percentage reduction in LDL
cholesterol—and in very high-risk patients targeting an LDL level of less than 70 mg per dL (1.81 mmol per L). (Level of Evidence = 1a−) This is an update to the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines, which were the first to base treatment decisions primarily on the 10-year risk of an atherosclerotic
cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) event rather than on specific LDL targets. This guideline reemphasizes regularly measuring lipids and a return to an LDL target for assessing effectiveness and deciding when to prescribe one of the new and pricey PSK9 inhibitors ($14,000 to $15,000 per year at , December 1, 2018). Statins are divided into high
intensity (atorvastatin [Lipitor], 40 to 80 mg; rosuvastatin [Crestor], 20 to 40 mg), moderate-intensity (atorvastatin, 10 to 20 mg; simvastatin [Zocor], 20 to 40 mg; rosuvastatin, 5 to 10 mg), and low-intensity (simvastatin, 10 mg) groups. For primary prevention in people 20 to 39 years of age, the guidelines recommend an assessment of the lifetime
risk of ASCVD as a way to frighten patients into compliance with lifestyle changes. For people 20 to 39 years of age with LDL levels greater than 160 mg per dL (4.14 mmol per L) or a family history of premature ASCVD, a statin is recommended. For patients 40 years and older, a high-intensity statin is recommended for an LDL level greater than 190
mg per dL (4.92 mmol per L) and a moderate- or high-intensity statin (depending on other risk factors) for those with diabetes mellitus. For all other patients, the Pooled Cohort Equations are used to place patients into one of four risk groups; the old guideline had only three. If the 10-year risk of an ASCVD event is less than 5%, no statin is
recommended. If the 10-year risk is 5% to 7.5%, consider a moderate-intensity statin if there is also a “risk enhancer,” such as LDL level greater than 160 mg per dL, family history of premature ASCVD, chronic kidney disease, metabolic syndrome, South Asian ancestry, preeclampsia, HIV, rheumatoid arthritis, or psoriasis. For persons with a 7.5% to
20% risk, they recommend a moderate-intensity statin for most patients to target a 30% to 49% reduction in LDL cholesterol. Finally, if the risk is greater than 20%, a statin to target a 50% or more reduction in LDL cholesterol is recommended.

For prevention in persons with known vascular disease, a new category of very high risk is described. It is defined as two or more of the following major events: acute coronary syndrome in the past 12 months, previous myocardial infarction, previous ischemic stroke, or symptomatic peripheral artery disease. A patient is also very high risk if he or she
has one of those major ASCVD events and multiple high-risk conditions, such as familial hypercholesterolemia, age of at least 65 years, hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, tobacco use, heart failure, or LDL level greater than 100 mg per dL (2.59 mmol per L) despite maximal statin plus ezetimibe therapy. Patients in this category should be
taking a high-intensity statin, adding ezetimibe if necessary, to target an LDL level of 70 mg per dL.

If that is not achieved, a PSK9 inhibitor should be considered. Regarding PSK9 inhibitors, it is notable that the guideline cautions that “the long-term safety (more than 3 years) is uncertain and cost effectiveness is low at mid-2018 list prices.” Although the previous guideline was silent on the question of monitoring lipid levels, this one recommends
regular monitoring (at least once per year) to verify adherence to the medication and to estimate the percentage reduction in LDL level. It is also worth noting which organizations were not among the 12 that endorsed this guideline: the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and the American College of Physicians (ACP). This is reminiscent
of the recent, aggressive hypertension guidelines from the ACC/AHA that the AAFP and ACP also did not participate in or endorse.
Study design: Practice guideline Funding source: Government Setting: Various (guideline) Reference:GrundySMStoneNJBaileyALet al2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force
on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol2018;S0735-1097(18)39034-X. Page 4 Is aspirin or eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) effective in preventing colorectal adenomas in patients with previous high-risk colorectal neoplasia? After 12 months, neither aspirin nor EPA, alone or in combination, are any better than placebo at preventing colorectal
adenomas in patients with high-risk neoplasia. (Level of Evidence = 1b) The Systematic Evaluation of Aspirin and Fish Oil (seAFOod) Polyp Prevention Trial was a factorial trial that randomized patients with high-risk colorectal neoplasms detected on screening colonoscopy. The included patients had three or more adenomas, one of which had to be 1
cm in diameter, or they had five or more smaller adenomas. The researchers randomized patients to receive EPA (1,000 mg twice daily; n = 179) plus placebo, aspirin (300 mg daily; n = 177) plus placebo, EPA plus aspirin (n = 177); or placebo plus placebo (n = 176).
The researchers performed a follow-up colonoscopy 12 months after enrollment. Sixty-six patients (9%) did not have a follow-up colonoscopy and were excluded from the analysis. The rate of subsequent adenomas at follow-up was high (61% to 63%) and not statistically significantly different for each group. The rate of adverse events was low in all
groups. Study design: Randomized controlled trial (double-blinded) Funding source: Government Setting: Outpatient (any) Reference:HullMASprangeKHepburnTet alseAFOod Collaborative GroupEicosapentaenoic acid and aspirin, alone and in combination, for the prevention of colorectal adenomas (seAFOod Polyp Prevention trial): a multicentre,
randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial. Lancet2018;392(10164):2583–2594. Conners, C. K., Parker, J. D. A., Sitarenios, G., & Epstein, J. N. (1998). The revised Conners’ Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R): Factor structure, reliability, and criterion validity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(4), 257–268.CrossRef PubMed
Google Scholar Conners, K. C. (2008). Conners 3rd edition. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Google Scholar Deb, S. S., Dhaliwal, A.
J., & Roy, M. M. (2008). The usefulness of Conners’ rating scales-revised in screening for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children with intellectual disabilities and borderline intelligence. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52(11), 950–965.CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Gallant, S. (2008, February).
Conners 3: Psychometric properties and practical applications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, New Orleans, LA. Google Scholar Gallant, S., Conners, C. K., Rzepa, S., Pitkanen, J., Marocco, M., & Sitarenios, G. (2007, August). Psychometric properties of the Conners 3rd edition. Poster
presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco. Retrieved from Gianarris, W.
J., Golden, C. J., & Greene, L. (2001). The Conners’ parent rating scales: A critical review of the literature.
Clinical Psychology Review, 21(7), 1061–1093.CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Politi, D. M. (2011). Conners 3rd edition: Introduction and application. Retrieved from 20Power%20Point.pdf Sparrow, E. P. (2010). Essentials of Conners’ behavior assessments. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Google Scholar American Psychiatric Association.
(2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text Rev.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Google Scholar American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Google Scholar Conners, C. K. (1969). A
teacher rating scale for use in drug studies with children. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 884–888.PubMed Google Scholar Conners, C. K. (1997). Conners rating scales-revised technical manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Google Scholar Conners, C. K. (1989, 1990). Conners rating scales technical manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Google Scholar Conners, C. K. (2008). Conners 3rd edition manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Google Scholar Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), Pub. L.
No. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004). [Amending 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.]. Google Scholar Conners, C. K. (1997). The Conners Rating Scales – Revised manual. North Towanda, NY: Multi-health Systems. Google Scholar Conners, C. K., Sitarenos, G., Parker, J. D., & Epstein, J. N. (1998). The revised Conners’ Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R): Factor
structure, reliability, and criterion validity. The Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 257–268. Google Scholar The Conners’ Rating Scales – Revised. (n.d.). In The fourteenth mental measurements yearbook. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from EBSCOHost Mental Measurements Yearbook database. Google Scholar Gianarris, W. J., Golden, C. J., &
Greene, L.
(2001). The Conners’ Parent Rating Scales: A critical review of the literature.
Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 1061–1093.PubMed Google Scholar Kumar, G., & Steer, R. (2003). Factorial validity of the Conners’ Parent Rating Scale – Revised: Short form with psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 252–259.PubMed Google Scholar Naglieri, J.
A., Goldstein, S., Delauder, B. Y., & Schwebach, A. (2005). Relationships between the WISC-III and the Cognitive Assessment System with Conners’ rating scales and continuous performance tests. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 385–401.PubMed Google Scholar When evaluating for ADHD, clinicians will use a variety of clinical practice
tools to gather information, including standardized clinical rating and self-report checklists, behavior questionnaires and/or rating scales. These tools are an essential component of a comprehensive evaluation for ADHD and provide information needed to screen, diagnose and develop a treatment plan. During treatment, they can be used to track
symptoms and monitor treatment progress. These practice tools are typically completed for Adults – by the individual client/patient and significant others (spouse, boss, co-worker) Children – by their parent(s) or caregiver(s), other family members and/or educators Teens – by the teen, their parent(s) or caregiver(s), other family members and/or
educators Scales and checklists help clinicians obtain information from adults, parents, teachers, and others about symptoms and functioning in various settings. Symptoms must be present in more than one setting (such as both at home and in school or work) to meet DSM-5 criteria for an ADHD disorder.
Remember, however, that these instruments are only one component of a comprehensive evaluation.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has noted that ADHD-specific rating scales are more accurate in distinguishing between children with and without the diagnosis of ADHD. These are preferable to global, nonspecific questionnaires and rating scales that assess a variety of behavioral conditions. The following rating scales are
often used to screen, evaluate or monitor children and teenagers with ADHD. Due to the variability of a child’s behavior based on the setting, their relationship with the person completing the form, or the subjective nature of the responses, it is best to have several significant people in the child’s life (mother, father, grandparent, teacher, daycare
provider, etc.) complete the forms for comparison. The responses and scores are not sufficient for a diagnosis of ADHD but are an important component of the comprehensive evaluation process. Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/6-18) Identifies problem behavior in youths ages 6-18 years, including possible disorders and internalizing or externalizing
problems Consists of a checklist of 120-questions Scored on a 3-point scale that ranges from 0 (not true) to 2 (very true/often true) Conners’ Rating Scales Conners’ Parent Rating Scale-Revised for parents/caregivers Conners’ Teacher Rating Scale-Revised for teachers Consist of 27/28 questions (short versions of the scale) divided into 4 subscales:
1)oppositional problems, 2) cognitive problems,3) hyperactivity and 4) an ADHD index Scoring is based on a 4-point scale Conners-Wells’ Adolescent Self-Report Scale for teenagers Administered to teens for their self-report.
Vanderbilt ADHD Rating Scales Vanderbilt ADHD Parent Rating Scale (VADPRS) Provides information on a parent’s perception of social functioning and school performance Consists of 45 questions Teacher Rating Scale (VADTRS) Provides information on school performance and ADHD symptoms Consists of 43 questions Based on 4- and 5-point
scales with high scores indicating more severe symptoms, except for the performance section where higher scores indicate better performance in classroom behavior and academic achievement ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) Includes separate forms for parents/caregivers and teachers Based on an 18-item scale divided into subscales for
hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattentiveness Scored on a 4-point frequency scale ranging from 0 = never/rarely to 3 = very often The following scales have been developed to screen, evaluate and monitor adults with ADHD. Because rating scales are based on self-reported perceptions, and therefore subjective, it is recommended that significant
person’s in the adult’s life also complete the forms. These can include the person’s spouse, a close relative, employer and/or colleague. Adult ADHD Clinical Diagnostic Scale (ACDS) v1.2 Provides information on current adult symptoms of ADHD Based on a semi-structured clinical interview Consists of 18 items Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS)
v1.1 Used as an initial symptom assessment to identify adults who may have ADHD Consists of 18 items Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) v1.1 Screener Developed as a 6-question subset of the 18-question ADHD ASRS v1.1 Used as an initial self-assessment tool Consists of 6 items: 4 for inattentive symptoms and 2 for hyperactive-impulsive
symptoms Scoring is based on symptom frequency Brown Attention-Deficit Disorder Symptom Assessment Scale (BADDS) for Adults Used as a self-report or as part of a clinical interview Consists of 40 items representing 5 symptom areas: activation, attention, effort, affect and memory Asks about the adult’s clinical history, work and/or school
functioning, leisure, mood, and sensitivity to criticism Scoring is based on a 4-point frequency scale from 0 (never) to 3 (almost daily) ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) With Adult Prompts Rates the frequency and severity of ADHD symptoms Consists of 18 items: 9 assess inattentive symptoms and 9 assess hyperactive-impulsive symptoms Scoring
is based on a 4-point frequency scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (very often) References Achenbach T. Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6-18. Burlington, VT: ASEBA, University of Vermont. 2001. Adler L, Cohen J. Diagnosis and evaluation of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of North Am. 2004;27(2):187-201.
Collett BR, Ohan JL, Myers KM. Ten-year review of rating scales, V: scales assessing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2003;42(9):1015-1037.
Conners CK. Development of the CRS-R. In: Conners CK, ed. Conners’ Rating Scales-Revised. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems. 2001:83-98. Conners CK, Sitarenios G, Parker JD, Epstein JN. The revised Conners’ Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R): factor structure, reliability, and criterion validity. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology. 1998;26(4):257-268. DuPaul GJ, Power TJ, Anastopoulos AD, Reid R. ADHD Rating Scale-IV: Checklists, Norms, and Clinical Interpretation. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. 1998. Kessler RC, Adler L, Ames M, et al.
The World Health Organization Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS): a short screening scale for use in the general population. Psychological Medicine. 2005;35(2):245-256. Kessler RC, Adler LA, Gruber MJ, Sarawate CA, Spencer T, Van Brunt DL. Validity of the World Health Organization Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) Screener in a
representative sample of health plan members. International Journal of Methods Psychiatry Research. 2007;16(2):52-65. Murphy K, Adler LA. Assessing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adults: focus on rating scales. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 2004;65: 12-17. Wolraich M. Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Teacher Rating Scale. 1998. Wolraich
Ml, Lambert W, Doffing MA, Bickman L, Simmons T, Worley K. Psychometric properties of the Vanderbilt ADHD diagnostic parent rating scale in a referred population. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 2003;28(8):559-567. The Conners 4 is a reporting measure used for evaluating children and adolescents for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD). When a child or adolescent is referred for an ADHD test, the evaluators often use reporting measures to determine whether or not presenting symptoms are consistent with this diagnosis. Measures such as the Conners 4 yield ratings that demonstrate what symptoms a client is experiencing that are not developmentally typical. The Conners
4 has forms for parents and teachers that show how a child presents in the home and the classroom. Children ages eight and up can also complete a self-report form that provides information about their experience of their symptoms. The Conners rating scales for ADHD were introduced by Multi-Health Systems, Inc (MHS) in 1970. It undergoes
regular updates to ensure accuracy and validity. The Conners 4 is the most recent update and was released in 2022 and replaced the Conners 3. When scored, the Conners 4 will measure: Attention issues Impulsivity Executive dysfunction Hyperactivity Anxiety Depression Scores demonstrate how significantly symptoms impact the child’s functioning
at school, with family, and with peers. Since it is not unusual for children and teens to have some difficulty with things like focusing throughout the school day, arguing with authority figures, or occasionally forgetting assignments, these scales help providers determine when a child’s difficulties go beyond what is developmentally appropriate. In
addition to these scales, the Conners 4 measures how closely the client’s presentation matches the diagnostic criteria for ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and conduct disorder. The Conners 4–ADHD Index then indicates how likely a client has ADHD based on these scores. This helps the evaluator determine whether a diagnosis of ADHD
can explain symptoms the client is experiencing or if another diagnosis is a better fit. Finally, the Conners 4 has validity scales that screen for consistency (making sure that the person completing the form did not answer randomly) as well as for possible over or under-reporting of symptoms.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, states that: A child or adolescent must have six symptoms of either inattentive or hyperactive-type ADHD in order to meet criteria and be diagnosed Older adolescents must have five or more symptoms. If a client meets criteria based on both the inattentive and
hyperactive/impulsive symptoms, they can be diagnosed with ADHD Combined Type. Scores from the Conners 4 provide data that an evaluator uses in the context of a client’s background, history, and other assessment data to determine a diagnosis. It does not single-handedly determine whether or not someone has ADHD. According to MHS, the
Conners 4 provides several useful updates from the previous edition: Improved Cultural Competency: First, developers incorporated new research about ADHD presentation across cultures and ethnicities to improve cultural competency and diagnostic accuracy for BIPOC children who, historically, have been misdiagnosed. Allowed for greater gender
expression: Clients have the option to choose “other” as a gender instead of just “male” and “female” as well. Better rating scales: Instead of just screening for possible anxiety and depression, the Conners 4 has norm-referenced rating scales for these symptoms to provide more information about a child’s symptoms. Similarly, instead of simply asking
if a child has difficulty in different areas, it calculates how severely a child is impaired at home, school, and in social settings. It provides additional questions about safety concerns and sleep issues as well. Updated Language: The Conners 4 uses updated language to be more inclusive and easier for respondents to understand. The Conners 4 does not
independently determine whether or not someone has ADHD.
An evaluator may administer a cognitive assessment to get more information about learning, functioning, and abilities. They may use a test of sustained attention to observe a child or teen’s ability to focus in real-time. Depending on the child’s age, the evaluator may use a personality test to see if they meet criteria for another diagnosis in addition to
or instead of ADHD. As with previous versions of this measure, the Conners 4 measures observable behaviors. Since ADHD is a neurodevelopmental difference, it can impact behavior. However, some people with ADHD may mask or hide their symptoms and may get a false negative (test results might not be consistent with ADHD).
The Conners 4 can be completed on paper or online. Evaluators may send an encrypted link via email, allow you to complete the Conners 4 on a computer in their office, or provide a printed form. Like the Conners 3, the Conners 4 utilizes a series of Likert scale questions with the options: Not true at all/NeverJust a little true/OccasionallyPretty much
true/OftenVery much true/Very often If you complete the Conners 4 parent form (answering questions about your child), answer the questions honestly regarding your child’s behavior and what they shared with you. If you are completing the self-report form (if you are the child or teen being evaluated), answer honestly and know that there are no
right or wrong responses about your own experience. If you are stuck on a question, you have the choice to skip it. However, if you skip several questions, the evaluator might not be able to score all the scales.It is essential to ask the evaluator questions about the measure or your evaluation. The evaluator can help you understand the questions on the
Conners 4. The Conners 4 uses online scoring and yields T-scores, a type of norm-referenced rating. If you complete the Conners 4 online, the software scores your completed test and sends scores to the evaluator automatically. If you complete a paper form, the evaluator will input your responses into the scoring program. If the validity scales
indicate that the respondent answered inconsistently or possibly over or under-reported their symptoms, the score report will alert the evaluator that this is a possibility.
The evaluator will then determine whether or not they can still use the resulting scores to help determine whether or not the client has ADHD.
Sometimes, a child with low self-esteem might elevate for over-reporting, or a child who is worried about pleasing adults may elevate for under-reporting. A parent or teacher who is overwhelmed by a child’s behaviors might unintentionally over-report symptoms as well. After completing an evaluation, a provider should meet with the parent and child
to go over the scores and answer any questions you have about the results. Remember that inattention, restlessness, executive dysfunction, and other symptoms that occur with ADHD are not unique to one diagnosis. Even if a client does not meet the diagnostic criteria for ADHD, this does not mean they do not have these symptoms. If you or your
child is not diagnosed but you still suspect ADHD, it is okay to get a second opinion from another evaluator, since it is possible to be misdiagnosed.