Test Review

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Test Review 28(6) 598­–602

© 2010 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
http://jpa.sagepub.com

C. Keith Conners
Conners 3rd Edition
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, 2008.

Reviewed by: Grace S. Kao and Hillary M. Thomas

Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
DOI:10.1177/0734282909360011

Test Description
General Description
Conners 3rd Edition is the most updated version of a series of measures for assessing attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and common comorbid problems/disorders in children
and adolescents ranging from 6 to 18 years of age. Related problems that the test helps assess
include executive dysfunction, learning problems, aggression, and problems with peer/family
relations. Diagnostic criteria for the disruptive behavior disorders are also part of the scales. The
test consists of self-report, parent, and teacher questionnaires and items that are based largely on
the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th Edition, Text
Revision (DSM-IV-TR) and principles of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases
and Health-Related Problems (ICD). Theoretical foundations based on specific features of
ADHD include emotional, social, cognitive, behavioral, sensorimotor, adaptive functioning, and
treatment aspects. The test authors focused on clear identification of these features and espe-
cially noted positive impacts of ADHD, such as enthusiasm and creativity.

Specific Description
As a multiple informant assessment, the Conners 3 makes use of three separate sources of infor-
mation: self-report, parent report, and teacher report. Rating scales are administered to teachers
and parents for rating the child. If the child is 8 to 18 years of age, he or she also completes a
self-report form. For each report, there is a full-length response form, a short response form, and
an index form. The two index forms (the Conners 3 ADHD Index and Global Index) each include
10 items that differentiate youth with ADHD from normal youth and offer additional subscale
scores for ADHD detection.
The Conners 3 has multiple scales that help assess ADHD and related problems. Along with the
content scales (Inattention, Hyperactivity/Impulsivity, Learning Problems/Executive Functioning,
Aggression, Peer Relations, and Family Relations), the DSM-IV-TR Symptom Scales (ADHD
Inattentive, ADHD Hyperactive-Impulsive, ADHD Combined, Conduct Disorder, and Oppositional
Defiant Disorder) are also included. The validity scales include Positive Impression, Negative
Impression, and an Inconsistency Index. Other scales provide additional information and include
screener items measuring anxiety and depression, and Severe Conduct Critical and Impairment
Items all ask for supporting contextual information.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016

Test Review 599

Scoring System
The Conners 3 provides options for scoring the tests by hand, online, and/or by software. Noted
features and advantages of computer scoring include time reduction, accuracy verification, and
an immediate generation of reports. All test items use a 4-point Likert-type scale, and higher
scores are associated with a greater number and/or frequency of concerns. Specifically, 0 reflects
a response of not at all, 1 a response of just a little true, 2 a response of pretty much true, and 3
a response of very much true.
Scores are calculated as raw scores and then converted to standardized scores for reporting and
comparison. T scores and percentiles allow for easier comparison of strengths and weaknesses
and for comparison among peers. In scoring, age and gender effects are taken into account for
improved accuracy. The authors emphasize inclusion of both relative and absolute perspectives
for scoring: comparison to peers in the form of T scores for the former and a DSM-IV-TR total
symptomatic count for the latter.

Test Materials and Stimuli

For the examiner, the test is quick to administer and easy to score. The only test materials included
are a test manual and questionnaire protocols that aid in easy setup and travel. Furthermore, each
protocol is attached to a carbon sheet and other scoring guides that allow for easy interpretation
and scoring. All that is required of the test raters is the ability to read at a sixth-grade level (for
purposes of comprehension and strengthening test validity). If they are not able to do this, the
test items can be read to them.

Technical Adequacy
Test Construction

In the initial planning stage, goals were developed and items were generated and categorized. In the
pilot study phase, data from a pilot sample of 247 parents, 254 teachers, and 254 youth were col-
lected, reviewed, and analyzed. Finally, normative data from the general population and clinical
groups were collected and matched with the pilot study data. For the normative sample, data were
collected from 1,200 parents, 1,200 teachers, and 1,000 youth. These data were representative of the
U.S. population according to the 2000 U.S. Census as stratified by age, gender, and race/ethnicity.

Item Analysis
The item generation stage resulted in a large item pool to be considered for each rater. A new
content structure was created to guide item generation. It represented constructs directly relevant
to ADHD, its associated features, and the most frequently co-occurring group of disorders.
Selection of items was based on factor analyses conducted with pilot and normative study data,
and items that did not reflect a strong correlation with intended factors of interest were eliminated
accordingly. Because the Conners 3 includes a Spanish version of the parent and self-report
forms, a leading Hispanic psychologist participated in the review process to ensure that all items
were appropriately translated.

Standardization Sample
Data collection for the standardization sample occurred between March 2006 and August 2007.
The normative sample includes 50 boys and 50 girls from each age-group. This includes the 6 to 18

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016

600 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 28(6)

age range for the parent and teacher forms and the 8 to 18 age range for the self-report forms.
The developers took care to ensure that the sample demographics closely matched the U.S.
population according to the 2000 U.S. Census. The effects of various demographic variables on
the normative samples’ scale scores were analyzed, which revealed effects for age and gender
of the youth. This resulted in norms created with separate age and gender groups.

Reliability Estimates
The Conners 3 reliability was assessed by Gallant et al. (2007) and Gallant (2008). These studies
evaluated the internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and interrater reliability. Internal consis-
tency was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. For the parent, teacher, and self-report forms, mean
alphas for the Content scales were .91, .94, and .88, respectively. Mean reliability coefficients for
the DSM-IV-TR Symptom scales were .90, .90, and .85 for the parent, teacher, and self-report
forms. Finally, Cronbach’s alphas for the validity scales were .90, .72, and .56 for the three forms.
For test–retest reliability, two separate administrations of the test were given between 2- and
4-week intervals. Mean correlation coefficients for Content scales were .85, .94, and .88 for the
parent, teacher, and self-report forms, respectively. For the DSM-IV-TR Symptom scales, the
correlation scores were .89, .90, and .85 for the three forms.
Interrater reliability was also assessed using correlation scores, and moderate to strong levels
of rater agreement were found across all scales, indicating high levels of consistency between
parent–parent and/or teacher–teacher ratings of a child or adolescent. Mean Content scale
correlations were .81 for the parent form and .73 for the teacher form, and DSM-IV-TR Symptom
scale scores were .84 for the parent form and .70 for the teacher form.
Overall, given reliability scores are high, and appropriate reliability assessment criteria seem
to be met. Areas with the lowest reliability scores are between parent–parent and teacher–teacher
score reports. In the future, studies by other parties (other than Gallant) should be conducted to
ensure evidence of score reliability.

Validity Estimates
Validity evidence was evaluated using factorial validity, across-informant correlations, convergent/
divergent validity, and discriminative validity. The general population and clinical samples were
used to determine factorial validity. Exploratory factor analyses (EFAs), confirmatory factor
analyses (CFAs), and the computation of scale intercorrelations were used to assess the factorial
validity. The EFAs indicated that the general factor structure of the three forms remained con-
sistent across the demographic groups. The CFAs indicated that the parent and teacher models
had adequate fit but that the teacher indices were slightly lower. Most of the scale intercorrela-
tions were moderate in size, meeting theoretical expectations.
Across-informant correlations were significant, with high consistency between various raters
of the same youth. The mean parent-to-teacher rating was .60 (with a range of .52-.67), the mean
parent-to-youth correlation was .56 (with a range of .49-.62), and the mean teacher-to-youth
correlation was .48 (with a range of .43-.56).
To test the convergent and divergent validity, scores from the Conners 3 were compared and
contrasted with scores from the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition, the
Conners’ Rating Scales–Revised, the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment, and
the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning. In general, the correlations indicated
that the constructs converged and diverged in the expected directions. Samples of significant
findings are displayed in Table 1.
Analyses of covariance and discriminant function analyses (DFAs) were conducted to test
discriminative validity. Analyses revealed that the Conners 3 scores accurately discriminated

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016

Test Review 601

Table 1. Selected Convergent and Divergent Validity Correlations

Conners Scales Other Measures Correlation Range (p < .05)

Inattention ASEBA: Attention Problems .72 to .96

Hyperactivity BASC-2: Hyperactivity .41 to .91
Learning Problems BASC-2: Learning Problems .66 to .92
Executive Functioning BRIEF: Plan/Organize .70 to .87
Aggression ASEBA: Aggressive Behavior .58 to .93
Peer Relations BASC-2: Social Skills -.35 to -.57

Note: ASEBA = Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment; BASC-2 = Behavior Assessment System for
Children, Second Edition; BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning.

between the clinical and general population groups, and the DFA scores revealed a good overall
classification rate for the scores (77.61% for the Parent report, 75.59% for Teacher report, and
72.92% for Self-Report).

Commentary and Recommendations

Test Description and Materials

The Conners 3 is a helpful assessment tool for ADHD and comorbid problems. With multiple
contextual aspects and ADHD features taken under consideration, the Conners 3 contributes
valuable data for ADHD assessment. Ease and practicality are significant advantages and defin-
ing characteristics of the test. The test protocols themselves are designed for ease and efficiency.
The items on each questionnaire are neatly organized and clearly indicate where choices should
be marked. Additionally, there is no evidence of race or sex bias on the questionnaires. The test
manual is also clearly organized. It provides content ranging from the history to a complete
technical breakdown of the assessment and includes graphs and charts that aid in interpretation
of scores and recommendations for intervention and research purposes.

Technical Adequacy
The main concern for technical adequacy is whether the Conners 3 has achieved a sufficient
measure of construct validity. Although construct validity was referenced in the validity section
of the manual, it should have been more adequately tested. Various validity measurements and
scores are given, but the question of whether the test is truly able to assess and indicate symp-
toms and features of ADHD remains unclear. Though the Conners 3 was correlated with other
measures of childhood psychopathology, it would also be beneficial for more comparison stud-
ies with strictly ADHD measures to be conducted.

Overall Strengths and Weaknesses

Various strengths can be listed for this edition of the Conners. First, the ease and time efficiency
of test administration is a huge advantage for widespread use. Minimal training is required to
administer the test, and different forms can be used, depending on time constraints. The authors
claim that the full-length form takes approximately only 20 minutes. The test was constructed
taking into account both home and school settings, and the test authors were careful to calculate

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016

602 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 28(6)

age and gender norms in collecting a normative sample, thus improving generalizability. The
sample size itself is large and representative of the U.S. population. Another plus is that well-
translated Spanish versions of the parent and self-report forms are available.
In terms of weaknesses, several concerns should be noted. First, the language and wording of
some of the test items in the self-report may not be developmentally appropriate for younger
children. Questions such as “I have trouble following instructions” and “I have trouble finishing
things” are subjective and need further clarification. Furthermore, the language and range used
for the scales are questionable. The scale language categories are vague (e.g., 1 = Just a little
true, 2 = Pretty much true) and need to be more specifically defined. The scoring range itself,
0.0 to 3.0, is also problematic due to limited range.

Recommendations for Use

The Conners 3 may be used for a wide variety of assessment and research purposes. Intervention
applications may involve developing an individualized treatment plan, monitoring treatment
response for an individual, and/or evaluation of intervention programs. It is also important to
note that use of the Conners 3 is not recommended for “individuals who are disoriented or
severely impaired, who possess poor reading abilities, or who are not proficient in English (or
Spanish for the Spanish versions)” (Conners, 2008, p. 11). All in all, in combination with other
psychometric measures, interviews, and clinical observations, the Conners 3 may serve as a valu-
able tool for ADHD assessment.

References
Conners, K. C. (2008). Conners 3rd edition. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
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.
Gallant, S., Conners, C. K., Rzepa, S. R., Pitkanen, J., Marocco, M., & Sitarenios, G. (2007, August). Psyc­
hometric properties of the Conners 3. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psyc­
hological Association, San Francisco.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016