4.2 Article

ADHD symptoms in children with FXS

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A
卷 140A, 期 21, 页码 2275-2288

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.31388

关键词

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; DSM-IV; fragile X syndrome; fragile X mental retardation protein; child behavior checklist; problem behavior

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [1-R01-HD40602-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parent- and teacher-report of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms were examined using problem behavior and DSM-IV symptom inventory questionnaires for 63 children with full mutation fragile X syndrome (FXS) and 56 children without disabilities matched on mental age (MA). Prevalence rates of ADHD symptoms varied depending on type of measure (problem behavior or DSM-IV criteria), subscale (ADHD-inattentive or ADHD-hyperactive), scoring method (continuous T-scores or categorical scores based on DSM-IV algorithm), and rater (parent or teacher). Overall, 54-59% of boys with FXS met diagnostic behavioral criteria for either ADHD-inattentive type only, ADHD-hyperactive type only, or ADHD-combined type based on parent or teacher report. Boys with FXS were rated as having clinically high scores or met diagnostic criteria at higher rates than expected for the general population and had higher raw scores than their AM-matched peers. Parent ratings of boys with FXS resulted in higher ADHD-inattentive type and ADHD-hyperactive type T-scores than teachers. Boys who were rated as meeting DSM-IV criteria were more likely to be taking psychotropic medication and to have younger mental ages. Parents were substantially more likely than teachers to rate boys as meeting DSM-IV criteria for ADHD-inattentive type, while teachers were only slightly more likely than parents to rate boys as meeting DSM-IV criteria for ADHD-hyperactive type. Teachers were more likely than parents to rate boys as meeting DSM-IV criteria for ADHD when boys had lower levels of FMRP. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据