4.6 Review

Diagnostic controversies in adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 161, 期 11, 页码 1948-1956

出版社

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.161.11.1948

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

objective: While it is increasingly recognized that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) persists into adulthood, there is no consensus on diagnostic criteria for adult ADHD. in this article the authors describe and contrast competing approaches for diagnosis of adult ADHD used in clinical and research practice. Method: The authors review the Wender Utah criteria, DSM criteria, and laboratory assessment strategies for adult ADHD. Advantages and disadvantages of each approach are described, and recommendations are made as a basis for clinical assessment and future research. Results: Both the Wender Utah criteria and DSM-based approaches identify significantly impaired ADHD adults with neurocognitive, biological, and treatment response patterns similar to pediatric ADHD patients. The Wender Utah criteria established the need for retrospective childhood diagnosis and recognize developmental differences in adult symptom expression. The Wender Utah criteria fail to identify patients with predominately inattentive symptoms, exclude some patients with significant comorbid psychopathology, and diverge significantly from the DSM conception of ADHD. The DSM criteria have never been validated in adults, do not include developmentally appropriate symptoms and thresholds for adults, and fail to identify some significantly impaired adults who are likely to benefit from treatment. There are insufficient scientific data to justify use of laboratory assessment measures, including neuropsychological tests and brain imaging, in diagnosing adult ADHD. Russell A. Barkley, Ph.D. Conclusions: Adult ADHD remains a clinical diagnosis. Clinicians should be flexible in application of the current ADHD criteria to adults. Additional research is required to validate adult diagnostic criteria.

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

4.6
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