Abstract
Objective This review aims to provide researchers with a contemporary and comprehensive understanding of the current state of behavioural rating scales used in evaluating adult ADHD for research purposes. The objective is to offer guidance that enables researchers to make informed decisions when selecting the most suitable scale for their studies. Moreover, our intention was to map and compare these scales, with a specific focus on detecting feigned or invalid symptom presentation—an aspect notably overlooked in prior reviews.
Method We reviewed the most recent literature on behavioural rating scales for adult ADHD assessment. We evaluated the scales and compared them based on their psychometric properties and the range of symptoms that they assessed.
Results The Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS), Mind Excessively Wandering Scale (MEWS), and Wender Utah Rating Scale (WURS) have emerged as the most accurate measures for assessing adult ADHD. Moreover, there is an increasing emphasis on the development of assessment tools, either integrated within existing scales or as independent measures, to evaluate feigning or invalid symptom presentation. In that regard, stand-alone measures have demonstrated greater effectiveness compared to embedded measures, with the ADHD Symptom Infrequency Scale (ASIS) being identified as the most accurate scale for the detection of feigning.
Conclusion Based on this review, we provide recommendations for the behavioural rating scales with the most accurate measurement of relevant variables in research-related settings.
Competing Interest Statement
R. Mukherjee has delivered presentations for several pharmaceutical companies specializing in ADHD, whereby the funds generated were specifically allocated to the neurodevelopmental teams, with no direct financial compensation received by the author. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
The work was supported by the MRC Impact Acceleration Grant to Roi Cohen Kadosh.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
We have collectively reviewed and incorporated key suggestions, primarily focusing on adjusting the structure to align more closely with a review paper rather than a study paper. Additionally, we have heightened the emphasis on the review's overarching aim.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
