Adhd Manual

Attention-Deficit
ficit
Hyperactivity Disorder:
A School-Based
Evaluation Manual
Jim Wright, Syracuse (NY) City Schools
About This Book

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual was first issued in April1995. The manual was used by the
Syracuse (NY) City School District to train its school psychologists to work collaboratively with other
members of the school multidisciplinary Evaluation Team to carry out school-based ADHD assessments.
Although the manual was originally intended as a guide for completing ADHD evaluations in school settings
in New York State, much of the content applies to evaluators working in any of our nations public schools.
In April 2002, the manual underwent minor re-editing and reformatting in preparation for posting on the
Intervention Central web site as a free, downloadable Adobe Acrobat file. The content, though, is
essentially unchanged from the 1995 edition of ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual.
About The Author

Jim Wright is a school psychologist who lives and works in Syracuse, NY. He is
presently a program developer and staff trainer for the School-Based Intervention Team
(SBIT) Project for the Syracuse City School District. He also serves as the Co-Chair of
the Central New York School Violence Prevention Network, an affiliation of school- and
community-based professionals who meet monthly to share strategies for ensuring that
schools remain safe places to learn. Jim has presented extensively to teachers, school
administrators, and parents in the Syracuse area and throughout New York State on
effective academic and behavioral interventions, curriculum-based assessment, and
violence prevention.
You can email Jim at: jim@jimwrightonline.com
Terms of Use
This resource guide, ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual, is available for nonprofit educational
purposes only. Reproduction for resale is expressly prohibited without written permission from the author.
Copies may be made for educational purposes. This document is available solely from the Intervention
Central web site (http://www.interventioncentral.org).
ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual
Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)
Section I: Schools and the Assessment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ........................ 3

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3
History of ADHD As a Disorder.............................................................................................. 3
Current Clinical Definition of ADHD ........................................................................................ 4
Contributions of DSM to a School-based Assessment of ADHD: The Debate ............................... 5
Support for the DSM........................................................................................................ 5
Criticisms of the DSM....................................................................................................... 7
Relation of DSM to the School-based ADHD Assessment ..................................................... 8
ADHD in the Schools ........................................................................................................... 8
Medical versus Multi-Disciplinary Diagnosis ..................................................................... 10
Purpose of the Manual .................................................................................................. 11
Section II: Conducting the School-Based ADHD Assessment ....................................................... 13
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 13
Multitrait, Multimethod Assessment .................................................................................... 13
Dimensions of Bandwidth and Fidelity ................................................................................. 14
Comorbidity...................................................................................................................... 15
Assessing Childhood Disorders: Special Considerations......................................................... 15
Assembling the ADHD Assessment Battery........................................................................... 17
Documentation of General-Education Interventions........................................................... 17
Behavior Rating Scales .................................................................................................. 18
Interviews .................................................................................................................... 19
Direct Observation ........................................................................................................ 20
Permanent Products...................................................................................................... 23
Screening and Formal Evaluation ........................................................................................ 24
Screening..................................................................................................................... 24
Formal ADHD Evaluation ................................................................................................ 25
Safeguarding Parent Rights in the ADHD Evaluation .......................................................... 26
Section III: Interpreting ADHD Assessment Data in a School Setting............................................ 27
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 27
Clinical vs. Actuarial Judgment............................................................................................ 27
Making the ADHD Diagnosis ............................................................................................... 29
Chronicity..................................................................................................................... 29
Diagnostic Criteria and Subtyping ................................................................................... 29
Pervasiveness .............................................................................................................. 30
Differential and Comorbid Diagnoses .............................................................................. 30
ADHD and the School-based Assessment Process: Guidelines for Decision-Making .................. 32
Step 1: Determine whether the student qualifies for special-education services under the terms
of IDEA for a condition other than ADHD.......................................................................... 32
Step 2: Determine whether the child meets DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for ADHD. ................. 33
Step 3: Determine if the ADHD is so severe as significantly to impair the child's school
functioning due to "limited strength, vitality, or alertness"................................................ 33
Step 4: Determine whether the child's ADHD symptoms present an impediment to school
functioning sufficient to warrant services under Section 504. ............................................ 34
Difficulties with the ADHD Diagnosis.................................................................................... 35
References........................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix A: Converting ADHD behavior rating scale scores into z scores.A-1

Appendix B: ADHD Direct Observation System...B-1
Appendix C: Teacher ADHD Interview....C-1
Appendix D: Daily ADHD Behavioral Report Card.......D-1
Appendix E: Decision Rules for Diagnosing OHI/ADHD........E-1
Section I: Schools and the Assessment of

Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Introduction
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a syndrome first appearing in
childhood that is characterized by abnormal levels of inattention, hyperactivity, or both
(Barkley, 1990). Estimates of the prevalence of the disorder in the general childhood-age
population run from 3 to 5% (APA, 1994; Barkley, 1990), suggesting that most classrooms
may very well have at least one child with ADHD.
Despite the fact that children with ADHD form only a small minority of all students, they
frequently come to the attention of their teachers because they display a high degree of
externalizing behaviors (i.e., off-task behaviors that are easily observed, may distract other
students, and can be disruptive to the functioning of the classroom). In fact, because the
symptoms associated with attentional disorders appear to be most apparent and
problematic in educational settings, ADHD has even been defined as "a school-based
disorder" (Atkins & Pelham, 1991; p. 202). Consequently, students with ADHD are also
quite regularly brought to the attention of the school psychologist and other members of a
building child study team by concerned teachers or parents, who in addition to concerns
about these children's disruptive behaviors may note academic underperformance,
disorganization, and social-skill deficits.
History of ADHD As a Disorder

Syndromal constructs that closely resemble the current conception of ADHD have
been around for a number of years. Clement (1966) lists a range of terms that appeared in
the early research literature, including Hyperkinetic Behavior Syndrome, Hyperexcitability
Syndrome, and Attention Disorders. Minimal Brain Dysfunction, or MBD, (Clement, 1966)
enjoyed wide popularity for a time as a diagnostic category; the term encompassed
learning difficulties, inattention, and patterns of hyperactive or impulsive behaviors. By the
early 1970s, however, MBD was largely abandoned as its proposed symptomatology was
absorbed into the separate childhood syndromes of learning disabilities and attentional
disorders (Epstein, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, & Woolston, 1991).
A syndrome with a clear resemblance to ADHD was first described as Hyperkinetic
Reaction of Childhood in the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (APA, 1968), the widely consulted taxonomy of psychological and
behavioral syndromes. Since entering the DSM taxonomic system 26 years ago, some
variant of a childhood disorder relating to inattention and hyperactivity has remained in
subsequent editions of the manual to the present day. The DSM-III (APA, 1980)
highlighted the symptom of inattention as a unifying element (Epstein et al, 1991), with the
syndrome renamed Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). The DSM-llI definition of ADD
contained two subtypes: Attention Deficit with Hyperactivity and Attention Deficit without
Hyperactivity. In the DSM-llI-R (APA, 1987), the subtypes were dropped, in response to
criticism that they had not been empirically validated (McBurnett et al., 1993). The revised
syndrome, renamed Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, required the presence of any
8 of 14 diagnostic criteria to be identified.
The adoption of specific ADHD diagnostic criteria in the DSM-III (APA, 1980) marked a
watershed in the development of guidelines to evaluate the syndrome. Prior to DSM-III,
attentional disorders were identified based solely on a brief DSM description, without
access to a core list of symptoms, limiting the ability of the clinician to objectively measure
the presence and severity of the disorder and ultimately compromising the reliability of the
diagnosis (McBurnett et al., 1993). DSM-III, however, listed specific, behaviorally defined
criteria for use in the identification of childhood and adult disorders, along with decision
rules for completing differential diagnoses. The signal advantage of the inclusion of
diagnostic criteria for ADD, as well as other childhood disorders, is that the reliability in
measuring a behaviorally derived construct becomes greater as the number of internally
consistent indicators of that disorder increase (McBurnett, Lahey, & Pfiffner, 1993). The
appearance of behaviorally defined indicators of ADHD in the third and later editions of
DSM spurred the creation of a number of behavior rating scales and direct observation
systems whose purpose is to quantify indices of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity.
Current Clinical Definition of ADHD

According to the fourth and current edition of the DSM (DSM-IV), AttentionDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder is a disorder characterized by a "persistent pattern of
inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that is more frequent and severe than is
typically observed in individuals at a comparable level of development" (APA, 1994; p. 78).
There are 18 individual diagnostic criteria that distinguish ADHD from either normal child
development or other childhood disorders. (The complete list of indicators appears in
Table 1 on page 6.) The diagnostic criteria are divided into two groups: nine are
considered primarily symptoms of inattention, while the remaining nine are considered
indicators of hyperactive or impulsive behavior.
Based upon the findings of recent research (McBurnett, et al. 1993), the DSM- IV
relies upon a series of decision rules for diagnosing ADHD that allows for the identification
of three possible subtypes (APA, 1994).
If a combination of at least 6 of the 9 inattention symptoms and 6 of the 9

hyperactivity-impulsivity indicators are endorsed, the client should be diagnosed as
ADHD, Combined Type.
If at least 6 of the 9 inattention symptoms are endorsed, but fewer than 6 hyperactiveimpulsive indicators are found to be present, the client should be identified as ADHD,
Predominantly Inattentive Type.
If at least 6 of the 9 hyperactive-impulsive symptoms are endorsed, but fewer than 6

inattention indicators are confirmed, the client should be identified as ADHD,
Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Type. Because this last subtype stresses
hyperactivity-impulsivity in the absence of clinically significant inattention, its debut in
DSM-IV represents a departure from ADHD categories or subtypes appearing in
earlier editions of the DSM. The innovation addresses the reality that many clinicians
diagnose ADHD in children who appear highly impulsive or hyperactive even when
inattention does not appear to be a presenting concern (McBurnett et al., 1993).
DSM-IV also contains a separate category, ADHD Not Otherwise Specified, for "disorders
with prominent symptoms of inattention or hyperactivity-impulsivity" (AP A, 1994; p. 85),
but this category lacks diagnostic criteria and will not be referred to again in this manual.
In addition to the requirement that a certain number of symptoms be endorsed, the
diagnosis of ADHD also depends upon verification of several other key indicators (APA,
1994).
First, evidence must exist that at least some of the symptoms were apparent and
contributed to some degree of functional impairment when the child was younger than
7 years.
Second, the diagnostician completing the evaluation must be able to document

impairment from the ADHD symptoms in at least two settings (for example, in school
and at home).
Third, the child's inattention or hyperactive-impulsive behaviors must be shown to

interfere with present functioning in social, academic, or occupational areas.
Contributions of DSM to a School-based Assessment of ADHD: The

Debate
Reliance upon DSM-IV criteria in the diagnosis of ADHD marks a departure from
common practice for most school psychologists, who, when arriving at diagnoses, have
traditionally referred to definitions of learning-related disabilities outlined in federal
legislation (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) and the regulations of
state education departments. The evolving taxonomy of childhood mental disorders
contained in DSM has sparked considerable debate among researchers in both clinical
and school psychology. Proponents argue that DSM brings a welcome order and
uniformity to the diagnostic process, while opponents claim that DSM fails to contribute
substantively to effective school-based interventions. It may appear to the reader that a
review of the debate about the utility of DSM in diagnosis and treatment of childhood
mental disorders is somewhat tangential to the school-based assessment of ADHD.
However, knowledgeable evaluators should be familiar with possible limitations, as well as
strengths, of the ADHD assessment process. Because the diagnosis of ADHD is ultimately
grounded in criteria found in the DSM, main points of the debate about the utility of the
DSM system are presented below.
Support for the DSM.

The DSM represents an ambitious attempt to catalog childhood mental disorders, the
ideal goal being the compilation of an exhaustive listing of psychological syndromes with
no overlap of diagnostic criteria across separate disorders (Cantwell, 1980). As a single
Table 1: DSMDSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria for AttentionAttention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

(APA, 1994)
1. Symptoms of inattention: Six or more of the following symptoms of inattention have persisted for
at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level:
a. often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless
mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities;
b. often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play
activities;
c. often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly;
d. often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish
schoolwork, or chores (not due to oppositional behavior or
failure to understand instructions);
e. often has difficulty organizing tasks or activities;
f. often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that
require sustained mental effort (such as schoolwork or
homework);
g. often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (e.g. toys,
school assignment);
h. is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli;
i. is often forgetful in daily activities
2. Symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity: Six or more of the following symptoms of hyperactivityimpulsivity have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent
with developmental level:
Hyperactivity
a. often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat;
b. often leaves seat in classroom or in other situations in which
remaining seated is expected;
c. often runs about or climbs excessively in situations in which it
is inappropriate;
d. often has difficulty playing or engaging in leisure activities
quietly;
e. is often "on the go" or often acts as if "driven by a motor";
f. often talks excessively
Impulsivity
g. often blurts out answers before questions have been
completed;
h. often has difficulty awaiting turn;
i. often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., butts into
conversations or games).
In addition to the above behavioral criteria, the student must (1) d isplay hyperactive-impulsive or
inattentive symptoms severe enough to cause impairment prior to the age of 7 years; (2) display
impairment from symptoms in two or more settings (e.g., school and home); (3) must demonstrate
clinically significant impairment in social or academic functioning; and (4) not have another disorder
that can account for the behavioral symptoms.
Source: American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
recognized standard for the definition of disorders such as ADHD, the DSM-IV can serve
to combat the proliferation of unsubstantiated, folk indicators of childhood pathology. (As
one illustration of the potential for uncontrolled drift toward multiple "symptoms," Goodman
and Poillion (1992) examined 39 general informational and research articles about ADHD.
The authors discovered some 69 general characteristics purported by the various authors
to be diagnostic behavioral markers for students with attentional disorders!)
The adoption of the DSM definitional standard for identifying ADHD provides a uniform
"code of communication" (Rutter & Shaffer, 1980) between researchers, clinicians, and
educators that promotes the wide sharing of information and establishment of a
consensual understanding of the disorder (First, Frances, Widiger, Pincus, & Davis, 1992).
In successive revisions, the DSM has adopted atheoretical criteria and descriptive terms
(Spitzer & Cantwell, 1980) to foster its use by practitioners in a variety of settings,
irrespective of theoretical orientation.
Current directions in school psychological practice stress the importance of models of
indirect service delivery , including consultation with teachers and the careful
implementation and monitoring of behaviorally oriented pre-referral interventions (Deno,
1986; Reschley, 1987). Some researchers claim that DSM- defined childhood syndromes
such as ADHD mesh reasonably well with a behavior-analytic focus in psychological
consultation because diagnostic criteria are stated in behavioral terms (First et al., 1992).
The cluster of behavioral traits that define each childhood syndrome can also serve as a
useful starting point for the mapping of a more specific pattern of behaviors unique to the
individual client (Hayes & Follette, 1992). Furthermore, identification of these behavioral
traits may be useful in generating effective classroom interventions.
Criticisms of the DSM

The DSM is based upon a syndromal, medical model of human behavior that focuses
on variables located within the client (Krasner,1992). While one could argue that the
existence of predefined behavioral syndromes might speed a clinicians diagnostic work,
the nearly universal acceptance of formal categories such as ADHD may also influence the
evaluator prematurely to focus in on a certain narrowly defined set of behaviors in the
client (Cone, 1986) and perhaps to overlook other equally significant behaviors that do not
fall neatly within that formal category. A related criticism of the DSM series is that each
revision of the manual (e.g., APA, 1968; 1980; 1987; 1994) has swelled with a growing
number of major categories and subtypes of mental disorder (Rutter & Shaffer, 1980).
Although the inter-evaluator reliability has been found to be fairly high for broad diagnostic
categories, reliability tends to decline among evaluators as they attempt to diagnose
subtypes of those categories (Rutter & Shaffer, 1980). Diagnostic criteria for any particular
category of mental disorder also vary considerably in the amount of empirical evidence to
support their inclusion (Rutter & Shaffer, 1980), yet DSM-IV provides no indication of those
diagnostic markers that serve as the most valid and reliable indicators of a specific
syndrome.
The DSM-IV also requires that the clinician make categorical ("yes/ no") judgments
about whether a client displays a specific criterion behavioral symptom. A more realistic
assumption is that behavioral variation among individuals can be plotted along a
continuum, with pathological symptoms differentiated from "normal" behavior in degree
rather than in kind (Achenbach, 1980; Persons, 1986). Dichotomous response categories
such as those used in the DSM-IV cannot isolate important fine-grained information about
the quality of observed behaviors, including frequency , intensity , and duration (Edelbrock,
1983).
The developers of the DSM-IV were able to test at least some of the proposed
diagnostic criteria for the revised manual by consulting comprehensive reviews of the
relevant research literature, reanalyzing data collected in earlier studies, and running
diagnostic field trials (APA, 1994). When, however, questions about diagnostic criteria
arose for which no clear empirical data were available to provide an answer, the manuals
developers sought consensus among clinicians to settle these questions--suggesting that
DSM developers at times depended upon the working group's "clinical judgment" in the
place of objective evidence (Folette, Routs, & Hayes, 1992). Studies have repeatedly
demonstrated, however, that actuarial diagnostic guidelines based on clear decision rules
and empirical data are usually superior to the best clinical judgments of practitioners
(Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989; Folette et al., 1992).
In a strongly worded criticism of the application of DSM (specifically the DSM-llI-R) to
education, Gresham and Gansle (1992) state that the manual is tied to a "medical model"
of mental disorders that supplies little information useful in the evaluation of students for
educationally related disabilities. The authors also claim that DSM diagnoses do not have
acceptable reliability , lack an adequate database of indicators that are unique to single
diagnostic categories, play virtually no part in governing the nature of special education
placement, and fail to contribute information helpful in the formulating of student
"treatments" or interventions.
Relation of DSM to the School-based ADHD Assessment

Despite continuing debate about the role that DSM should be given in the diagnosis
and treatment of special populations within the schools, the reality is that the DSM-IV now
stands as the source of current, universally accepted criteria for the identification of ADHD.
It would be reasonable, then, for the school-based ADHD assessment team to recognize
the primacy of DSM criteria as indicators that define and "anchor" the disorder. At the
same time, the diagnostic power of these simple, categorical indicators can be enhanced
considerably through the adoption of a comprehensive multitrait, multimethod assessment
process (Campbell & Fisk, 1959; Gresham, 1983) that (1) uses norm-referenced
behavioral measures when possible to compare target students to their peers, and (2)
investigates the interaction between the child and the classroom learning environment in
order better to understand the students behavior problems or skill deficits. Such a process
is outlined in later sections of this manual.
ADHD in the Schools

Until recently, school districts generally have not recognized it as their responsibility to
identify and provide appropriate support or remedial services to those children with ADHD
whose academic performance and school adjustment are being seriously undermined by
the symptoms of the disorder (Atkins & Pelham, 1991; Hakola, 1992). Special-education
categories defined under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) did not
include ADHD as a separate educationally related disability. IDEA limited the categories of
educational disability under which federal funds would be reimbursed to school districts for
special education services and thus provided monies to school districts only for the
education of children whose disabilities were specifically covered under its provisions.
Therefore, despite the challenging profile that children with ADHD often present in
classrooms, only limited professional attention traditionally has been given in educational
settings to the diagnosis and provision of school-based interventions for ADHD (and
indeed for other behavioral disorders, such as Conduct Disorder) not explicitly recognized
under IDEA.
A significant, though gradual, change in the attitude of schools toward ADHD can be
traced to a memorandum issued by the U.S. Department of Education in 1991. The
memorandum provided guidance regarding the accommodation of at least some children
with ADHD under IDEA (Davila, Williams, & MacDonald, 1991) and additional civil rights
protection extended to students with the disorder under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973. According to the memorandum, a child diagnosed with ADHD alone may be
classified as "Other Health Impaired" if "the ADD is a chronic or acute health problem that
results in limited alertness, which adversely affects educational performance" (Davila et al.,
1991; p. 3). Alternatively, students with ADHD may be given special education services if
they meet the eligibility criteria for another disability category (e.g., learning disability;
serious emotional disturbance). Schools were reminded of their "childfind" responsibility to
identify and complete evaluations of any children suspected of having a disability affecting
school functioning, including those children with a preexisting diagnosis of ADHD.
The Davila et al. (1991) memorandum also clarified the impact of Section 504 on the
schools. Children who do not meet the eligibility criteria for IDEA but are found
nonetheless to have a demonstrated "physical or mental impairment which substantially
limits a major life activity" (p. 6) must have an individual plan drawn up and implemented
by the school to promote their full participation in educational activities. A wide spectrum of
physical or mental conditions may qualify a student for Section 504 protection, including
AIDS/HIV, mental illness, arthritis, and ADHD (Hakola, 1992).
Although a detailed examination of IDEA and Section 504 legislation lies beyond the
scope of this manual, several points of similarity and contrast between these pieces of
federal legislation are worth highlighting. Both IDEA and Section 504 stress the right of
each student to a "free appropriate public education," allow parents to request an
evaluation of their child for an educationally related disability at school district expense,
have procedures in place to ensure that an identified student's educational program is
individualized to meet that child's unique learning needs, and offer a due-process
mechanism for parents to contest a school district's decision (Ahearn, Gloeckler, & Walton,
1993; Davila et al., 1991; Hakola, 1992). A major difference between the two bodies of
legislation is that IDEA provides funding for those children found to be eligible for special
education, while Section 504, which was intended as civil rights legislation, makes no
funding available to districts to implement its provisions.
To sum up the issue of ADHD in the schools, there appears to be a trend in public
education toward the eventual explicit mandate that schools be prepared to diagnose, and
propose appropriate treatments for, children with the disorder. Even though ADHD is not
yet recognized under federal funding legislation to comprise a separate category of school
disability, students with the syndrome can receive special education services under the
category of Other Health Impaired. Furthermore, when parents suspect that their children's
10
school performance or social/ emotional adjustment has been adversely affected because
of an undiagnosed condition such as ADHD, they have the right to request, under the
terms of either IDEA or Section 504, that the school complete an evaluation of the child at
public expense. (Ahearn et al., 1993; Williams et al., 1991). Given the present
interpretation of schools' responsibilities regarding ADHD, it seems increasingly likely that
in the near future members of a school-based child study team will be expected to confront
issues relating to diagnosis and treatment of the syndrome much more aggressively than
has been true in the past.
Medical versus Multi-Disciplinary Diagnosis

Under the mandates of both IDEA and Section 504, schools are required, in response
to a parental request, to evaluate children for any disorder, including ADHD, that may have
a detrimental impact on school performance. Presently, a number of professional groups,
including physicians, clinical psychologists, and school psychologists, are vigorously
debating the question of who is qualified to diagnose ADHD.
Traditionally, the ADHD diagnosis has been regarded as the preserve of the medical
community, owing in part to the placement of ADHD within the "Other Health Impaired"
category under IDEA ("Attention Deficit," 1994) as well as the wide acceptance of
physician-prescribed psychostimulant medication (e.g., Ritalin) as a major treatment for
ADHD. As an area of diagnostic strength, physicians typically have a bring a
comprehensive knowledge of children's physical development and behavioral changes
across age groups. Physicians, particularly pediatricians, may also be expert in the
diagnosis of congenital or acquired disorders with unambiguous physiological markers
(e.g., Fetal Alcohol Syndrome; lead poisoning). Medical researchers, however, have not as
yet isolated reliable physiological markers to assist in the identification of ADHD, nor have
any medical tests been found to screen for the disorder (Hynd, Hem, Voeller, & Marshall,
1991). In addition, physicians often have access to only limited information about the target
childs behavior in school and at home, even though data from these settings is considered
essential to the reliable and valid ADHD diagnosis.
Clinical psychologists are competent in a number of methods of psychological and
behavioral assessment that can determine the possible presence of ADHD. Psychologists
in the private sector are also typically well-versed in DSM diagnostic criteria and have
extensive experience in the differential diagnosis and treatment of childhood disorders.
Like physicians, conscientious private psychologists often make sincere attempts to
contact the schools to gain information about a child's classroom adjustment. However,
they face the same constraint as medical doctors in that the expense of their devoting time
to collect extensive data about a student's school functioning can be prohibitive.
School psychologists and other members of a school child study team have at hand a
rich source of data about student behavior in classrooms, which represent oftendemanding learning environments. Because schools require that children sustain their
attention in academic, goal-directed activities while suppressing impulsive or hyperactive
behaviors (DuPaul & Stoner, 1994), they create conditions under which students with
ADHD are far more likely than in other settings (e.g., a physician's office) to appear
behaviorally disordered relative to age-peers. Indeed, as Atkins and Pelham (1991)
observe, "it would be enormously difficult to set up a laboratory for clinical assessment with
11
the wealth of information available in schools" (p. 197). School psychologists and other
educational staff have also been trained in the use and interpretation of a wide range of
assessment instruments-- including behavior rating scales, semi-structured interviews, and
direct observation-- that comprise the accepted battery of ADHD assessment tools (Atkins
& Pelham, 1991; DuPaul, 1992; DuPaul & Stoner, 1994; Montague, McKinney, & Hocutt,
1994).
While school psychology training programs emphasize training in psychoeducational
assessment, teacher consultation and system-wide interventions, however, they give less
attention to the assessment and treatment of child psychopathology. There is also a lack of
congruence between school-based categories of learning- related disabilities (e.g., Severe
Emotional Disturbance, Learning Disability , etc.) canonized under federal special
education legislation and the more extensive taxonomic system of mental disorders
outlined in the DSM series commonly used by mental health professionals practicing
outside of schools. Furthermore, school psychologists and members of building child study
teams may have few links to community resources for the diagnosis and treatment of
psychological disorders.
Ideally, assessment of ADHD should involve a multidisciplinary team of professionals
(" Attention Deficit," 1994) that capitalizes on the strengths of medical and mental health
professionals both in schools and in the larger community. The ADHD assessment
process outlined in this manual assumes that, with the appropriate training in the essential
diagnostic techniques, a multidisciplinary team of school-based professionals that has
appropriate access to medical consultation possesses the expertise necessary to
undertake student ADHD evaluations. That same team can make important
recommendations to the classroom teacher, school administrators, parents, and other key
adults within the identified child's educational circle about the formulation of academic and
behavioral interventions that will better accommodate the student. Because ADHD is
associated with relatively high rates of comorbidity (the simultaneous presence in the child
with ADHD of other syndromes such as Conduct Disorder or Mood Disorder), particularly
complex cases may require additional consultation with, or assessment by, private
psychologists who specialize in child psychopathology. Finally, parents may be
encouraged to review the results of the school ADHD evaluation with their family physician
to determine whether psychostimulant medication is indicated to improve attending and
reduce hyperactive or impulsive behaviors. The physician should also play a central role in
monitoring both beneficial and unintended effects of prescribed medications.
Purpose of the Manual

This manual is intended primarily for school psychologists, who it is anticipated will
assume much of the responsibility for coordinating a school-based ADHD assessment.
School nurses, school social workers, special educators, and other members of a child
study team, however, may also play important roles in collecting information relevant to the
ADHD diagnosis (Montague, McKinney, & Hocutt,1994). Therefore, these professionals,
too, should be encouraged to become knowledgeable about the ADHD evaluation process.
A chief goal of the manual is to familiarize the diagnostic team with the major psychological
measures used to assess the presence and severity of ADHD. Because the sheer volume
of data collected in a multi-method assessment conducted across settings and
12
respondents can quickly become overwhelming, a later chapter of the manual will also
provide guidance in the interpretation of data and determination of appropriate diagnoses.
Discussion will also focus on the unique constraints imposed upon evaluators in public
schools, who must navigate the often-murky waters of IDEA and Section 504 legislation in
their investigations of school-related disabilities.
It is expected that practitioners who apply the techniques and decision-rules outlined
here will be able to carry out comprehensive evaluations built upon a strong empirical
database of information. Because a number of norm-referenced and quantifiable
assessment methods are incorporated into the ADHD assessment, it should follow that the
findings presented in any single evaluation will be sufficiently reliable to allow others to
replicate the results if necessary. A less immediate but highly desirable outcome of a welldocumented, school-based ADHD diagnostic procedure would be the improvement of
communication between school teams and clinicians in the community. Such improved
communication might allow school and community professionals to work more effectively
together to provide truly multi-disciplinary case management as a service to children and
parents struggling to come to terms with the academic and behavioral effects of ADHD.
13
Section II: Conducting the School-Based

ADHD Assessment
Introduction
Conducting a reliable and valid assessment of ADHD presents considerable
challenges to the evaluator. To establish a diagnosis, the clinician must verify the presence
of a minimum number of behavioral symptoms; these symptoms, however, are not deviant
in their own right but assume significance only to the degree that their severity or intensity
sets them apart from normal developmental patterns of behavior (McBurnett et al., 1993).
Children with ADHD can display widely varying behavior over time and across settings,
suggesting the need for a range of assessment instruments to aid in the collection and
comparison of disparate kinds of information that might converge into a single, stable
diagnostic picture (Barkley, 1990; DuPaul & Stoner, 1994; McBurnett et al. 1993). In
pursuit of a diagnosis, the clinician ideally should employ a multitrait, multimethod
assessment strategy, make use of a range of instruments that provide differing amounts
(bandwidth) and specificity (fidelity) of data to ensure as broad a sampling of information
about the child as possible, and take into account issues unique to the assessment of
childhood disorders.
Multitrait, Multimethod Assessment

The recommended protocol for ADHD evaluation draws upon several sources and
methods of data collection, and therein lies its strength. While each source of data
contains unavoidable bias (DuPaul & Stoner, 1994), when the larger assessment profile is
reviewed, different sources of bias in the data tend to cancel each other out. The roots of
the broad-based ADHD evaluation lie in the multitrait, multimethod matrix of test
development first presented by Campbell and Fisk (1959). Test theorists recognize that,
when any one psychological measure is used to gauge presumed behavioral or personality
traits (e.g., inattention), the evaluator may be unable to separate variance inherent in the
expression of the trait across individuals from undesirable variance present in the
instrument itself. In order to tease out method variance from trait variance, the researcher
must both employ several assessment methods and use each method to track two or more
traits. A matrix of correlations between traits and measures can then be established which
traces variance to either the instrument or the trait being measured (Campell & Fisk,
1959).
The multitrait, multimethod (MTMM) approach, although originating in a paradigm of
group research, can be fruitfully applied to individual psychoeducational evaluation as well.
A central assumption of MTMM assessment is that the diagnostician who systematically
consults a large data-base of information gathered through different methods of
measurement is likely to reduce the bias in the process of identifying disorders, commit
fewer false-positive and false-negative errors in diagnosis, and arrive at findings that are of
maximal relevance to the child's educational program (Gresham, 1983). Because any
diagnosis depends upon the "convergence" of evaluation data, a variety of testing methods
14
with differing degrees of reliability and validity can be integrated into the MTMM
assessment battery. An added benefit of the multitrait, multimethod approach is that the
school psychologist does not have to collect all of the evaluation data. Information
collected by others(e.g., parents, teachers, youth self report) also has potential value if
judiciously integrated into the MTMM evaluation (Gresham, 1983). An essential element of
any application of MTMM, though, is the compilation of clear decision rules for evaluating
the data collected.
Dimensions of Bandwidth and Fidelity

The clinician undertaking an ADHD evaluation will quickly recognize that not all data
contain the same information value. As an example, a teacher comment made at a child
study team meeting that a child is always disrupting the classroom" contains very different
information than frequency counts taken of that same student's out-of-seat and calling-out
behaviors during math instruction. A useful means of understanding the information value
of any measure is to be found in the concept of bandwidth-fidelity , a term originating in
information theory (Shannon 19491 cited in Cronbach, 1984) and adopted by Cronbach
(1984) to provide a framework for understanding the relationship in psychological
measures between breadth and specificity of assessment.
The term bandwidth refers to the amount of information or degree of complexity that a
message communicates. Fidelity indicates the specificity of the information. An inverse
relationship exists between these concepts. That is, as the bandwidth (variety of
information) of a message increases, that greater bandwidth is inevitably accompanied by
a decrease in fidelity (clarity of the information). At the same time, as the bandwidth of a
message narrows, the overall scope of information decreases, but the resulting information
has greater specificity.
In an application of the bandwidth-fidelity concept to methods of psychological
assessment, Cone (1977) conceptualized assessment methods as lying along a
continuum, whose poles are defined by indirect and direct methods of evaluation.
Indirect methods, which include interviews, self-report, and ratings of others' behavior,
can be considered wide-band, low fidelity measures. That is, such measures draw upon a
cumulative data-base with much informational content (e.g., teacher remarks based upon
observation of a student across 4 instructional months) but the information is presented in
a general form that does not allow one to predict specific student behaviors with
confidence at any single time or in any particular setting.
Direct methods are defined by Cone (1978) as direct observations of target student
behavior, either in analog (contrived) or natural settings, and are categorized as narrow
band, high fidelity. As conditions of behavioral observation more closely approximate the
natural conditions in which the treatment or intervention is to be implemented, the
bandwidth narrows (that is, the information collected is restricted in its application) but the
fidelity increases (one can place increasing confidence in the relevance of the assessment
data to the target setting). The ADHD assessment is most efficient when it makes use of
multiple measures of data collection, which vary in bandwidth and level of specificity.
15
Comorbidity
Because ADHD is associated with relatively high rates of co-morbidity with learning
disabilities (DuPaul & Stoner, 1994), as well as externalizing (Hinshaw, 1988) and
internalizing (McConaughy, 1993) patterns of emotional maladjustment, it is important for
the clinician carefully to review the assessment data at several points in the evaluation to
detect any patterns suggesting alternative or additional disorders. (See Table 2 on 16 for
brief diagnostic descriptions of several of the more commonly diagnosed DSM-IV
childhood disorders.)
Especially in its early stages, the ADHD assessment should not focus solely on ADHD
symptoms. The ideal ADHD evaluation can be described as "funnel-shaped", with "broadband" assessment instruments such as teacher / parent interviews and general behavior
rating scales administered early in the assessment process and more fine-grained
assessment techniques (e.g. ADHD-symptom checklists and direct observations in the
classroom) coming into use later in the evaluation.
To state the issue somewhat differently, the evaluator should not at the outset decide
to undertake an "ADHD evaluation"--because the a priori assumption that a single disorder
is waiting to be uncovered can influence the eventual diagnosis and predispose the
diagnostician to focus on information that simply corroborates the initial hypothesis (Garb,
1989). Rather, the evaluation should be data-driven, with the clinician periodically
reviewing case information and adjusting further evaluation efforts accordingly. It would not
be uncommon, for example, for an evaluation in which ADHD is initially suspected to
develop upon further investigation into a diagnosis of a possible learning disability or
emotional disturbance.
Assessing Childhood Disorders: Special Considerations

An adequate understanding of the nature and development of childhood disorders like
ADHD cannot be achieved through a simple extrapolation from adult psychiatric diseases.
According to Achenbach (1980), children form a unique group for several reasons. While
adults may be diagnosed with a disorder because they display clinically pathological
"signs," children are more likely to be considered deviant from the norm because they fail
to progress through expected phases of development or display behaviors that differ
markedly in intensity or frequency from those of age-mates.
Children are also not as reliable a source of information about their own diagnostic
symptoms as are adults, so that much of the evaluative data of younger clients must
instead be collected from teachers, parents, and mental health professionals. Childhood
mental disorders typically differ from adult psychological syndromes in their presumed
causes, rates of occurrence in the population, course of illness, and responsiveness to
intervention (Achenbach, 1980). Children also do not usually self-refer for mental disorders
but are brought to the attention of mental health professionals by parents or other
concerned adults.
Table 2: Descriptions and Diagnostic Summaries of Selected

C h i l d h o o d P s y c h i a t r i c D i s o r d e r s f r o m D S M - IV:
Examiners assessing the possible presence of ADHD in children must consider
whether the child (a) has one or more coexisting psychiatric disorders or (b) has
an alternative disorder whose symptoms mimic those of Attention-Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder. Consult this table for a brief review of diagnostic criteria
for several more commonly diagnosed DSM-IV disorders of childhood:
Conduct Disorder (CD): If three or more diagnostic items have been endorsed,
further investigation is warranted about the possible presence of this disorder.
Conduct Disorder is defined in DSM-IV as a constellation o f behaviors, including
one or more of the following tendencies: a persistent pattern of aggression toward
people or animals, destruction of property, deceitfulness or theft, and serious
violations of rules.
Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD): If four or more items are endorsed, the
evaluator should consider investigating the possibility of this disorder. For GAD to
be present, a key item endorsed is likely to be "experiences anxiety and worry
about a number of events for past 6 months." Children with Generalized Anxiety
Disorder tend to be anxious and to worry but also have trouble controlling their
worrying. GAD has previously been referred to as Overanxious Disorder of
Childhood.
Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD): Endorsement of four or more ite ms

suggests the need for additional assessment. Behaviors typical of children with
Oppositional Defiant Disorder are arguing with adults, refusing to follow rules or to
obey requests, anger and losing one's temper, and spiteful or vindictive behavior.
ADHD, Predominantly Inattentive Type (ADHD/IA): Six or more endorsed items

point to the possible presence of this subtype of ADHD. As the name implies,
ADHD/IA is marked by difficulty in sustaining attention, as manifested by difficulty
attending to and following through with instructions, making "careless" mistakes in
schoolwork, and frequent daydreaming or lack of concentration.
ADHD, Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Type (ADHD/HI): Six or more

endorsed items suggest a subtype of ADHD characteriz ed by hyperactivity or
impulsive behaviors. Children with ADHD/HI may fidget, leave their seat without
permission, have trouble waiting their turn, blurt out answers prematurely, and
interrupt others.
ADHD, Combined Type: If twelve items are endorsed (six or more items for both
ADHD/IA and ADHD/HI), this behavioral pattern points to the possible diagnosis of
ADHD, Combined Type. Particularly when in instructional settings, individuals with
this subtype of the disorder can be expected to display symptoms of both
inattention and hyperactivity and/or impulsivity.
Source: American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual

of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
16
17
Because children grow and change at a rapid rate, they are less likely to form stable
clinical groups with predictable syndromes, or constellations of abnormal behaviors, than
are adult clinical populations. The diagnostician evaluating the behaviors of children
usually plots those behaviors along a continuum that ranges from normal to clinically
significant. A child's "behavioral phenotype," or surface patterns of behavior, changes as
the child matures (Streissguth, Sampson, Barr, Clarren, & Martin, 1986). In childhood, for
example, a person with ADHD may display many behaviors indicating inattention,
hyperactivity , and impulsivity. As the individual approaches adulthood, the more visible,
disruptive behaviors may diminish or even disappear but with significant impairments in
attention and subjective feelings of "restlessness" may still remain (APA, 1994; Barkley,
1990).
Assembling the ADHD Assessment Battery

To date, no single diagnostic test exists to identify ADHD, nor is such a measure
expected in the foreseeable future. Indeed, the battery of individual psychological tests that
school psychologists have traditionally employed in educational settings are of only limited
help in the ADHD diagnosis (DuPaul, 1992).
Children with ADHD show a great deal of variability in behavior across settings and
tasks (Guevremont, DuPaul, & Barkley, 1990) that can be adequately assessed only
through the casting of a wide assessment net. The clinician must also translate the
categorical symptoms of the DSM-IV into measurable criteria with age- appropriate
developmental norms (DuPaul, 1992).Thus, current research (e.g., Atkins & Pelham, 1991;
DuPaul, 1992; DuPaul & Stoner, 1994; Guevremont et al., 1990; Montague, McKinney, &
Hocutt, 1994) supports an assessment protocol that relies primarily on documentation of
general-education interventions, parent and teacher interviews, behavior rating scales, and
classroom observations as an evaluation approach best able to distinguish children with
ADHD from those without the disorder. Important supplemental information may also be
gathered through the administration of cognitive and academic achievement tests.
Documentation of General-Education Interventions

Before a student displaying academic or behavioral deficits can be considered
educationally disabled, the evaluator should first present evidence that the instructor has
tried several interventions to address the child's needs in the general-education setting and
that these attempts have failed to remediate the presenting problem(s). At the outset of an
ADHD evaluation, the evaluator may consult with the instructor during the teacher
interview (see below) and offer strategies to the teacher (e.g., assisting the student to
increase time on-task or to reduce the frequency of distracting or disruptive behaviors).
These strategies will then be implemented and monitored.
One convenient method to monitor the student's behavioral adjustment during teacher
interventions is to have the instructor complete a daily behavioral report card (Pelham,
1993). This global behavior rating scale would typically contain only a few important
behavioral items, which the teacher would rate using a Likert-type response scale. The
evaluator can then graph the resulting teacher ratings across instructional days (by
18
individual behavior or groupings of behaviors) to document any improvements in student

behavior that occur as a result of the teacher's classroom interventions. It should be
recognized, however, that any classroom intervention must typically be in place for several
weeks before it can be adequately evaluated. An example of a daily "report card" and
recording chart for behaviors associated with ADHD can be found in Appendix D of this
manual.
Behavior Rating Scales

Behavior rating scales provide a means for the clinician to tap into the general
knowledge-base that key adults interacting with a target child have developed over time
about the range and frequency of that child's typical behaviors (Elliott, Busse, & Gresham,
1993). McConaughy (1993) outlines the characteristics that define behavior-rating scales.
In child assessment, rating scales typically contain a pool of response items, often stated
in observable behavioral terms, to be endorsed by a teacher, parent, or other person who
knows the child well. The adult's responses are summed to yield global estimates of the
student's functioning. The results of rating scales are usually stated in standard scores
based upon a normative sample.
Rating scales may be either rationally or empirically derived (McConaughy, 1993).
Rational scales are those whose items are selected because they appear to relate logically
to the behavioral or personality constructs that the scale creator wishes to measure. The
ADHD Rating Scale (DuPaul, 1990), which is based on DSM- llI-R criteria for ADHD, is an
example of a rationally derived scale; its items are based on consensual judgments of
clinicians about the criteria that define the disorder. A strength of rational scales is that
they can have content validity (the wording of constituent items seem logically designed to
measure the behaviors of concern). However, the items in a rational scale are typically not
validated using numerical methods of analysis to identify significant patterns of covariance
(statistical evidence that changes in one behavior are accompanied by meaningful
changes in one or more additional behaviors). There is, therefore, no assurance that a
rationally derived scale is in fact measuring unitary psychological or behavioral constructs.
Empirically derived scales, in contrast, begin as a pool of items administered to a
normative sample. Endorsed rating items for the norm group are then subjected to
statistical analyses to determine which subgroups of items covary. Subgroups of items
showing the greatest degree of covariance make up scales that measure general classes
of behavior or personality constructs (Edelbrock, 1983; McConaughy, 1993). The Child
Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991) is perhaps the best-known example of an
empirically derived rating scale. Scales that are empirically derived have the advantage of
being based upon significant patterns of shared variation among reported behaviors,
reflecting behavioral constructs or syndromes (e.g., ADHD) for which estimates can be
computed for rates of clinical significance in the population sampled (Achenbach, 1980).
The school psychologist should keep several points in mind when selecting behavior
rating scales suitable for the ADHD assessment. Scales should employ a multipleresponse format rather than a dichotomous response scale (Edelbrock, 1983) to allow
respondents to make sufficiently finegrained distinctions in their endorsements. The
behavioral or psychological constructs of the rating scale should match the diagnostic
needs of the evaluator. For example, rating scales used in ADHD evaluation ideally should
19
yield measures of inattention and/or hyperactivity/impulsivity, as these categories are

central to the diagnosis and assignment of subtype for the disorder. The psychometric
properties of any rating scale should be examined to ensure that the instrument is reliable
and demonstrates both internal and external validity (Elliot et al., 1993).
As a method of measuring the behavior of children, rating scales do have limitations
and constraints on use. Teachers should generally be asked to complete rating scales only
after they have known the target student for at least 60 days (Edelbrock, 1983) to ensure
sufficient knowledge of the child. Although the information provided can be quite helpful in
guiding additional assessment activities and determining a diagnosis, rating scale data
does not reveal to the examiner possible causes for behaviors of concern and gives little
guidance either in the selection of behaviors for intervention or treatments that should be
implemented (Elliott et al., 1993). Separate respondents (e.g., teacher and parent) may
show only moderate correlation in their responses when completing similar rating scales
(Elliot et al., 1993). Such variation across respondents is to be expected as it most likely
reflects both differences in the target childs behaviors across settings or individuals and
variation in response tendencies between adults completing the rating scales.
Interviews
Adults who work directly with a target child have a wealth of stored knowledge about
that student's "typical" behaviors and abilities accumulated over months or (in the case of
parents) years of face-to-face interaction. Therefore, teacher and parent interviews are of
great value in the ADHD evaluation. The interview provides an efficient means of tapping
the cumulative knowledge base of adults closely associated with the child. Another
advantage is that, if the parent or teacher supplies information that suggests the presence
of symptoms related to ADHD or other childhood disorders, the interviewer has the
flexibility to ask additional questions to probe a point more fully. Additionally, interviews
can set the groundwork for effective behavioral interventions for ADHD. In a study of
teacher consultation using interviews with a behavioral focus, for example, Bergan and
Tombari (1976) found that when the interviewer and teacher identified and agreed upon
the primary problem behaviors for a child, there was a high likelihood that a solution to the
problem behavior would be found. In effect, accurate problem identification has treatment
validity because it can contribute to interventions that work.
A drawback of the diagnostic or behavioral, interview, however, is that it generally has
poor psychometric qualities. As typically conducted, parent and teacher interviews are
found to have low reliability and only limited validity. In other words, we can have little
assurance that two clinicians using informal interviewing techniques with the same parent
will elicit identical information about a child's ADHD symptoms or even that information
derived from the clinician's interview can be used as a valid measure of the disorder. Much
of the variation that creeps into the interview process appears due to differences in the
theoretical orientation and training of interviewers, as well as to the common use of vague,
non-standardized procedures in diagnostic interviews (Hay et al., 1979).
Suggestions for improving the measurement qualities of the interview include the
creation of a pool of interview questions as well as a standardized protocol for
administering the interview (Gresham, 1984; Hay et al, 1979; Baynes, 1979).
20
This manual adopts the solution of using a semi-structured interview to reduce

variation among interviewers while preserving the necessary flexibility in the interview
process. Both parent and teacher interviews should contain a preselected pool of
questions to guarantee that salient diagnostic points relating to ADHD are covered. At the
same time, the clinician has the flexibility to alter the line of questioning as needed to
pursue unexpected information of potential clinical significance that might surface during
the interview.
Interviewing the Teacher. The classroom teacher is the best source of cumulative
information about a child's school functioning. The teacher interview should assess the
child's general level of functioning in the classroom, including academic skills, work
completion, quality of peer interactions, and problem behaviors. Because ADHD is a
behavioral disorder, the interview should devote time to a careful analysis of behaviors
of concern for the target student. Among variables to be assessed are the frequency ,
severity , duration, and chronicity of the behavior(s). Events that appear to elicit or
support problem behaviors should also be determined, along with any observed
variations in the child's academic performance across time or setting (Guevremont et
al., 1990). An interview protocol suitable for use in teacher interviews appears in
Appendix C.
Interviewing the Parent. It is usually the parent who supplies an account of the child's
developmental history, providing information about early onset of symptoms that is
crucial to the ADHD diagnosis. During the parent interview, the clinician should assess
parent concerns regarding the child's behavior. As when interviewing the teacher, the
clinician should collect detailed accounts from the parent(s) of the child's behavior. As
additional goals in the parent interview, the clinician should take a medical history
(including data relating to developmental milestones), determine whether any other
family members have diagnosed disorders, and broadly assess the child's social skills
and emotional adjustment.
Direct Observation
The conducting of behavioral observations in the classroom using standardized
techniques to observe selected behaviors of the target student is an essential part of the
ADHD assessment. The examiner uses direct observational data to corroborate (or
question) teacher reports of student behaviors, to compare types and rates of behavior
typically displayed by the target student to those exhibited by his or her classmates, and to
estimate the stability of the target student's school behaviors from day to day.
Selecting Behaviors to Record. Before observational data can be obtained, the

examiner must select appropriate target behaviors to record. Information gathered
from the teacher during the initial interview can give the examiner an excellent idea of
particular behaviors to monitor, especially if the interviewer defines the behaviors of
concern in sufficient detail to make them straightforward to monitor.
The teacher is not the only source of information for possible target behaviors, though.
21
Research has also provided insight into behaviors that are the most salient indicators
of ADHD. In a review of various ADHD observational methods employed in 39 studies,
Platzman et al. (1992) found that three behaviors-- excessive motor activity, negative
vocalization, and off-task behavior--were found most reliably to distinguish between
children with and without ADHD. One might conceptualize off-task behavior as
primarily a measure of inattention and the combined behaviors of overactivity and
negative vocalization chiefly as an index of hyperactivity/impulsivity.
Methods of Recording. Ideally, any ADHD observational system should track at least
the three key behaviors isolated by Platzman et al. (1992). However, the examiner can
select from among several formal methods for recording observed behaviors.
Momentary time-sampling requires that the observer look at the target student at one
set point during each time interval (e.g., the onset), record relevant behaviors
observed, and then not again observe and record those behaviors until same point in
the next interval. An advantage of momentary time sampling is that it is less subject to
overestimating the rate of target behaviors than are other methods of recording. A
disadvantage is that momentary time-sampling potentially will miss a large number of
behaviors that occur outside of the instant of observation in each time interval. This
procedure is best suited to the recording of an "event" behavior that has no clearly
marked onset or end (Saudargas & Lentz, 1986) such as a student paying attention to
a class lesson or activity.
In whole interval recording, the examiner marks a behavior as having occurred only if it
takes place through the entire observed interval. While an advantage of whole interval
recording is that it imposes a criterion of duration on the observed behavior, this
approach also tends to underestimate considerably the rate of target behaviors
(because it ignores those behavioral incidents that fail to persist through a complete
time interval). Whole interval recording is not often used in behavioral observation but
would seem most useful for tracking academically appropriate behaviors, such as
student involvement in group instruction or independent seatwork, that must persist for
some minimum period of time to have a positive effect.
When using a partial interval procedure, the examiner notes a behavior as having
occurred if it appears at any point during a time interval. An advantage of this
recording procedure is that it is very sensitive in reflecting changes in the rates of
behaviors. A disadvantage, though, is that partial interval recording is more likely than
other recording methods to overestimate the frequency of a behavior. Serious negative
behaviors such as physical aggression are often monitored using partial interval
recording, presumably because observers reason that the importance of recording
every manifestation of the negative behavior outweighs in importance the possibility
that the recording method may exaggerate somewhat the rate of the target behavior.
A final method, event or frequency recording, can be adopted for behaviors whose
starting and end points are readily recognizable (e.g., a single vocalization, touching of
another student). These "event" behaviors (Saudargas & Lentz, 1986) can be recorded
as separate incidents within any given time interval. When each successive time
22
interval arrives, all additional behavioral events will be recorded each time that they
occur within the space allotted for the new time interval.
Along with the selection of methods of behavioral recording, the examiner who is
preparing to complete direct observations of children suspected of ADHD must
determine the length of the observational interval. Shorter intervals allow for the
collection of increasingly fine-grained information about behaviors, but force the
observer to record often-complex sets of behavioral notations in a compressed period
of time. In contrast, longer time intervals ease the observer's task of accurately
capturing behavioral observations in permanent notation but the coarser divisions of
time may lead to the loss of nuanced information about variations in student behavior.
Accomplished observers may want to adopt time intervals of 10 to 15 seconds while
those who are less familiar with recording techniques might lengthen their
observational intervals to as long as 30 seconds. Intervals longer than 30 seconds,
however, should probably be avoided, as they permit the loss of too much behavioral
information to play a part in most ADHD observational systems.
Time and Setting. Regardless of the behavior recording system adopted, the ADHD
observation protocol should yield information about the target student's behavior within
the context of the classroom environment and in relation to his or her classmates.
During the initial teacher interview, the interviewer should ask the teacher to identify
academic situations in which the child is most likely to display inattentive or
hyperactive/impulsive behaviors; at a minimum, observations should be conducted at
those times. Classroom observations are generally carried out during periods when the
target student is expected to work for extended periods on individual assignments
(DuPaul & Stoner, 1994) or to attend to lectures while suppressing impulsive or
overactive behaviors (Montague et al., 1994). The observer may also wish to observe
the child in less-structured situations such as on the playground. However, in most
cases, such observations are probably not necessary. As a rule, students with ADHD
more closely resemble their non-ADHD classmates during free time, when the group
level of activity is high and there are few demands placed on the student to focus
attention, than during academic tasks. Thus, behavioral observations collected in
less-structured settings may not result in information of much diagnostic significance.
Peer Norms. The observer should also make an effort to obtain a normative standard
of behavior for classmates of the target student in each observation period.
Establishment of a classroom behavioral "benchmark" is necessary because ADHD
can be diagnosed only when a target child's level of inattention or
hyperactivity/impulsivity deviates to a clinically significant degree from age-appropriate
norms. There are several related methods that the observer can follow to establish
useful classroom norms during a behavioral observation. In one widely used method
for generating trustworthy norms, classmates of the same sex as the target student
are selected to serve as comparisons. The observer alternates in each successive
time interval between the target and a comparison student, recording the same
behaviors for each of the two children being observed. Every few minutes, the
observer shifts from one randomly selected comparison student to another to ensure
23
that the behavioral norms are truly representative of the classroom "average."
Number of Observations. There are no set guidelines about the recommended number
or length of observations that should be completed during the ADHD assessment. The
logical time to determine a probable observation schedule is during the initial teacher
interview. At a minimum, though, observations should be conducted on at least two
(and preferably three) different school days, with each observation lasting at least 20
minutes. Multiple observations are required to determine the degree that the behaviors
of the target student vary from day to day. In many cases, however, more than two
observations may be required to collect adequate behavioral data. For example, if a
teacher reports that the child appears off-task and overactive in the reading group, yet
pays close attention during math, the observer will probably need to observe at least
two reading and two math sessions to establish the variability of student behavior both
across days and across academic subjects.
Although formal systems of observation allow the clinician to quantify the frequency
and duration of student behaviors, they are of necessity very narrowly constructed and
must inevitably miss a considerable amount of important information about interactions
between the target student and the classroom environment. Therefore, it is a good
practice for the observer to supplement the formal behavioral observation with a brief,
qualitative summary of observed events written at the conclusion of each visit to the
classroom. The qualitative summary might address the presence and quality of the
student's interactions with peers and the teacher, degree of academic engagement
and work completion, the noise level in the classroom, apparent amount of teacher
preparation, and any other significant events or environmental variables noted during
the observation. (An example of a qualitative classroom observation sheet appears in
Appendix B.)
Permanent Products
Written products produced by the student during instructional periods or assigned as
independent seatwork can be useful indicators of the efficiency with which the student
uses allocated learning time. There are many possible reasons why a student may not be
on-task in the classroom. For example, the child may be bored by work that is too easy or
placed in instructional material that is much too difficult. As a hypothetical case to illustrate
the point, imagine two students in the same classroom who display similar levels of offtask behavior during seatwork. An examination of the worksheets of the two students at
the conclusion of the period could reveal very different outcomes. One student might have
quickly completed the entire worksheet with no errors and then engaged in off-task
behaviors, while the second student might have worked only sporadically on the worksheet
(getting a handful of those problems attempted correct) with work efforts punctuated with
longer periods of inattentiveness. Clearly, the presumed causes underlying the inattention
of each student differ. The first child may simply be placed in material that is not
challenging, while the second student may be placed in instructional material that is too
difficult or may in fact have an attentional disorder that interferes with work completion.
24
Examination of permanent products is most useful when information is also collected about
how much time, attention, and effort the student put into completing those assignments.
There are several ways in which the students work performance can be monitored. For
example, the teacher can keep a record of the amount of time allocated for a particular
assignment and then share the student's completed work samples with the examiner. This
approach yields even more useful information if an observer is able also to complete a
direct observation of the student for the duration of the assignment to observe the amount
of student time actually spent on-task. In an alternative approach, a parent may be willing
to keep a log of the child's homework activities for several evenings, noting the amount of
time the student spent apparently working, the number and duration of breaks taken, and
number of requests for help or attempts by the child to engage others in conversation on
topics unrelated to the homework. These logs can then be matched to the assigned
homework turned in by the child for those same days to arrive at some estimate of the
student's work efficiency and ability to complete the assignments independently.
Screening and Formal Evaluation

The decision to undertake a school-based ADHD assessment should not be made
lightly. As Gammel (1992) notes, a formal evaluation is quite costly when the services of all
school personnel associated with a particular case are taken into account. At the same
time, under the terms of both IDEA and Section 504 legislation, parents have the legal
right to request that their child be formally evaluated for suspected disabilities that might
negatively affect school performance. This section will offer suggestions for completing an
ADHD screening and for determining when screening results warrant a formal evaluation.
In the process outlined below, it is essential that parents participate as informed and
involved partners in the evaluation process.
Screening
The purpose of the ADHD screening is to separate those students who are strongly
suspected of having ADHD from children who either are not thought to have any disorder
or who are suspected of having an alternative educationally related disability. To
accomplish this task, general information about the child is collected and evaluated to
determine what more specific assessment should take place. Figuratively, the screening
procedure can be thought of as taking the "shape" of a funnel, moving from the collection
and analysis of general to more specific information. While DuPaul (1992) recommends
the use of a single ADHD behavior rating scale completed by the teacher as the sole
screening measure, this manual advocates for the use of a more comprehensive screening
battery in order to control for the vagaries of any particular assessment instrument. The
minimal screening battery should include:
documentation of general-education interventions

teacher interview
parent interview
general behavior rating scale to be completed by the teacher(s)
25
an ADHD-specific rating scale to be completed by the teacher(s)

at least one direct observation of the student
a measure of academic achievement
review of the student's cumulative folder and other school records
The teacher interview should be completed as an early element of the screening. The
teacher will be able to inform the interviewer about the behaviors of concern that the child
displays as well as the best times to observe the child during independent seatwork or
group instruction. Documentation of general-education interventions can be done through
use of a daily behavior report card or alternative method. At the interview, the instructor
can be asked to complete both a general behavior rating scale and scale rating ADHD
symptoms. The profile resulting from the general rating scale will give the clinician good
information about the possible presence of comorbid disorders (e.g., Generalized Anxiety
Disorder, Conduct Disorder) and will provide a broad normative measure of attentional
focus and perhaps hyperactivity/impulsivity. An ADHD-specific rating scale allows teachers
to share their global perceptions of the child by completing items about school
performance and behavior that map to DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for ADHD.
While an initial discussion with the parent is important, during a screening the parent
interview may take place either fact-to-face or by telephone to review the student's typical
home behaviors and any possible parent concerns. The clinician should complete at least
one direct observation of the child during an instructional time selected in advance by the
teacher as typically being problematic for the student. Using procedures outlined
elsewhere in this manual, the observer should collect time-series data on the target child
and comparison children. It is expected that the target child will display considerably higher
rates of inattention and/ or overactivity and impulsivity than peers. Through a review of the
student's school records, the evaluator should look for any observations from past
teachers that the child has had trouble completing classwork, remaining focused, or
suppressing inappropriate behaviors. Such teacher comments may help eventually to
establish the chronicity necessary for the diagnosis of the disorder. Finally, the student
should be given some form of academic achievement test to determine if the child has one
or more deficits in academic skills.
Formal ADHD Evaluation

The results of the ADHD screening should be carefully evaluated to determine how the
case will proceed. If no evidence of a disorder is found, the evaluation should be
concluded. If evidence comes to light suggesting a disorder other than ADHD (e.g.,
learning disability, emotional disturbance), the child should be evaluated further for that
alternative disorder. If a review of the screening results points to a possible diagnosis of
ADHD, however, a formal evaluation should be pursued. A formal ADHD evaluation will
incorporate all information collected during the screening phase of the assessment. In
addition, the formal evaluation for this disorder should include:
a cognitive measure
extended parent interview
parent versions of general behavioral rating scales and ADHD rating scales
26
additional classroom observations of the student

an examination of the student's classroom work ("permanent products").
While not called for in all cases, the examiner may also wish to assess the student's social
competencies in the classroom, using a sociometric scale.
The cognitive measure will allow the examiner to adjust expectations for the student's
attentional focus and degree of activity and impulse control by tying those observed traits
to the child's cognitive ability or "mental age." The parent interview provides insight to the
child's functioning at home and may offer evidence that the student displays behaviors
consistent with ADHD across settings. Parent responses on rating scales yield a normative
comparison of the child's behaviors to those of same-age and same-sex peers. Additional
observations of the child in the classroom during times of instruction or independent
seatwork will allow the examiner to determine the relative amount of variation in the child's
performance and general behaviors across time, setting, and academic subject. The
examiner can estimate the childs efficiency in completing school assignments by
collecting and reviewing independent seatwork or homework. If the instructor reports that
the student has difficulty being accepted by classmates, the examiner may wish to have
the teacher administer a sociometric rating instrument, in which each student in the room
rates the degree to which they like each other student. The resulting cumulative scores will
indicate whether the child being evaluated is popular, generally accepted, or rejected by
classmates.
Safeguarding Parent Rights in the ADHD Evaluation

In an effort to provide efficient delivery of services, school personnel are justified in
selectively screening children for possible disorders rather than moving directly to a formal
evaluation in all cases. However, at the point at which any screening is planned, parents
should always be informed of the nature and purpose of the screening. Furthermore, at the
time of the proposed initial screening, parents should be informed that the screening does
not comprise or replace a formal evaluation and that it does not prevent the parents from
requesting a full evaluation of their child at any time under either Section 504 or IDEA.
Screening results should be summarized, either in report or letter format, and shared with
parents. Furthermore, if screening results suggest that the child may have ADHD, school
personnel should seek active parent input and participation in making a decision to pursue
a formal psychoeducational evaluation.
27
Section III: Interpreting ADHD

Assessment Data in a School Setting
Introduction
The most challenging aspect of the ADHD evaluation begins at the point when the
majority of the assessment information has been collected. The clinician must sort through
a large mass of evaluation data to determine whether the general pattern of those data
suggests a single diagnostic profile congruent with the set of behavioral criteria that define
ADHD. In addition, the school-based practitioner can expect to be called upon to answer a
second, potentially even thornier, question: if a child is diagnosed with ADHD, what
specific changes, if any, are required in that student's educational program to help the child
to function more successfully in school?
The remainder of this chapter will focus on the interpretation of ADHD evaluation data.
We will consider the need for an "actuarial bias" in ADHD assessment, examine in some
detail the criteria for diagnosis of ADHD and its subtypes, and briefly discuss issues of
differential and comorbid diagnoses that relate to ADHD and other childhood disorders.
The reader will next be presented with a set of decision rules to be followed both for
judging the status of ADHD as an educationally related disability and for determining the
necessary accommodations that individual children with ADHD may require to function to
their fullest potential in school. Finally, difficulties associated with the ADHD diagnosis will
be reviewed.
Clinical vs. Actuarial Judgment

Investigators who study the nature of diagnostic decision-making distinguish between
clinical and actuarial judgment. While most clinicians probably engage in a mixture of
clinical and actuarial decision-making in their practice, a review of "pure" forms of these
processes will demonstrate that, whenever possible, professionals should maintain an
"actuarial bias" in the diagnosis of ADHD and other childhood disorders.
In diagnosis based on clinical judgment, emphasis is placed on the investigator's
interpretation of the unique profile of the childs abilities that emerges as data is collected
from different sources in an evaluation. The diagnostician draws upon a loosely organized
knowledge base of past cases as the primary source of clinical "intuition." Rather than
applying decision rules to analyze information uniformly across cases, the diagnostician
assigns data importance only within the context of the individual evaluation.
In contrast, actuarial judgments make use of simple statistical models, or "diagnostic
algorithms," constructed to allow evaluation data from different sources to be quantified,
assigned a specific "weight," and incorporated into the diagnostic decision-making process
(Einhorn & Hogarth, 1978; Garb, 1989). A hallmark of actuarial decision making is that
information is collected and analyzed in a similar manner across cases, reducing the
"random fluctuations in judgment" (Dawes et al., 1989; p. 1671) that can accompany
clinical reasoning.
28
Assumptions of the superiority of clinical judgment to other types of diagnostic

reasoning have been widespread among physicians (Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989) and
psychologists (e.g., Einhorn & Hogarth, 1978). The research literature suggests that such
confidence is misplaced. To cite just one prominent review of the burgeoning research in
this area, Garb (1989) analyzed a series of studies investigating "clinical judgment" of
psychiatrists and psychologists and concluded that experienced clinicians were no more
accurate than inexperienced professionals in the diagnosis of personality traits.
Inaccuracies in clinical judgment appear to stem from a number of causes, including
(1) limited feedback after diagnosis about case outcomes, (2) the failure of the clinician to
consult actual base rates of occurrence for target behaviors or disorders in a given
population, (3) a predisposition of clinicians to form hypotheses early in an evaluation and
to hold fast to these hypotheses in the face of disconfirming data, and (4) the clinicians
tendency for selective recall of client symptoms in which anomalous findings are ignored
while more prototypical indicators of a specific disorder are remembered. In addition,
clinicians are likely to engage in "hindsight bias"; that is, after a particular diagnosis has
been arrived at, diagnosticians may (after the fact) inflate their estimate of probability that
such a diagnosis would have occurred (Einhorn & Hogarth, 1978; Fischhoff, 1975; Garb,
1989). This overestimate of diagnostic probability may in turn distort future clinical
reasoning.
A solution to the fallibility of clinical judgment in the diagnostic decision-making
required in ADHD assessment can be achieved through increased reliance upon actuarial
judgments, which routinely yield improved rates of accuracy in diagnosis and better
predictions of treatment outcomes. It should be borne in mind, though, that while an
actuarial approach is typically superior to the sole application of clinical judgment, the
gains may be modest. Furthermore, an ongoing research program is recommended to
seek constant improvements in the validity and reliability of the actuarial assessment
process (Dawes et al., 1989).
It would be an overstatement to claim that, even with our present understanding of
ADHD, diagnosticians are in a position to adopt a predominantly actuarial approach to
identification of the syndrome. Important sources of information from the multitrait,
multimethod ADHD evaluation, including parent and teacher interviews and qualitative
accounts of classroom observations, cannot easily be reduced to quantitative data and
incorporated into a diagnostic algorithm. Nonetheless, recent developments in the
definition and evaluation of the disorder have made viable the provisional application of
actuarial methods to the ADHD evaluation.
A large part of the data collected during the assessment can be subject to a form of
actuarial analysis by converting norm-referenced scores to standardized units and
compiling a comparative score profile. Even the partial adoption of actuarial methods in
diagnostic decision-making can be expected to reduce the level of error in the
classification of children--including false-positives, or the spurious labeling of children who
do not have the disorder, and false-negatives, or failure to diagnose children who actually
have ADHD). An actuarial approach to diagnosis can also offer the clinician clearer
guidelines for determining the possible presence of a disorder, and, if necessary, permit
other clinicians to replicate the results of an ADHD evaluation.
29
Making the ADHD Diagnosis

Key criteria must be met before the diagnosis of ADHD can be made. These criteria
include chronicity of the suspected disorder, the presence of specific behaviors suggesting
inattention and/or impulsivity/hyperactivity, and the pervasiveness of symptomatic
behaviors across settings and situations.
Chronicity
Data gathered during the evaluation should demonstrate that the child displayed at
least some behavioral symptoms of ADHD prior to 7 years of age and that those
symptoms were sufficiently pronounced to have presented a substantial impairment in at
least one important aspect of functioning (e.g., social interactions, academic performance).
The parent interview is typically the best source of documentation of the chronic nature of
a child's pattern of inattentive or hyperactive-impulsive behaviors. To substitute for or
corroborate parent reports, the examiner should review the students cumulative school
records, particularly teacher comments and ratings on preschool and early primary grade
report cards. This archival evidence may also turn up evidence of behavioral or attentional
problems at a young age. In the absence of any indication that symptoms existed before
age 7, ADHD would typically not be diagnosed.
Diagnostic Criteria and Subtyping

To verify the presence of ADHD, the evaluator must first confirm that a student
displays particular behaviors associated with ADHD (e.g., "has difficulty awaiting turn"); the
evaluator is then required to demonstrate that a sufficient number of related marker
behaviors exist to allow the evaluator to infer that the child presents significant
impairments in the larger behavioral constructs of inattention and/or
hyperactivity/impulsivity.
It is unrealistic to expect that all information collected in an ADHD evaluation will result
in perfect agreement on all behaviors measured. For example, parents and teachers often
show only low levels of agreement on behavior rating scales. Therefore, this manual
adopts as a working premise that "convergence of data" is accomplished in two stages.
First, the distribution of scores from standardized, norm-referenced behavioral measures is
examined. If a simple majority of scores happen to support a single diagnostic decision,
information from other sources (e.g., teacher and parent interviews, direct observation) is
examined to ensure that it corroborates data from standardized behavioral measures.
Because behavior-rating data are simple to obtain, ADHD evaluators often administer
several rating scales to multiple respondents. However, the task of finding meaningful
relationships among a thicket of resulting scores--each of which may be expressed in
different units (e.g., T scores, percentiles, etc.)--can be daunting.
One solution developed for this manual that simplifies the comparison of scores on
similar scales across different instruments is the Attentional Disorders Standard Score
Comparison Chart (ADSSCC). The evaluator scores each behavior rating scale; these
subscale scores are converted to standard, or z , scores and plotted as standard deviation
units on the Standard Score Comparison Chart. The ADSSCC separately groups
30
measures of Inattention and Hyperactivity/Impulsivity to facilitate decisions about ADHD

subtyping. In addition, collections of parent and teacher scales are juxtaposed to offer a
simple comparison of student behavioral difficulties across settings. (Instructions in the use
of the ADSSCC appear in Appendix A). By the conclusion of the diagnostic process, the
clinician will have examined all behavior rating scale and additional assessment
information, noting the presence or lack of consistency across informants, settings, and
instruments.
Pervasiveness
According to the predominant view in the diagnostic community, ADHD is a physical
condition representing a single behavioral disorder with a number of possible etiologies, or
causes. It is expected, then, that symptoms of the disorder will be readily apparent across
settings. The clinician must verify the presence of ADHD indicators in at least two settings
to meet criteria for diagnosis. The most obvious settings for comparison are school and
home. Information from parent and teacher interviews can provide anecdotal accounts of
the child's problems with attentional focus or hyperactive/impulsive behaviors. General and
ADHD-specific behavior rating scales tap parents and school staffs knowledge of the child
in a structured format and often offer the additional advantage of possessing good
psychometric qualities.
In cases of disagreement between school and home about the relative presence and
severity of ADHD-like symptoms, the teacher's ratings should usually be given the greater
consideration. Teachers have experience with a multitude of children and therefore are
likely to have a more representative idea of "typical" versus "abnormal" levels of behavior
(DuPaul, 1992). Also, ADHD symptoms tend to be more apparent in school settings than
at home, owing to the greater expectations in the classroom that children pay attention and
suppress distracting or disruptive behaviors. If the clinician encounters complete
disagreement between the student's teacher and parents regarding ADHD indicators, it
may be worthwhile to investigate a third setting in which the child spends a significant
amount of time (e.g., a daycare center). Reports from the third setting may support those
of either parent or teacher and help to resolve the impasse. However, if ADHD cannot be
demonstrated in at least two settings, the diagnosis should not be made.
Differential and Comorbid Diagnoses

Other syndromes of childhood may produce behaviors that superficially appear to
stem from ADHD. Thus, the evaluator must be competent in differential diagnosis,
examining the assessment data to decide whether an alternative disorder provides a better
explanation of a child's patterns of behavior than does ADHD (APA,1994). ADHD is also
associated with a high rate of comorbidity with other disorders, including learning
disabilities (Epstein et al., 1991), internalizing disorders such as depression and
Generalized Anxiety Disorder (e.g., McConaughy & Skiba, 1993), and Conduct Disorder
(Hinshaw, 1988). If one or more additional disorders are present with ADHD, their
presence should be noted and treatment recommendations made for all of the comorbid
syndromes. Below is a brief listing of the most common disorders which might either
31
coexist with or masquerade as ADHD, with suggestions for determining the proper
diagnosis.
Learning disabilities. Students with learning disabilities may appear to have an

attentional deficit if they are placed in instructional material that is too difficult for them
to complete or understand. Rather than follow a teacher's lecture or complete
independent seatwork, the student might instead "daydream," play with objects, or talk
to other children at inappropriate times. Learning disabled children also often find that
academic situations are difficult to tolerate because they have become associated with
failure. To escape an academic setting that has become aversive, these students may
become disruptive or display apparently hyperactive/impulsive behaviors, with the
(reinforcing) result that they are placed in time-out, sent from the room, or given easier
assignments to complete.
When the evaluator finds a severe discrepancy between cognitive and achievement
test scores, a learning disability should be investigated. If teacher reports and data
from direct observations provide evidence that a student has difficulties with behavior
or attention during only certain academic tasks, this information supports the diagnosis
of a learning disability. A combination of ADHD-like behavioral or attentional difficulties
across classroom learning situations and academic test scores that fall far short of the
child's cognitive potential may indicate the coexistence of both ADHD and a learning
disability.
Borderline Intellectual Potential or Mental Retardation. Students with limited

cognitive ability as measured on an individually administered intelligence test may
display behaviors consistent with their mental, rather than chronological, age (APA,
1994). When testing a student whose IQ is found to be below the average range, the
clinician should first compute an estimate of the student's mental age. This estimate of
mental age, not the child's chronological age, should then be used as the standard of
comparison when determining age-norms for behavior rating scales (Barkley, 1990). If
a student falls into the clinically significant range on behavior rating scales when
compared to chronological age norms, but does not fall into the significant range when
the mental age is used, ADHD should not be diagnosed. Of course, a child can be
diagnosed as having both mental retardation and ADHD if the student meets criteria
for both disorders (although mental retardation might be cited as the primary schoolbased disability).
Emotional Disturbance. The classification of Severe Emotional Disturbance

describes an educational disability rather than a clinical syndrome; it is defined in IDEA
legislation as "an inability to learn," as manifested in one or more of the following
areas: impaired peer and teacher relationships, "inappropriate" behavior or feelings;
unhappiness or depression, and phobic reactions to school or personal problems. As
presently defined, Emotional Disturbance can encompass many of the childhood
disorders outlined in DSM-IV.
Because attentional disorders are often associated with atypical levels of inattention,
32
restlessness, and impulsivity , clinicians may at times misidentify ADHD as an

Emotional Disorder. ADHD can be differentiated from Emotional Disturbance,
however, because ADHD is presumed to be a medical condition, a status that both
explains the etiology of the behavioral symptoms and points to Other Health Impaired
as the most appropriate classification for the disorder under IDEA. An additional useful
distinction between ADHD and Emotional Disturbance can be inferred from Barkley's
(1994) characterization of ADHD as a chronic "delay in the development of response
inhibition" (p. vii). If the behavioral issues for a child center primarily on that student's
inability to inhibit response to environmental stimuli (e.g., wandering attention,
restlessness, calling out without permission despite repeated reprimands), the
suggested diagnosis is ADHD. If instead the issues for the student center on
abnormality in the quality of peer and adult relationships, display of inappropriate
emotional reactions to situations, or highly atypical or bizarre behavior, the educational
diagnosis is more likely to be Emotional Disturbance.
A hypothetical example involving a child with Generalized Anxiety Disorder may
served to illustrate the differential diagnosis of Emotional Disturbance from ADHD.
Children with chronically elevated levels of anxiety may display patterns of behavior
that mimic those associated with ADHD, including an apparent lack of attentional focus
and restlessness (APA, 1994). Evidence of anxiety disorders may be detected through
general teacher and parent behavior rating scales, as well as through interviews with
adults who know the child. Teacher and parent endorsements of rating scale items or
verbal reports may indicate that the child seems irritable, has difficulty sleeping, tends
to fatigue easily, and is physically tense. These symptoms would point to the presence
of short-term difficulties with adjustment or a more pervasive anxiety disorder, while
downgrading ADHD as a likely explanation of the student's problems.
ADHD and the School-based Assessment Process: Guidelines for

Decision-Making
The school-based ADHD assessment must take into account the conventions and
regulations of both mental health and educational settings. Although the DSM-IV symptom
list is the starting point for an ADHD evaluation in the schools, procedures outlined under
IDEA and Section 504 govern the process through which school professionals make a
determination about both the presence and severity of an educationally related disability,
as well as the possible assignment of individualized services. Assessment of ADHD in the
schools can be summed up in a four-step approach that incorporates the decision-points of
IDEA and Section 504 legislation, as well as DSM clinical criteria, into a single, coherent
evaluation process.
Step 1: Determine whether the student qualifies for special-education

services under the terms of IDEA for a condition other than ADHD.
If YES, the child generally should be diagnosed with the alternative
educational disability. If NO, proceed to Step 2.
33
The categories of disability outlined in IDEA (1990) are intended to signify those
conditions expected to have the greatest negative impact on student functioning in school.
A shared feature of the most common educational disabilities, including mental retardation,
learning disabilities, and emotional disturbance, is that affected children display long-term
academic deficits that have failed to respond to instructional interventions available in
general-education classrooms. In addition, alternative explanations for the student's poor
school performance must be ruled out. Therefore, when the results of an evaluation
indicate that a child who displays clinical symptoms for ADHD also meets federal and state
criteria for a school-related disability other than an attentional disorder, the alternative
classification generally should be selected as the primary diagnosis.
This decision-rule reflects the fact that, while ADHD symptoms contribute to either
inattention or hyperactivity/impulsivity, the "pure" syndrome is not associated with reduced
intellectual potential or ingrained learning problems (APA, 1994). Therefore it is presumed
that ADHD alone cannot account for stable and severe academic underperformance over
an extended period of time that would mimic another IDEA disability.
Step 2: Determine whether the child meets DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for
ADHD.
If YES, proceed to Step 3. If NO, find no educationally related disability.
For the school psychologist, the task of resolving the question of a clinical diagnosis of
ADHD may be the most challenging step of the entire assessment. In the absence of
definitive individually administered diagnostic tests, ADHD must be diagnosed through the
"convergence" of data collected through a number of methods and from a number of
sources and settings.
Step 3: Determine if the ADHD is so severe as significantly to impair the

child's school functioning due to "limited strength, vitality, or alertness".
If YES, identify as the child as Other Health ImpairedIAttention-Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder. If NO, proceed to Step 4 (IDEA, 1990).
The Other Health Impaired (OHI) category of IDEA covers those long-term, healthrelated conditions, including ADHD, that may affect a student so severely as to prevent the
child from achieving his or her presumed educational potential (Ahearn et al., 1993)
Williams et al., 1991). As with other formal categories of disability , OHI requires that the
evaluator first rule out competing explanations for educational difficulties (e.g., poor
attendance). The clinician must present a range of evidence to document the extent and
severity of a student's impaired school performance, as well as to establish the likelihood
that ADHD symptoms play a causal role in those academic skill- or performance-deficits.
Students who are candidates for the designation OHI/ ADHD are those who:
demonstrate significant academic deficit(s)
34
do not show evidence of alternative educational disabilities

have been diagnosed with ADHD through a comprehensive assessment process
have proven resistant to the range of interventions typically available in general
education
Decision rules for the diagnosis of OHI/ ADHD are presented at greater length in Appendix
E.
On occasion, the clinician may wish to assign dual diagnoses to a student (e.g., as
learning disabled in reading and OHI/ ADHD) in recognition of the equal contribution that
ADHD and another educational handicap appear to make toward the child's school
difficulties. While federal and state regulations contain no restrictions regarding the
assignment of dual diagnoses, the mental health community at present recognizes no
single "gold standard" (McConaughy & Achenbach, 1993) for defining, assessing, or
treating childhood disorders in general or ADHD in particular. Because we are seldom able
to predict the differential impact of various disorders on child functioning beyond the most
general approximations, it might be best to exercise a conservative approach in schoolbased classifications.
As schools generally lack strong links between diagnosis and effective educational
treatments, a good rule of thumb may be to assign a single IDEA diagnosis for those
children with ADHD symptoms who also meet criteria for an alternative learning-related
disability--unless each of the dual diagnoses dictates very different intervention strategies
that are feasible in schools. Diagnostic virtuosity that is not linked to differentially effective
treatments brings little lasting benefit to the target child. Of course, if a disorder such as
ADHD is documented in a child but is not sufficiently severe to meet criteria for an
educational disability under special education guidelines, the evaluator should still
document all evidence for the syndrome and present educational recommendations for
addressing the observed symptoms.
Step 4: Determine whether the child's ADHD symptoms present an

impediment to school functioning sufficient to warrant services under Section
504.
If YES, establish an individual "accommodation plan." If NO, find no
educationally related disability (Ahearn et al., 1993; Hakola, 1992).
When a child fails to meet criteria for an educational disability under IDEA, that student
should next be evaluated to determine whether he or she meets criteria under Section 504
for school program accommodations. Section 504 requires that an assessment team of
educators "knowledgeable about the child, the evaluations and the program options"
(Ahearn et al., 1993; p. 8) assess the referred student to determine if the child "has a
physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities"
(Section 34 CFR 104.3[k][2], cited in Ahearn et al., 1993; p. 2). If the child is found to be
impaired in school functioning under the guidelines of Section 504, an "accommodation
plan" must be written that addresses the instructional needs of the student. Typically, these
accommodations can be implemented in general-education classrooms (Ahearn et al.,
35
1993), with special education services being reserved for students who display more
profound educational or behavioral impairments.
The school psychologist and other members of the ADHD diagnostic team completing
a comprehensive evaluation of a child suspected of ADHD should routinely include in their
reports information about (1) the degree of impairment that the child experiences in the
classroom because of specific disabilities, and (2) detailed suggestions for developing
effective academic interventions and behavioral programming to address the documented
impairments. Members of the Section 504 assessment team can then consult the report to
determine the student's eligibility for services under Section 504 and the nature and extent
of services for which the child might qualify.
Difficulties with the ADHD Diagnosis

In the majority of ADHD evaluations, the clinician can sift through the collected
information and arrive at a reasonably confident diagnosis based upon convergence of the
data gathered. However, there are limitations at present as to how accurately we might
diagnose ADHD in children. First, the three subtypes of ADHD (i.e., Inattentive, Impulsivity
/Hyperactive, and Combined Types) are not equal in the ease with which they are
diagnosed. While the disorder can be accurately identified in pre-school children when a
strong element of hyperactivity or impulsivity is noted, children with ADHD whose
symptoms are limited primarily to inattention are not likely to be diagnosed until upper
elementary school or even later. Similarly, girls with ADHD are less likely than boys to be
identified, perhaps because they are more likely to have problems with inattention (which
unfortunately often escape a teachers notice) rather than to display overt behavioral
symptoms (Montague et al., 1994).
A second difficulty in diagnosis is encountered when the data fail to converge into a
unified diagnostic picture. In their review of models of eligibility determination for special
education services, Barnett and Macmann (1992) use the term "indefinite triangulation" to
refer to case profiles in which the data appear inconclusive. Applied to the diagnosis of
childhood disorders, "indefinite triangulation" would suggest that a single diagnosis cannot
be arrived at because the "fixed points" of evaluative data from which that diagnosis would
be determined are not equally clear or do not all fall within a common range of severity.
There are many instances in which clinicians may encounter this problem of
inconsistent diagnostic data. The same teacher, for example, may complete two separate
behavioral rating scales for a child, with one scale showing the student within the clinically
significant range for inattention and the other placing the student in the normal range. Or
parents may disagree with the classroom teacher that a child displays inattention or
hyperactivity. A student may be reported to be inattentive at both school and home, while
behavioral observations confirm that the child displays moderately elevated levels of
inattention across subjects; yet the child evidences only mild delays in academic progress.
No simple solution exists for addressing complex diagnostic cases containing
discrepant data. In some cases, the clinician is advised to collect additional information to
resolve the referral question. In other cases, it may be advisable to refer the child to an
outside practitioner (e.g., clinical child psychologist) who is qualified to complete a more
intensive evaluation of the child's emotional functioning and to investigate more fully the
possible presence of childhood disorders.
36
References
Abikoff, H., & Klein, R. G. (1992). Attention-deficit hyperactivity and conduct disorder:
Comorbidity and implications for treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60,
881-892.
Achenbach, T. M. (1980). DSM-III in light of empirical research on the classification of child
psychopathology. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 19, 395-412.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide to the 1991 CBCL, YSR, and TRF profiles.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Ahearn, K. A., Gloeckler, L G., & Walton, A. L. (1991). Memorandum: Guidelines for school
districts regarding the rights of students under Section 504 of the Rehabilitative Act of 1973.
New York State Education Department
American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
(3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
(3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
(4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing. (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Atkins, M. S., & Pelham, W. E. (1991). School-based assessment of attention deficit-hyperactivity
disorder. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 197-205.
Atkins, M. S., Pelham, W. E., & Licht, M. H. (1985). A comparison of objective classroom
measures and teacher ratings of attention deficit disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 13, 155-167.
Attention deficit disorder advocates support school psychologists' role in diagnosis. (1994, June).
NASP Communique', pp.1, 4.
Barkley, R. A. (1990). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and
treatment. New York: Guilford Press.
Barkley, R. A. (1991). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A clinical workbook. New York:
Guilford Press.
Barnett, D. W., & Macmann, G. M. (1992). Decision reliability and validity: Contributions and
limitations of alternative assessment strategies. Journal of Special Education, 25, 431-452.
37
Bramlett, R. K., & Barnett, D. W. (1993). The development of a direct observation code for use in
preschool settings. School Psychology Review, 22, 49-62.
Burcham, B., Carlson, L., & Milich, R. (1993). Promising school-based practices for students with
attention deficit disorder. Exceptional Children, 60(2), 174-180.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W . (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Cantwell, D. P. (1980). The diagnostic process and diagnostic classification in child psychiatryDSM-III. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 19, 345-355.
Cronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials of psychological testing (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row
Clement, S. D. (1966). Minimal brain dysfunction in children. NINDS Monograph No. 3, U. S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Cone, J. D. (1977). The relevance of reliability and validity for behavioral assessment. Behavior
Therapy, 8, 411-426.
Cone, J. D. (1978). The behavioral assessment grid (BAG): A conceptual framework and a
taxonomy. Behavior Therapy, 9, 882-888.
Cone, J. D. (1986). Idiographic, nomothetic, and related perspectives in behavioral assessment.
In R. O. Nelson & S. C. Hayes (Eds.), Conceptual foundations of behavioral assessment. (pp.
111-128). New York: Guilford Press.
Cronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials of psychological testing (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row
Cotugno, A. J. (1993). The diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in
community health centers: Where and when. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 338-344.
Davila, R. R., Williams, M. L., & MacDonald, J. T. (1991). Memorandum: Clarification of policy to
address the needs of children with Attention Deficit Disorders within general and/or special
education. U. S. Department of Education: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
Dawes, R. N., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243,
1668-1674.
Deno, S. L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual student programs: A new role for school
psychologists. School Psychology Review, 15, 358-374.
DuPaul, G. J. (1992). How to assess attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder within school settings.
School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 60-74.
DuPaul, G. J., & Stoner, G. (1994). ADHD in the schools: Assessment and intervention
strategies. New York: Guilford Press.
Dykman, R. A., & Ackerman, P. T. (1993). Behavioral subtypes of attention deficit disorder.
Exceptional Children, 60, 132-141.
38
Edelbrock, C. (1983). Problems and issues in using rating scales to assess child personality and
psychopathology. School Psychology Review, 12, 293-299.
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1978). Confidence in judgment: Persistence in the illusion of
validity. Psychological Review, 85, 395-416.
Elliot, S. N., Busse, R. T., & Gresham, F. M. (1993). Behavior rating scales: Issues of use and
development. School Psychology Review, 22, 313-321.
Epstein, M. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., & Woolston, J. L. (1991). The boundaries of
attention deficit disorder. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 78-87.
Evans, I. M., Meyer, L. H., Kurkjian, J. A., & Kishi, G. S. (1988). An evaluation of behavioral
interrelationships in child behavior therapy. In J. C. Witt, S. N. Elliot, & F. M. Gresham, (Eds.),
Handbook of behavior therapy in education (pp. 189-216). New York: Plenum Press.
First, M. B., Frances, A., Widiger, T. A., Pincus, H. A., & Davis, W. W. (1992). DSM-IV and
behavioral assessment. Behavioral Assessment, 14, 297-306.
Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight =/= foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment
under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
1, 288-299.
Follette, W. C., Houts, A. C., & Hayes, S. C. (1992). Behavior therapy and the new medical
model. Behavioral Assessment, 14, 323-343.
Gammel, D. L. (1992). Comments on legal rights of students with attention deficit disorder.
School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 298-301.
Garb, H. N. (1989). Clinical judgment, clinical training, and professional experience.
Psychological Bulletin, 105, 387-396.
Goodman, G., & Poillion, M. J. (1992). ADD: Acronym for any dysfunction or difficulty. Journal of
Special Education, 26(1), 37-56.
Gordon, M. (1987). How is a computerized attention test used in the diagnosis of attention deficit
disorder? Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 19(2), 53-64).
Gordon, M., Thomason, D., Cooper, S., & Ivers, C. L. (1991). Nonmedical treatment of
ADHD/hyperactivity: The attention training system. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 151159.
Gresham, F. M. (1983). Multitrait-multimethod approach to multifactored assessment: Theoretical
rationale and practical application. School Psychology Review, 12, 26-34.
Gresham, F. M. (1984). Behavioral interviews in school psychology: Issues in psychometric
adequacy and research. School Psychology Review, 13, 17-25.
Gresham, F. M., & Gansle, K. A. (1992). Misguided assumptions of DSM-III-R: Implications for
school psychological practice. School Psychology Quarterly, 7(2), 79-95.
39
Hakola, S. R. (1992). Legal rights of students with attention deficit disorder. School Psychology
Quarterly, 7, 285-297.
Hay, W. M., Hay, L. R., Angle, H. V., & Nelson, R. O. (1979). The reliability of problem
identification in the behavioral interview. Behavioral Assessment, 1, 107-118.
Hayes, S. C. (1981). Single case experimental design and empirical clinical practice. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 193-211.
Hayes, S. C. & Follette, W. C. (1992). Can functional analysis provide a substitute for syndromal
classification? Behavioral Assessment, 14, 345-365.
Haynes, S. N., & Jensen, B. J. (1979). The interview as a behavioral assessment instrument.
Behavioral Assessment, 1, 97-106.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1987). On the distinction between attentional deficits/hyperactivity and conduct
problems/aggression in child psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 443-463.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Academic underachievement, attention deficits, and aggression:
Comorbidity and implications for intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
60, 893-903.
Hynd, G. W., Hern, K. L., Voeller, K. K., & Marshall, R. M. (1991). Neurobiological basis of
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). School Psychology Review, 20, 174-186.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (1990, October). Public Law 101-476. 104 STAT.
1103-1151.
Kazdin, A. (1977). Artifact, bias, and complexity of assessment: The ABCs of reliability. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 141-150.
Kazdin, A. (1982). Symptom substitution, generalization, and response covariation: Implications
for psychotherapy outcome. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 349-365.
Kazdin, A. (1985). Selection of target behaviors: The relationship of the treatment focus to clinical
dysfunction. Behavioral Assessment, 7, 33-47.
Krasner, L. (1992). The concepts of syndrome and functional analysis: Compatible or
incompatible? Behavioral Assessment, 14, 307-321.
Lahey, B. B., & Carlson, C. L. (1991). Validity of the diagnostic category of attention deficit
disorder without hyperactivity: A review of the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24,
110-120.
Mash, E. J. (1985). Some comments on target selection in behavior therapy. Behavioral
Assessment, 7, 63-78.
McBurnett, K., Lahey, B. B., & Pfiffner, L. J. (1993). Diagnosis of attention deficit disorders in
DSM-IV: Scientific basis and implications for education. Exceptional Children, 60(2), 108-117.
40
McConaughy, S. H., & Skiba, R. J. (1993). Comorbidity of externalizing and internalizing

problems. School Psychology Review, 22, 421-436.
Montague, M., McKinney, J. D., & Hocutt, A. (1994). Assessing students for attention deficit
disorder. Intervention in School and Clinic, 29, 212-218.
Pelham, W. E. (1993). Pharmacotherapy for children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
School Psychology Review, 22, 199-227.
Pelham, W., Evans, S., Gnagy, E., & Greenslade, K. (1992). Teacher ratings of DSM-III-R
symptoms for the disruptive behavior disorders: Prevalence, factor analysis, and conditional
probabilities in a special education sample. School Psychology Review, 21, 285-299.
Persons, J. B. (1986). The advantages of studying psychological phenomena rather than
psychiatric diagnoses. American Psychologist, 41, 1252-1260.
Platzman, K. A., Stoy, M. R., Brown, R. T., Coles, C. D., Smith, I. E., & Falek, A. (1992). Review
of observational methods in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for
diagnosis. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 155-177.
Reschly, D. J. (1988). Special education reform: School psychology revolution. School
Psychology Review, 17, 459-475.
Rosen, A., & Proctor, E. K. (1981). Distinctions between treatment outcomes and their
implications for treatment evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 418425.
Rutter, M., & Shaffer, D. (1980). DSM-III: A step forward or back in te rms of the classification of
child psychiatric disorders? Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 19, 371394.
Saudargas, R. A., & Lentz, F. E. (1986). Estimating percent of time and rate via direct
observation: A suggested observational procedure and format. School Psychology Review,
15, 36-48.
Schwartz, I. S., & Baer, D. M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice state of the
art? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 189-204.
Spitzer, R. L., & Cantwell, D. P. (1980). The DSM-III classification of the psychiatric disorders of
infancy, childhood, and adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry,
19, 356-370.
Stoner, G., & Carey, S. P. (1992). Serving students diagnosed with ADD: Avoiding deficits in
professional attention. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 302-307.
Streissguth, A. P., Sampson, P. D., Barr, H. M., Clarren, S. K., & Martin, D. C. (1986). Studying
alcohol teratogenesis from the perspective of the fetal alcohol syndrome: Methodological and
statistical issues. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 477, 63-86.
Suen, H. K., Ary, D., & Covalt, W. (1991). Reappraisal of momentary time sampling and partialinterval recording. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 803-804.
41
Voeltz, L. M., & Evans, I. M. (1982). The assessment of behavioral interrelationships in child
behavior therapy. Behavioral Assessment, 4, 131-165.
A-1
Appendix A: Converting ADHD behavior rating

scale scores into z scores
Standardizing Behavior Rating Scale Information
for Comparison Across Instruments
The number of norm-referenced behavior rating scales and checklists
designed for use in ADHD assessments is increasing rapidly. These instruments are
popular among evaluators, as they are time-efficient to complete yet tap into the
broad knowledge-base that teachers and parents have developed about a child.
When the clinician has collected several rating scales from both parents and
teachers, however, it can become difficult to find convergence among the resulting
data, particularly when attempting comparisons among measures whose scores are
reported in differing formats (e.g., T-scores, simple percentile rankings, etc.).
Interpreting a battery of scores from behavior scales completed by several
respondents (e.g., parents, teachers) can be especially problematic, because the
underlying pattern of results that may signify clinically significant levels of
inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity across settings can be obscured in the
seeming clutter of scores.
Because the norms for most assessment instruments approximate a normal
distribution, we can compare these scores directly by converting the original scores
to standard units and arranging those standardized scores as a single visual display.
Standard scores (or z scores) are scores from psychological tests that have been
converted into "standard-deviation units" through the following formula
(Anastasi, 1982):
z = X-M
SD
Each rating scale score is standardized by subtracting the mean for the scale (M) from
the individual score (X). The difference is then divided by the standard deviation
(SD) for the scale. When scores from two different scales have been converted to
standard scores, they employ the same metric and can thus be compared directly
with one another.
Occasionally, rating scales will report results in the form of percentile
rankings. Assuming that the distribution of scores obtained follows a normal
distribution, one can use the chart below to make the necessary estimate of
significance in converting percentile rankings to z scores:
Behavior Rating Scale Percentile
84th percentile
93rd percentile
98th percentile
Above 98th percentile
z score equivalent
1.0
1.5 (Clinical significance)
2.0
>2.0
A-2
An example will illustrate the use of the conversion formula. Jeri Ann, a
girl in the 3rd grade whose teacher referred her to the building Child Study Team
because of behavior problems, received a score of 67 on the Hyperactivity Scale of
the BASC Teacher Rating Scales. Because the BASC reports T scores, we know that
the mean of the instrument is 50 and the standard deviation is 10 points.
z = 67-50 = 1.7
10
The z , or standard, score for her teacher's rating of Jeri Ann on the Hyperactivity
scale is 1.7 standard deviation units.
On the ADHD Comprehensive Teacher's Rating Scale (ACTeRS), Jeri Ann's
teacher rated her as within the normal range in the areas of Attention, Oppositional
[Behavior], and Social Skills. However, Jeri was rated as falling at approximately the
95th percentile on the Hyperactivity index. While an exact z score cannot be
computed from the test profile, we can see by referring to the percentile ranking
conversion chart that Jeri Ann falls at least above the 93rd percentile for
Hyperactivity, the level generally accepted as clinically significant. When rating
scores are converted to a common metric, they can be plotted for direct comparison,
as illustrated below:
BASC-Hyperactivity
1
1.5
1.5
2.5
ACTeRS-Hyoeractivity
1
Clinical
significance
2.5
z score
On both a more general rating scale (the BASC) and an instrument that rates
behaviors specific to ADHD (the ACTeRS), data collected for Jeri Ann converge to
suggest pattern of difficulty with hyperactive behavior across measures. Of course,
additional information (e.g., parent behavioral ratings, direct observation, teacher
and parent interviews) must be collected to corroborate these preliminary findings.
Creation of a visual display can greatly simplify often-complex data from
behavior rating scales and thus help to make that information much more
accessible to physicians, parents, teachers, and others who must read and fully
understand ADHD evaluations. The Attentional Disorders Standard Score
Comparison Chart (ADSSCC), presented below, simplifies charting of z scores by
listing common ADHD rating scales. To facilitate diagnosis, the chart is divided into
measures of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity , which reflect the
distinction between these subtypes of ADHD as outlined in the DSM-IV. The
horizontal axes are marked in standard score units, so that converted scores can be
marked with an "X" on the axis corresponding to the measure (or subscale of a
measure) administered to the teacher or parent.
When plotting scores on this graph, the evaluator should be mindful of
several points. First, Barkley (1991) sets 1.5 standard deviations from the mean as
A-3
the threshold of clinical significance for commonly used measures of inattention

and hyperactivity-impulsivity such as the ADHD Rating Scale (DuPaul, 1990) and
the Home Situations Questionnaire (Barkley, 1991). A line on the chart at the 1.5
standard deviation mark indicates the border of clinical significance. Second, the
clinician using this chart may not always have a manual handy to obtain all the
information necessary to convert each measure to standard scores. In these
instances, it may be helpful to keep in mind that scores falling at or above the 93rd
percentile on norm-referenced scales meet clinical significance, using Barkley's 1.5
standard deviation rule. Third, the tests listed on the chart represent a survey of
rating scales widely used in ADHD assessment. However, the list is not intended to
be exhaustive. The reader is encouraged to explore other measures as well,
although it is recommended that any rating scale selected offer scales that separately
measure inattention, hyperactivity-impulsivity, or both, to avoid the confounding
of these dimensions of ADHD.
Inattention: Parent Ratings

ADHD Rating Scale--Factor I
(Inattention)
Home Situations
Questionnaire-Revised
BASC/PRS-Attention Problems
CBCL--Attention Problems
ACTeRS Attention Problems
A-4
ADSSCC-1
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
Inattention: Teacher Ratings

ADHD Rating Scale--Factor I
(Inattention)
Child Attention Profile-Inattention
School Situations
Questionnaire-Revised
TRF--Attention Problems
ACTeRS Attention Problems
Hyperactivity-Impulsivity: Parent Ratings

ADHD Rating Scale-Factor II (Hyperactivity)
Home Situations
Questionnaire
BASC/PRS-Hyperactivity
ACTeRS Hyperactivity
_________________
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
Hyperactivity-Impulsivity: Teacher Ratings

ADHD Rating Scale-Factor II(Impulsivity)
Child Attention Profile-Overactivity
School Situations
Questionnaire
Academic Performance
Rating Scale-Impulse Control
ACTeRS Hyperactivity
Inattention: Parent Ratings
A-5
ADSSCC-2
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
Inattention: Teacher Ratings

1
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
Hyperactivity-Impulsivity: Parent Ratings

__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
Hyperactivity-Impulsivity:
1
Teacher
1.5 Ratings
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
B-1
Appendix B: ADHD Direct Observation System

The ADHD Direct Observation System (A-DOS) is a formal method for
recording student behaviors associated with ADHD. A-DOS incorporates the the
findings of Platzman et al. (1992), who conducted a comprehensive survey of ADHD
observation systems and discovered that three general classes of behavior were most
effective in distinguishing children with ADHD from those who lacked the
disorder. The three most "diagnostic" behaviors for ADHD are inappropriate calling
out or verbalizations, excessive motor activity, and rates of off-task behavior.
Behavioral Categories
The A-DOS contains six behavioral categories: (1) Schoolwork; (2) Calling
Out/Verbalizations; (3) Out of Seat; (4) Playing with Objects/Motor Activity; (5) Peer
Interaction; and (6) Teacher Interaction. A brief definition of each category and the
manner in which it is recorded appears below:
Schoolwork (SW) --This category encompasses any formal learning
activity that the student has been assigned to complete or is expected to
take part in. For example, if the entire class has been assigned a
worksheet to complete independently at their desks, School Work is
defined as the student sitting at his or her desk, completing the
worksheet. In a large group setting in which the teacher is presenting a
lesson to the class and asking them questions about the instructional
content, School Work is defined as obvious attending, with the student
watching the teacher and responding as appropriate. Schoolwork is not
scored if the child is doing something other than the assigned work
(e.g., daydreaming, talking with a friend about non-school subjects). If
the observer is at all unsure if the student is engaged in an allowable
and educationally related activity, the teacher should be approached
unobtrusively during or soon after the observation and asked if the
student's activities fell within the instructor's definition of acceptable
academic engagement that qualifies as Schoolwork.
The SW category is coded using a momentary time-sampling
procedure. At the start of each 15- to 30-second interval, the observer
glances at the target child for approximately two seconds and
determines if the child is on-task or off-task during the brief
observation. If the child is found to be on-task (doing schoolwork), the
interval is marked with an "X." If the child is off-task, the interval
remains unmarked. The observer then ignores this behavior category
until the onset of the next time interval.
B-2
Out of Seat (OS) -- Any observed instance in which the student has left
his or her seat during instructional time is scored as Out of Seat. This
category includes those situations in which the student obtains
permission to leave his or her seat (e.g., to run an errand for the
teacher, take a bathroom break, etc.), as well as those in which the
student has left his or her seat without permission.
Incidents of OS are recorded as whole -interval events; that is, if any
incident of OS is observed during an interval, the entire interval is
marked with a single "X." If a single episode of OS continues
uninterrupted across intervals, each successive interval in which the
student remains out of seat is coded as OS. Multiple episodes of OS
during a single interval are not separately noted but instead are simply
coded with a single "X" for that interval.
Playing with Objects/Motor Activity (PLO/MO) -- Two related kinds of
behavior are collapsed into the single category. Any instance in which
the child plays with an object (e.g., a small toy, eraser, piece of paper) is
scored. Additionally, this category is scored for instances in which the
child displays repetitive, "restless" motor movement (e.g., rapping a
desktop, rocking a tipped chair back and forth, tapping a foot). On the
other hand, if the child were rummaging through her or his desk
apparently looking for something, the observer would not score the
behavior as PLO/MO because the behavior is presumed to be
purposeful and to lack the aimless or repetitive quality that defines the
category.
PLO/MO behavior is recorded using the whole-interval method.
When any incident of PLO/MO is observed during an interval, the
entire interval is marked with a single "X." If a single episode of
PLO/MO continues uninterrupted across intervals, each successive
interval in which the student remains out of seat is coded as PLO/MO.
Multiple episodes of PLO/MO during a single interval are not
separately noted but instead are simply coded with a single "X" for that
interval.
Calling out/Verbalization (CO/Verb) -- The basic unit for the category is
any verbalization by the target child during an instructional period that
is considered inappropriate because the child failed to use accepted
procedures for gaining permission to speak or is making noises that fall
outside accepted academic discourse. Examples of Calling
out/Verbalizations might include a student shouting out an answer
without raising his hand, a child humming loudly during a math test,
or a student who makes "nonsense" noises while another child is
reading aloud to the group. Whispering is considered an example of
CO/Verb if audible to the recorder. Direct communication between the
B-3
target child and another individual is not coded as CO/Verb but instead
is noted as a "Peer Interaction" or "Teacher Interaction."
CO/Verb is marked using a frequency count. That is, each successive
episode of calling out or verbalization observed during a particular
observation period is recorded with a separate mark. At the end of a
particular interval, the observer moves to the next interval and
continues to keep a running frequency count of the behavior.
Peer Interaction (PI) -- Verbal exchanges between the target child and
classmates are scored, regardless of which party initiated the interaction.
PI is marked using a frequency count. That is, each successive episode
of peer interaction observed during a particular observation period is
recorded with a separate mark. At the end of a particular interval, the
observer moves to the next interval and continues to keep a running
frequency count of the behavior. The observer may want to record a (+)
to signify positive or neutral interactions and a (-) to denote negative
interactions.
Teacher Interaction (TI) -- Verbal exchanges between the target child
and the instructor are coded. TI is marked using a frequency count.
That is, each successive episode of student interaction with the teacher
observed during a particular observation period is recorded with a
separate mark. At the end of a particular interval, the observer moves
to the next interval and continues to keep a running frequency count of
the behavior. As with the previous category, the recorder may wish to
code the quality of interactions as well as their frequency. A (+) can
signify a positive or neutral exchange, whild a (-) may signify a negative
interaction.
----------------------------------------------------Collecting Target Student Behavioral Data and Peer Norms
A central element of all ADHD assessment measures, including the A-DOS, is
the use of peer norms to determine the degree to which the target child's behavior
deviates from local, or classroom, norms. To obtain peer norms, the A-DOS
requires that the observer randomly select a peer of the same sex as the target
student (hereafter called the "comparison student") and collect behavioral data on
both students. As the observer advances through successive intervals, he or she
alternates attention between target and comparison students. It is suggested that the
observer randomly monitor several comparison students during a single
observation to maximize the likelihood that the peer norms generated are in fact
representative of the classroom. To make the task of alternating between target and
comparison students easier, the A-DOS has labeled successive intervals as "T"
(Target Student) and "C" (Comparison Student).
B-4
Qualitative Observations
At the conclusion of each observation period, the observer should take a few
moments to complete the qualitative observation form on the back of the A-DOS.
This form allows the observer to rate the quality of various aspects of the
instructional environment. Information about these instructional variables may
help to explain student behaviors at least in part as a function of the learning
environment in which he or she is placed. The observer may also notice patterns
between qualitative ratings and student behavior (e.g., the student appears to be
much more focused during instructional tasks in which directions are clear and
teacher feedback is given often, phrased in specific terms, and given immediately
after student performance).
Summing Behavioral Observations
When the A-DOS has been completed for a single session, the observer can
sum up the observations. Both SW and OS observations are summed as:
number of intervals in which the behavior was observed
all possible intervals.
The quotient from the above operation is then multiplied by 100
to yield an approximate percentage of time in which the target
behavior was observed.
For example, if the observation period lasted for 60 intervals and the child was
found to be dong Schoolwork during 42 of those intervals, an estimate of time ontask would be calculated as follows:
42 intervals observed as SW = 0.7
60 possible intervals
0.7 x 100 = 70 % of observed intervals
coded as SW
All remaining behavioral categories are scored as frequency counts. A convenient
unit for expressing these behaviors is as a rate of target behaviors exhibited per
minute of observation time. The rate would be calculated as:
Total number of target behaviors observed
Number of minutes that the observation was conducted
Let's assume, for example, that the observer completed a 20 minute observation of a
student and noted 38 separate episodes of calling out. To convert this raw data to a
rate per minute, the observer would calculate as follows:
B-5
38 call-outs = 1.9 call-outs per minute

20 minutes
Separate summary figures should be calculated for both the target and comparison
students. Keep in mind that, when observation time is divided between target and
comparison students, the total observation time devoted to each student is only half
that of the entire observation period, because the overall observation period is
divided between the two students.
Interpreting the A-DOS
A structured behavior observation such as the A-DOS can supply the observer
with direct behavioral measures of attention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. The
category Schoolwork can be viewed as a behavioral equivalent of attentional focus.
It can be argued that children found to be focused on an instructional task
throughout several observation periods have little trouble with inattention.
Similarly, students who have low rates of Calling Out/Verbalization, Out of Seat,
and Playing with Object/Motor Activity can be viewed as excercising appropriate
control over impulsivity and to display normal levels of activity rather than being
hyperactive. Peer Interaction was included to give some information about the
quality of student interactions with classmates (a measure of social skills) as well as
additional data about student off-task behavior. Teacher Interaction was included to
provide an index of the degree to which the instructor provides directions, prompts,
opportunities to respond, redirection, and other signals to the student as part of the
child's academic program.
A useful way to present the ADOS data is to prepare time-series charts that
display the data of target and comparison students. One simple method to convert
%
O
b
s
v
I
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
s
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Seatwork: Target and Comparison Students
1
Seatwork-Target
2
5-Min Observation Periods
Seatwork-Comparison
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
M
i
n
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
B-6
Call-outs: Target and Comparison Student
1
Call-outs-Target
5-Min Observation Periods
Call-outs-Comparison
numeric data to visual displays is to sum up behavioral observations across short

periods (e.g., 5 minutes of observation time) and to plot these summary values on a
time-series graph. The two charts above offer examples of how a graph may be set
up. Notice that two separate graphs have been prepared to plot Schoolwork and
Calling Out, because each behavior is represented by a different basic unit
(Schoolwork is presented at percentage of observed intervals, while Calling Out is
presented as a rate of behavior displayed per minute). An examination of the
graphs suggests that there is little difference in the apparent attention exhibited by
both students but that the target student engages in consistently higher rates of
calling out than the comparison child.
Cautions Regarding the Use of Direct Observation Methods
Classroom observations using systems such as the A-DOS provide unique
information about the deviation of a child's behaviors from the classroom norm.
However, "packaged" methods for recording student behaviors are actually formal
assessment techniques, with potential limitations that accompany any "test."
Because the observer is the "instrument" which student behaviors, that observer
must be calibrated according to a known standard. At the very least, prospective
users of the A-DOS or similar behavior recording procedure should become
thoroughly familiar with the instrument, practicing until they are comfortable with
its recording format. It is also important that the user train with a colleague, so that
both observers are able to complete simultaneous observations of a student. Shared
observational sessions will allow observers to compute rates of shared agreement in
their recording, in essence providing an indication of the extent to which both
observers are "calibrated" according to the same standard (Kazdin, 1977).
The observer who uses a behavior observation system over a period of time
should also be aware of the phenomenon of "observer drift;" over time, observers
may unknowingly change the manner in which they define behaviors (Kazdin,
1977). The potential complications of inadequate agreement among observers and
observer drift can both be controlled for by regular consultation among users of the
B-7
behavior recording instrument, occasional shared observations and comparison of

results, and periodic review of behavioral categories and definitions.
B-8
Date____/____/___ Time__:__ to __:___ Room_____________ Tchr_________________

Please rate the items below evaluating the instructional environment during your
observation of the student. For each item, circle the response that best fits your
observation. Add comments, particularly to explain items that receive low ratings.
1. The teacher made sure that the student was paying attention before
giving instructions, directions, or asking questions:
1
2
3
4
Not at all
Occasionally Frequently
Nearly all of the time
2. The teacher monitored to be sure that the student understood
the material being taught:
1
2
3
4
Not at all
3. Classroom disruptions were handled immediately or prevented:
1
2
3
4
Not at all
4. The teacher engaged the student in the lesson by asking questions
that the student could answer:
1
2
3
4
Not at all
5. Expectations for appropriate student behavior were
clear (e.g., follow classroom rules, work carefully):
1
2
3
4
Not at all
6. Interactions between the student and classmates were positive:
1
2
3
4
Not at all
7. Interactions between the student and teacher were positive:
1
2
3
4
Not at all
8. The student received imediate, specific, positive feedback
about her or his behavior or academic performance:
1
2
3
4
Not at all
9. The general noise level and behavior of other students in the
classroom were conducive to group instruction or independent seatwork:
1
2
3
4
Not at all
10. The student appeared to be placed in work that was
instructionally appropriate:
YES
NO
Comments:_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Total
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Key to abbreviations:T = Target student

C = Comparison student
SW = Schoolwork
PLO/MO = Playing with objects/Motor
OS = Out of seat
(repetitive) movement
PI = Peer interaction
CO/VERB = Calling out/Verbalizations
TI = Tchr interaction
TI
PI
CO/VERB
PLO/MO
OS
SW
TI
PI
CO/VERB
PLO/MO
OS
SW
TI
PI
CO/VERB
PLO/MO
OS
SW
/10
/10
/10
SW
/10
/10
/10
Date __/__/___ Day of Week ___________ Observation time __:___ to__:___
OS
/10 /10
/10 /10
PLO/MO
CO
PI
TI
__ 15 sec intervals __ 30 sec intervals
/10 /10
ADOS: Student Name_______________________ Tchr/Room_______________
C-1
Appendix C: Teacher ADHD Interview

The teacher interview can net a large amount of information about a child's
school adjustment, individual strengths, and problem behaviors in a relatively
short amount of time. Because of its flexibility and comprehensiveness, an
interview with the tacher should be one of the first steps in an evaluation for a
suspected attentional disorder. A well-structured teacher interview conducted in
the early stages of the evaluation can (1) focus assessment efforts on ADHD or an
alternative disorder (such as a learning disability), (2) isolate those classroom times
and settings in which the child displays behaviors of concern, (3) provide a
normative standard of comparison, contrasting the performance of the child to his
or her classmates in the areas of learning-related and general behaviors , and (4)
supply information that is useful in planning effective school-based interventions.
The clinician should set aside at least 40 minutes for the teacher interview.
The interview is intended to be conducted using a semi-structured format; that is,
questions contained in this interview do not have to be asked verbatim but may be
expressed in the consultant's own words. The advantage of the semi-structured
interview is that it allows the interviewer to bring a standardized set of questions to
each interview while maintaining the flexibility to react with specific followup
questions to unique information provided by the teacher. Care should be taken to
review with the instructor all questions in this interview that might apply to the
target student The interview questionnaire contained in this appendix consists of a
series of general questions about the child's classroom functioning. The interviewer
will probably want to ask particular questions relating to the individual case as well.
C-2
ADHD Teacher Interview

Student Name____________________________
Teacher __________________________
Student Grade________ Interview Date______
Length of time teacher has known student__________
Describe the student's academic perfomrance and present placement in the curriculum (using relevant
district criteria) in:
Reading:_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Math:___________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Written language__________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Content area subjects:________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Describe any behavioral difficulties that the child may have in the classroom or any other school
setting. [Note to interviewer: This question is repeated until no further problem behaviors are given].
When did this behavior first appear?___________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
How frequently does the problem behavior occur?__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
In what settings does the behavior typically appear? When is it most severe?_____________
________________________________________________________________________
What do you think motivates the student to show this behavior?______________________
________________________________________________________________________
Are there any observable events that allow you to predict that the behavior will occur?_____
________________________________________________________________________
What are the typical outcomes or consequences of this behavior?_______________________
________________________________________________________________________
C-3
What are some factors that seem to make the behavior worse?_________________________
________________________________________________________________________
What are some strategies that have already been tried to address the problem behavior?____
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
How successful was each strategy?________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Please rank those behaviors listed above that concern you, ranked from greatest to least importance:
1._______________________
4. _______________________
2. _______________________
5. _______________________
3. _______________________
6. _______________________
How are this student's social interactions with other students? ______________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Where would you rank this student in social skills?

1
2
Lowest quarter of the class
Average range of social skills
3
Highest quarter of the class
Describe the general quality of the student's interactions with you:__________________________

____________________________________________________________________________
Please describe any physical symptoms of concern (if any) you have observed in this student (e.g.,
complaints of stomach pains, excessive sleepiness, low or high attention level, etc.):
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
What would you consider to be relative strengths for this child?:_____________________________

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
C-4
What are some activities, experiences, or opportunities that this child sees as rewarding or positively
reinforcing in school? For each example, please indicate the frequency that the child seeks to engage in
the activity/experience:
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
[Note: Before the conclusion of the interview, the interviewer should have the instructor complete the
Child Behavior Disorders Rating Scale]
Additional notes:
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
D-1
Appendix D: Daily ADHD Behavioral Report Card

Monitoring Student Behavior in the Classroom
A school multi-disciplinary ADHD team may have several possible reasons
for wanting to collect daily ratings of student behavior in the classroom. For
example, the team may wish to measure the variability of student behavior across
days, monitor the impact of a teacher intervention on student behavior, or track the
effectiveness of psychostimulant medication in improving the child's behavior
and/or academic performance. Daily student behavioral measures are typically
difficult to obtain using traditional assessment methods. Direct observation of the
child, for instance, can prouce behavioral information of high quality but is overly
time-intensive for all but the most difficult cases. Daily teacher completion of
general behavioral questionnaires (e.g., BASC TRS; Achenbach TRF) is usually not
feasible, because of both excessive time demands made upon the instructor and a
lack of congruence between many rating scale items and actual classroom behavioral
goals.
A report card rating the behaviors of the target student is a solution that can
yield useful daily readings of child classroom functioning at an acceptable cost in
time and effort by school personnel. Pelham (1993) outlines a procedure for
operationalizing teacher concerns about student classroom behaviors, converting
those concerns into a customized student behavior rating scale, having the teacher
rate the student's behavior on the scale on a daily basis, and charting the resulting
ratings as time-series data across days to reveal meaningful trends in behaviors.
(The reader is referred to Pelham (1993) for a complete discussion of preparation and
use of such a monitoring procedure.)
While a daily rating scale composed of items of specific concern to the teacher
has both face validity and social validity and would most likely be useful in setting
specific treatment targets, there are potential obstacles to that assessment approach.
Teachers may have difficulty isolating and operationalizing individual behaviors of
concern, even with the assistance of a skilled consultant. The effort to pin down
finely delineated behaviors may be further frustrated if the student's topography, or
range, of presenting behaviors varies a great deal in response to such
environmental variables as instructional setting, and proximity of children and
adults. As one possible result, the teacher may rate a student with suspected ADHD
on behaviors previously singled out with the aid of a consultant, only to discover
that, while those target behaviors may decrease, the overall degree of inattention or
hyperactivity/impulsivity remains unchanged.
While it only partly addresses these measurement concerns, the student Daily
Behavior Rating Report Card presented in this section uses a format that is quick to
score and attempts to link discrete school-related behaviors associated with
attentional disorders to broader dimensions of ADHD. A feature of the standardized
behavioral report card is that individual behavioral items can be consolidated into
larger "response classes," or broad groupings, made up of behavioral items that
covary (Evans, Meyer, Kurkjian & Kishi, 1988). To the degree that discrete behaviors
D-2
are symptomatic of ADHD, they are assumed to stem from variables within the
child. As outline in DSM-IV (APA, 1994) two major response-classes relating to
ADHD, then, are those of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. The six rating
items on the behavior rating report card include measures of attention/productivity
(items 1 and 2), and hyperactivity/impulsivity (items 3, 4, and 5). Item 6 rates the
student's general rate of compliance in the classroom. While non-compliance is not
a criterion for ADHD, it is a frequent behavioral correlate of the disorder,
particularly in boys (Pelham, 1993). Table 1 presents the items appearing on the
ADHD Report Card.
Table 1: Items from the ADHD Daily Behavior Rating Report Card
During the day, this student:
1. Focused attention on school work during academic periods.
2. Finished assigned class work.
3. Remained in seat during academic periods.
4. Avoided calling out or inappropriate verbalizations (e.g., nonsense noises).
5. Avoided repetitive motor behaviors (e.g., table-tapping) or playing with objects.
6. Complied with reasonable adult requests.
The advantage of the standardized ADHD Report Card over a customized rating
scale that incorporates only specific teacher concerns about student behaviors is that
the ADHD Report Card can track fluctuations at the levels of both dicrete behaviors
and more inclusive response classes. To cite a hypothetical case, a child may show a
high degee of hyperactivity/impulsivity in the classroom. The teacher institutes an
intervention in which the student is positively reinforced for remaining in his seat.
After the start of treatment, daily behavior ratings reveal that indeed the student
responds to the intervention by remaining seated during the entire academic period.
However, the student may also show a corresponding increase in degree of calling
out and verbalizations. Put another way, the student may have decreased a single
inappropriate behavior but the teacher's impression of overall level of the child's
hyperactivity/impulsivity may remain relatively constant because of the greater
frequency of student calling out.
Using the Daily Behavior Report Card
The Daily Behavior Report Card can be used for a variety of data-gathering
requirements. In all cases, the instructor is given the Report Card and instructed to
rate the student's behavior on each dimension on a daily basis. It is recommended
that the consultant meet with the instructor initially to explain the Report Card, its
function, and the use that will be made of the resulting data. The instructor should
D-3
complete the Card at the same time each day, ideally just after students have been
dismissed. In classrooms with more than one instructor or adult staff member, the
same instructor should complete the form each day, to prevent unwanted variation
across raters. Whenever possible, of course, the teacher who has the most contact
with the child within the greatest number of settings should be assigned as the rater.
The consultant collects completed ADHD Report Cards periodically and charts
teacher ratings. The consultant has the option of charting the data at increasingly
fine-grained levels. For example, if a preliminary assessment of the child indicates
that she has ADHD, Predominantly Combined Type, the consultant may simply add
up all teacher ratings and chart those values on the global chart. However, if a child
has been found to be inattentive yet well-behaved, the consultant might select
instead to rate the child only on the dimension of inattention. Finally, if a
particular behavioral category (e.g., non-compliance) is of particular concern to the
teacher, the consultant may choose to chart that behavioral dimension separately in
addition to charting summed values of behavioral items.
The ADHD Report Card can be used in any situation in which student
behaviors should be monitored on a daily basis. Several potential applications of
the Report Card appear below:
ADHD Evaluation
The ADHD Report Card can be used as one of the assessment instruments in
the ADHD evaluation. The examiner might look for corroboration between the
instructor's observations of student behavior obtained during the teacher interview
and the teacher's daily rating of the child's behavior. Teacher behavioral ratings can
also be cross-checked against the day of the week and instructional demands placed
on the child from day to day to investigate possible situational or instructional
variables that may be contributing to student problem behaviors.
The Report Card can also be used to obtain peer norms. The consultant
should review the class list for the target student, selecting at random from that list
other children of the same sex as the child being evaluated. This list of randomly
selected peers is then given to the teacher, along with extra Report Cards. As the
teacher rates the target student each day, the instructor will also rate the behaviors of
a randomly selected peer, rating a different peer each day. The results for both target
and comparison students can be charted to give a normative point of comparison
for the teacher's ratings.
Behavioral Interventions
Despite careful assessment, the consultant may not be sure of the degree to
which variables relating to the interaction of the target child and his or her
instructional environment may contribute to behavioral difficulties that may
mimic ADHD. Generally, authorities on the treatment of ADHD recommend the
implementation of behavioral and instructional interventions before
psychostimulant medications are prescribed. The ADHD Report Card can serve as
one measure of the effectiveness of classroom interventions. If the Report Card is to
be used to judge the efficacy of a behavioral intervention, at least two weeks of
baseline data should first be collected and charted to gauge behavioral levels and
D-4
amount of variation in ratings across days prior to intervention. Of course,

classroom behavioral interventions are also recommended even when medication
is an active part of the child's ADHD treatment plan. The ADHD Daily Behavioral
Report Card can provide ongoing monitoring of the identified student's classroom
adjustment and performance with little effort required for data collection. (A
signature block is included on the Report Card for the parent; teachers may want to
send them home for parents to review and sign as part of a school-home behavioral
intervention.)
Medication Trials
Children placed on psychostimulant medication such as Ritalin or Dexadrine
should be closely monitored to determine the effects of pharmacotherapy on their
school behaviors and academic achievement. Research indicates that, when the
dosage of ADHD medication is altered, medication changes can differentially affect
student behaviors (defined as the display of overt classroom behaviors) and
cognitive abilities (capacity to attend and learn) (Swanson, Cantwell, Lerner,
McBurnett & Hanna, 1991). Because ADHD Report Card items track both cognitive
(inattention) and behavioral (hyperactivity/impulsivity) dimensions, the
consultant may be able separately to chart these values during successive trials in
which the student receives varied dosages of medication (and perhaps placebo) to
judge behavioral and cognitive responses to medication. While sufficient
information may be available from the parent to coordinate school behavioral
monitoring with reliable recording of daily medication dosages, the consultant
should be in contact with the child's physician if a blind trial of psychostimulant
medication is intended (Pelham, 1993). As with behavioral interventions, at least
two weeks of baseline data should be collected when the effects of ADHD medication
are to be monitored.
Limitations of the Instrument
The ADHD Daily Behavioral Report Card incorporates the broad dimensions
of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity derived from DSM-IV (APA, 1994).
The DSM-IV relies upon a rationally derived rating system for the identification of
ADHD. Because of its reliance on the DSM-IVdefinition of attentional disorders, the
ADHD Report Card can also be viewed as a rating scale that relies upon a clinical
consensus, rather than empirically demonstrated evidence, about what behaviors
are considered indicators of ADHD in the classroom. No research studies have yet
been undertaken to determine the reliability of the ADHD Report Card in
diagnosing the presence of attentional disorders or the sensitivity of the instrument
in detecting behaviors thought to be symptomatic of ADHD. (The reader seeking a
daily rating instrument with demonstrated psychometric qualities is advised to
consider the Iowa Connors Teacher's Rating Scale (Loney & Milich, 1982).)
Furthermore, the Report Card relies upon teacher report as its source of
information, raising the additional question of whether teachers are reliable sources
of information to be used in the identification of ADHD.
Despite potential limitations of the ADHD Report Card, several factors appear
to support its use in diagnosis and classroom monitoring of ADHD. Research on
D-5
the use of direct observation systems ADHD studies has shown that a number of
items appearing on the Report Card (e.g., attention to schoolwork, calling out,
excessive motor activity) are positively correlated with the ADHD diagnosis
(Platzman et al., 1992). Items on the Report Card also closely approximate items on
general behavior scales that have been demonstrated through statistical analysis to
be linked to the behavioral constructs of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity.
Teachers have also been recognized as reliable informants in educational
assessment for many years, both in face-to-face interviews with consultants and
when responding to general behavior rating scales. In fact, some (e.g., Witt, 1990 )
have argued that teacher "complaints" about student behavior are some of the most
meaningful data that consultants can collect, as teacher attitude toward a target
student can greatly influence case outcome. A daily behavior measure, then, that
tracks student behavior as interpreted by the instructor may yield some of the most
salient information available about the student's adjustment to the classroom and
instructor.
Person Completing Daily
D-6
Behavior Rating Report Card::______________________________
Student Name:__________________________
Date:_________________
Seldom/Never
1. Focused attention on school work

during academic periods.
Sometimes
M T W Th F
(Circle)
Most/All of Time
3. Remained in seat during academic

0
periods.
4. Avoided calling out or inappropriate
0
verbalizations (e.g., nonsense noises).
5. Avoided repetitive motor behaviors
0
(e.g., table-tapping) or playing with objects.
Comments:_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Parent/Guardian_________________________________Date______________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Person Completing Daily
Behavior Rating Report Card:______________________________
Student Name:_______________________
Date:_________________
M T W Th F
(Circle)
Sometimes
Most/All of Time
Seldom/Never
1. Focused attention on school work

during academic periods.
3. Remained in seat during academic

0
periods.
4. Avoided calling out or inappropriate
0
verbalizations (e.g., nonsense noises).
5. Avoided repetitive motor behaviors
0
(e.g., table-tapping) or playing with objects.
Comments:_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Parent/Guardian_________________________________Date______________
D-7
ADHD Teacher Daily Behavioral Report Card Charts

Inattention-Hyperactivity/Impulsivity (Items 1-5)
If the child being evaluated has low teacher ratings on both item-groups 1-2 and 3-5, sum
instructor ratings for each day and chart below. Record the date for each observation.
Rating
Points
20
18
16
14
12
10
08
06
04
02
00
Date:
M
___
T
W
Th
F
M
T
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
W
Th
F
M
T
W
Th
F
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Hyperactivity/Impulsivity (Items 3,4, & 5)

To display an ongoing measure of the child's activity level, sum the values for items
3-5 and chart below.
Rating
Points
12
10
08
06
04
02
00
Date:
M
___
T
W
Th
F
M
T
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
W
Th
F
M
T
W
Th
F
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
D-8
Inattention (Items 1 & 2)

Combining teacher ratings for items 1and 2 will yield a teacher estimate of student
attention and work completion.
Rating
Points
08
06
04
02
00
Date:
M
___
T
W
Th
F
M
T
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
W
Th
F
M
T
W
Th
F
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Single Behavioral Item (Any one of items 1-6)

If the student shows particular difficulties on any one behavioral item (e.g., noncompliance) the consultant may wish to chart teacher ratings for that item
separately.
__ On-Task (Item 1)
__ Calling out (Item 4)
__ Work Completion (Item 2)

__ Repetitive/motor (Item 5
__ Remained seated (Item 3)

__ Compliance (Item 6)
Rating
Points
04
02
00
Date:
M
___
T
W
Th
F
M
T
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
W
Th
F
M
T
W
Th
F
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
E-1
Appendix E: Decision Rules for Diagnosing Other

Health Impairment/Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder
The following expanded definition of OHI/ADHD, with diagnostic decision
rules, was adopted in March 1995 by the Syracuse (NY) City School District
ADHD Committee as representing best school-based diagnostic practices:
OHI/ADHD: Decision Rules for Identification

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is a childhood disorder presumed to be
neurologically based and marked by developmentally inappropriate levels of inattention,
hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD may have a variable effect on the education of
children or youths with the disorder. This impact may range from minor and relatively
unnoticed to quite profound, requiring programming beyond that normally delivered in a
regular education setting. In the most extreme cases of the disorder, a student with ADHD
may be evaluated by a school-based multi-disciplinary team and designated Other Health
Impaired/ADHD under Part 200 of the NYS Regulations of the Commissioner of
Education.
In order for a child or youth to be designated OHI/ADHD, the student must (a) be
formally diagnosed as having ADHD through a comprehensive medical and school-based
assessment procedure; (b) display evidence of a significant deficit in at least one academic
area; (c) not more appropriately meet the diagnostic criteria for a learning disability,
emotional disturbance, or other alternative disability; and (d) have failed to respond to
appropriate behavioral and/or academic interventions attempted in the regular-education
classroom.
Evidence of Academic Deficit(s) As with any impairment, the detrimental educational
impact of ADHD must be clearly demonstrated before the disorder can be considered an
educational disability. If formal cognitive and academic achievement measures are
administered, a student must demonstrate at least a significant discrepancy between
intellectual potential and academic achievement in basic- or content-area skills as a
criterion of OHI/ADHD. Alternative measures of academic deficit can include (but are not
limited to:
significant discrepancies between group achievement or content tests

(e.g., Degrees of Reading Power; New York State Regents Competency Tests)
and intellectual potential;
chronic failing or near-failing grades across multiple school years in spite

of evidence of adequate achievement in basic skill areas.
Rule-outs of Alternative Learning Disorders. Children and youth with ADHD are at
greater risk than their non-identified peers of having coexisting learning-related disorders,
such as learning disabilities or emotional disturbance. Furthermore, it is sometimes
difficult to distinguish the behavioral symptoms of ADHD from other childhood disorders
E-2
without careful assessment. For example, ADHD may resemble some forms of emotional
disturbance, except that inappropriate classroom behavior of students with ADHD can be
explained by an underlying health condition (i.e., ADHD). It is the responsibility of the
examiner to specifically rule out alternative disorders for which the student may be eligible
for special education. If an alternative disability is diagnosed, either alone or in
combination with ADHD, the alternative disability is usually determined to be the primary
handicap.
Medical and School-based Diagnosis of ADHD. The ADHD diagnosis is based upon current
commonly accepted diagnostic criteria as outlined in DSM-IV. While diagnoses by
professionals in private practice (e.g., physicians, clinical psychologists) may be accepted as
evidence of the disorder, no ADHD evaluation will be considered complete until a schoolbased multidisciplinary team has completed a comprehensive evaluation to corroborate
the outside diagnosis and to determine the degree to which the disorder impacts the
child's education. An acceptable school-based ADHD evaluation makes use of multiple
methods of assessment, incorporating information from several sources and across
multiple settings. The diagnosis of ADHD is necessary, but not sufficient, in attaining the
designation of OHI/ADHD.
Documentation of General-Education Interventions. Symptoms associated with ADHD,
including inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, fall along a continuum of severity.
The response of a child with ADHD to a well-implemented general-education
intervention cannot be predicted before the fact. Therefore, before a child can be
designated OHI/ADHD, appropriate interventions must be implemented, documented,
and monitored in the regular classroom. The major school-based treatments available
include academic and behavioral interventions. If the student fails to make expected
progress despite these interventions, the Committee on Special Education may infer that
ADHD as an underlying disorder is contributing to the student's resistance to
intervention. In such cases, special education services may be indicated.
In summary, students who are candidates for the designation OHI/ADHD are
those who:
demonstrate significant academic deficit(s);

do not show evidence of alternative educational disabilities;
have been diagnosed with ADHD through a comprehensive assessment
process; and
have proven resistant to the range of interventions typically available in
general education.
Committee on Special Education
OHI/ADHD Checklist
Student Name
The following document is intended to be used by the Committee on Special Education as a brief "checklist" of
the elements that should be addressed in the school-based ADHD evaluation. Please note that the full
evaluation represented below is mandated only when the evaluator has diagnosed a student as Other Health
Impaired/ADHD. (For a more complete treatment of the school-based ADHD evaluation, please review
ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual.)
Part I: ADHD Battery: Evaluation Instruments and Sources
___
Behavior Rating Scales. At least one (1) general behavior rating scale (e.g., BASC, Achenbach
CBCL) and one (1) ADHD rating scale (e.g., ACTeRS) should be administered to both the
teacher(s) and the parent(s). The purpose is to establish the presence of inattention and/or
hyperactivity across settings.
___
Interviews. Interviews relating to ADHD symptomatology should be completed with both the
teacher(s) and parent(s) of the student under evaluation. The purpose is to establish the
presence of inattention and/or hyperactivity across settings and to meet other key criteria for
the ADHD diagnosis as outlined in DSM-IV. Interviews also document past efforts to address
the student's behavioral or academic needs in the general education setting.
___
Direct Observation. Two or more observations of the student should be completed in the
classroom, ideally during study or instructional periods. Some form of a structured
observational system should be used (e.g., SECOS, A-DOS). Data should be collected on both
target student and peer behaviors to provide a normative standard of comparison.
___
Cognitive and Achievement Testing. Measures of cognitive potential (e.g., WISC-III, StanfordBinet, 4th Edition) and academic achievement (e.g, KTEA, Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement) should be administered. Results of these tests are required to rule out
alternative explanations for the student's attentional or behavioral problems, including mental
retardation and learning disabilities.
Part II: Rationale for OHI /ADHD Diagnosis

The report should present a coherent rationale to support a diagnosis of OHI/ADHD; it should also explicitly
rule out alternative educational disorders and environmental explanations for the student's observed
behavioral and/or academic difficulties.
___
Demonstration of Significant Academic Deficits. The evaluator must demonstrate that the
student shows evidence of significant academic deficits relative to his or her potential. This
evidence may take several forms, including a significant discrepancy between student cognitive
potential and academic achievement on formal testing or a pattern of chronic failing or nearfailing across multiple school years in spite of evidence of adequate mastery of basic skills.
___
Documentation of General Education Interventions. Information should be presented about

interventions attempted in the general education setting prior to the evaluation to address
attentional and/or behavioral concerns. Specific data must be included about (1) the type of
intervention(s) tried, (2) length of time implemented, and (3) student response to the treatment.
Rule-out of Alternative Disabilities. Using Part 200 of the NYS educational regulations as a
guideline, the evaluator should explicitly rule out alternative disorders (e.g., learning
disabilities) that might account for the observed symptoms.
___
Medical and School-Based Diagnosis of ADHD. In addition to a diagnosis of ADHD from a

school-based evaluation team, the student must also have been diagnosed with ADHD by a
physician. Note: A prescription for psychostimulant medication (e.g., Ritalin) is not
considered a medical diagnosis for ADHD in the absence of additional medical documentation.

Adhd Manual

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adhd Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adhd Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attention-Deficit

About This Book

About The Author

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

Section I: Schools and the Assessment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ........................ 3

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

Appendix A: Converting ADHD behavior rating scale scores into z scores.A-1

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

Section I: Schools and the Assessment of

History of ADHD As a Disorder

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

Current Clinical Definition of ADHD

If a combination of at least 6 of the 9 inattention symptoms and 6 of the 9

If at least 6 of the 9 hyperactive-impulsive symptoms are endorsed, but fewer than 6

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

Second, the diagnostician completing the evaluation must be able to document

Third, the child's inattention or hyperactive-impulsive behaviors must be shown to

Contributions of DSM to a School-based Assessment of ADHD: The

Support for the DSM.

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

Table 1: DSMDSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria for AttentionAttention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

Criticisms of the DSM

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

Relation of DSM to the School-based ADHD Assessment

ADHD in the Schools

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

Medical versus Multi-Disciplinary Diagnosis

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

Purpose of the Manual

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

Section II: Conducting the School-Based

Multitrait, Multimethod Assessment

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

Dimensions of Bandwidth and Fidelity

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

Assessing Childhood Disorders: Special Considerations

ADHD: A School-Based Evaluation Manual

Jim Wright (www.interventioncentral.org)

Table 2: Descriptions and Diagnostic Summaries of Selected

Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD): Endorsement of four or more ite ms