Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 179–190 | Cite as

Rating scales for hyperactivity: Concurrent validity, reliability, and decisions to label for the Conners and Davids abbreviated scales

  • Sydney S. Zentall
  • Robin S. Barack
Article

Abstract

Rating scales have become the instrument of choice in labeling and assessing change in behavior of hyperactive children. However, several criticisms have recently been levied against their use. The present investigation examined the concurrent validity, and inter- and intrarater reliability for the Abbreviated Teacer Questionnaire (ATQ, Conners, 1973) and the Rating Scales for Hyperkinesis (Davids, 1971). Sixteen teachers from two special and two regular schools (grades 1–4) rated 211 normal and 49 special children using both scales. High correlations were found suggesting excellent predictability between scales and considerable stability across time and rater. Lower scores on a subsequent rating relative to an initial rating were demonstrated, dependent on time between ratings but independent of (a) teacher expectation of treatment gains, (b) bias produced by rating selected children, and (c) whether children were hyperactive or normal. Use of initial and infrequent rating scores versus subsequent, closely spaced ratings was related to the rater's objective (e.g., diagnosis, treatment, or assessment).

Keywords

Lower Score Initial Rating Concurrent Validity Rating Score Subsequent Rating 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference note

  1. 1.
    Anderson, R. P., Williamson, G., & Rushing, C. L.Trends in research with hyperactive children. Unpublished manuscript, Texas Tech University, 1978.Google Scholar

References

  1. 1.
    Blunden, D., Spring, C., & Greenberg, L. M. Validation of the classroom behavior inventory.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974,42, 84–88.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Conners, C. K. A teacher rating scale for use in drug studies with children.American Journal of Psychiatry, 1969,126, 884–888.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Conners, C. K. Psychological effects of stimulant drugs in children with minimal brain dysfunction.Pediatrics, 1972,49, 702–708.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conners, C. K. Rating scales for use in drug studies with children.Psychopharmacology Bulletin (Special Issue: Pharmacotherapy of children), 1973, 24–84.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cromwell, R. L., Baumeister, A., & Hawkins, W. F. Research in activity level. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.),Handbook of mental deficiency. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davids, A. An objective instrument for assessing hyperkinesis in children.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1971,4, 35–37.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Denhoff, E., Davids, A., & Hawkins, R. Effects of dextroamphetamine on hyperkinetic children: A controlled double blind study.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19714(9), 491498.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Douglas, V. I. Sustained attention and impulse control: Implications for the handicapped child. In J. A. Swets & L. L. Elliot (Eds.),Psychology of the handicapped child. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. Pp. 149–168.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edwards, A. L.Experimental design in psychological research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1977.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freeman, R. D. Minimal brain dysfunction, hyperactivity, and learning disorders. In J. J. Bosco & S. S. Robin (Eds.),The hyperactive child and stimulant drugs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hays, W. L.Statistics for social sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huessey, H. L. Study of the prevalence and therapy of choreatiform syndrome of hyperkinesis in rural Vermont.Acta Paedopsychiatrica, 1967,34, 130–135.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson, R. A., Kenney, J. B., & Davis, J. B. Developing school policy for use of stimulant drugs for hyperactive children. In J. J. Bosco & S. S. Robin (Eds.),The hyperactive child and stimulant drugs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knights, R. M., & Hinton, G. G. The effects of methylphenidate (Ritalin) on the motor skills and behavior of children with learning problem.Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1969,148, 648–653.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller, R. G., Palkes, H. S., & Stewart, M. A. Hyperactive children in suburban elementary schools.Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 1973,4, 121–127.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Safer, D. J. & Allen, R. P.Hyperactive children: Diagnosis and management. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sandoval, J. The measurement of the hyperactive syndrome in children.Review of Educational Research, 1977,47, 293–318.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schnackberg, R. C. Caffeine as a substitute for Schedule II stimulants in hyperkinetic children.American Journal of Psychiatry, 1973,130, 796–798.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sprague, R. L., & Sleator, E. K. Methylphenidate in hyperkinetic children: Differences in dose effects on learning and social behavior.Science, 1977,198, 1274–1276.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Whalen, C. K., & Henker, B. Psychostimulants and children: A review and analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 1976,83, 1113–1130.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Werry, J. S., & Sprague, R. Methylphenidate in children: Effect of dosage.Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 1974,8, 9–19.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zentall, S. S., Zentall, T. R., & Barack, R. S. Distraction as a function of within-task stimulation for hyperactive and normal children.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1978,11, 540–548.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sydney S. Zentall
    • 1
  • Robin S. Barack
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Special EducationEastern Kentucky UniversityRichmond
  2. 2.Pittsburgh Child Guidance CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations