Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Psychometric properties of two ADHD questionnaires: comparing the Conners’ scale and the FBB-HKS in the general population of German children and adolescents – results of the BELLA study

  • ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
  • Published:
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and objective

To examine and compare the psychometric properties of two short screening instruments for children and adolescents suffering from attention deficit-/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The Conners’ Hyperactivity Index consists of ten items that assess symptoms of hyperactivity through self-report and parents’ proxy. The German ADHD Rating scale (FBB-HKS/ADHS) consists of 20 items that assess the severity and perceived burden of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsiveness as defined by the ICD-10 and DSM-IV.

Methods

Within the BELLA module of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS), the parents of 2,863 children and adolescents rated the Conners’ Hyperactivity Index and the FBB-HKS.

Results

The internal consistency of item responses was assessed via Cronbach’s α and showed that both instrument scores were able to obtain a reliable measurement. The factorial validity of the FBB-HKS measurement model as well as the unidimensionality of the Conners’ scale was tested by means of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA), indicating satisfactory goodness of fit for the FBB-HKS (RMSEA = 0.06) and some deviation from the unidimensionality assumption of the Conners’ scale. Stability of results across age could be confirmed with few exceptions. Mean scores differences were found between both sexes, age groups, and different socioeconomic status groups (Winkler-Index) with males, younger respondents, and children with low socioeconomic status displaying more ADHD-related behaviour. Correlation coefficients between the two instruments’ scores and other scales assessing emotional and behavioural problems hinted at convergent validity.

Conclusion

Both instruments’ scores showed reliability as well as factorial and convergent / discriminant validity. The pros and cons of the two instruments as well as for which purpose and under which circumstances one of the measures can be favoured must be considered prior to applying such a measure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Achenbach TM, Edelbrock C (1983) Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior Profile. University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arnold LE, Barnebey NS, Smeltzer DJ (1981) First grade norms, factor analysis and cross correlation for Conners, Davids, and Quay-Peterson behavior rating scales. J Learn Disabil 14:269–275

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Becker A, Rothenberger A, Deutsche ADORE/FACE Studiengruppe (2006) Psychopathological Screening of children with ADHD: strengths and difficulties questionnaire in a paneuropean study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 15:56–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Biederman J (2005) Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a selective overview. Biological Psychiatry 57:1215–1220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Birnbaum HG, Kessler RC, Lowe SW, Secnik K, Greenberg PE, Leong SA, Swensen AR (2005) Costs of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the US: excess costs of persons with ADHD and their family members in 2000. Curr Med Res Opin 21:195–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE (2003) Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT™). Qual Life Res 12:913–933

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Blank R, Remschmidt H (1992) Subgruppen hyperkinetischer Störungen-explorative Untersuchungen unter Berücksichtigung von Fragebogenverfahren und immunologischen Parametern. Subgroups of hyperkinetic disorders—explorative studies with reference to questionnaires and immunologic parameters. Z Kinder Jugendpsychiatr 20:34–45

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Breuer D, Döpfner M (2006) Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit- / Hyperaktivitätsstörungen bei Drei- bis Sechsjährigen in der ärztlichen Praxis—eine bundesweite Befragung. Z Kinder Jugendpsychiatr Psychother 34:357–365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Breuer D, Döpfner M (2008) Validierung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung von Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit-/Hyperaktivitätsstörungen (ADHS) bei Vorschulkindern im Eltern- und im Erzieherurteil. Z Entwicklungspsychol Padagog Psychol (accepted)

  10. Brühl B, Döpfner M, Lehmkuhl G (2000) Der Fremdbeurteilungsbogen für hyperkinetische Störungen (FBB-HKS)—Prävalenz hyperkinetischer Störungen im Elternurteil und psychometrische Kriterien. Kindheit und Entwicklung 9:116–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Camilli G, Shepard LA (1994) Methods for identifying biased test items. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell SB, Steinert Y (1978) Comparisons of rating scales of child psychopathology in clinic and nonclinic samples. J Consult Clin Psychol 46:358–359

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Coghill D, Spiel G, Baldursson G, Döpfner M, Lorenzo MJ, Ralston SJ, Rothenberger A, the ADORE study group (2006) Which factors impact on clinician-rated impairment in children with ADHD? Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 15(Suppl 1):30–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Collett BR, Ohan JL, Myers KM (2003) Ten-year review of rating scales. V: scales assessing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 42:1015–1037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Conners C (1970) Symptom patterns in hyperkinetic, neurotic, and normal children. Child Dev 41:667–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Conners CK (1973) Rating scales for use in drug studies with children. Pharmacotherapy of children [Special issue]. Psychopharmacol Bull, 24–84

  17. Conners CK, Sitarenios G, Parker JD, Epstein JN (1998) The revised Conners’ Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R): factor structure, reliability, and criterion validity. J Abnorm Child Psychol 26(4):257–268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Coste J, Bouée S, Ecosse E, Leplège A, Pouchot J (2005) Methodological issues in determining the dimensionality of composite health measures using principal component analysis: case illustration and suggestions for practice. Qual Life Res 14:641–654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cuffe SP, Moore CG, McKeown RE (2005) Prevalence and correlates of ADHD symptoms in the National Health Interview Survey. J Atten Disord 9:392–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Döpfner M, Breuer D, Wille N, Erhart M, Ravens-Sieberer U, BELLA study group: How often do children meet ICD-10/DSM-IV criteria of attention deficit-/hyperactivity disorder and hyperkinetic disorder? Parent-based prevalence rates in a national sample – results of the BELLA study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 17(Suppl1):59–70

  21. Döpfner M, Steinhausen H-C, Coghill D, Dalsgaard S, Poole L, Ralston SJ, Rothenberger A, the ADORE Study Group (2006) Cross-cultural reliability and validity of ADHD assessed by the ADHD Rating Scale in a pan-European study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 15:S46–S55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Döpfner M, Lehmkuhl G (2000) Diagnostik-System für Psychische Störungen im Kindes- und Jugendalter nach ICD-10 und DSM-IV (DISYPS-KJ), 2nd edn. Huber, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  23. Döpfner M, Görtz-Dorten A, Lehmkuhl G (2008) Diagnostik-System für Psychische Störungen im Kindes- und Jugendalter nach ICD-10 und DSM-IV, DISYPS-II. Huber, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  24. DuPaul GJ, Power T, Anastopoulos AD (1998) ADHD Rating Scales-IV: checklist, norms, and clinical interpretation. Guilford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Goodman R (1997) The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatr Allied Discip 38:581–586

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Görtz A, Döpfner M, Nowak A, Bonus B, Lehmkuhl G (2002) Ist das Selbsturteil Jugendlicher bei der Diagnostik von Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit- / Hyperaktivitätsstörungen hilfreich? Eine Analyse mit dem Diagnostiksystem DISYPS. Kindheit und Entwicklung 11:82–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Görtz-Dorten A, Döpfner M (2008) Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit- / Hyperaktivitä- tsstörungen von Jugendlichen im Selbst- und im Elternurteil –eine Analyse an einer Feldstichprobe mit dem Diagnostiksystem DISYPS-II. Z Kinder Jugendpsychiatr Psychother (under review)

  28. Hechtman L (2000) Assessment and diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Child Adolescent Psychiatr Clin North Am 9:481–498

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Modeling 6:1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Huss M, Hölling H, Kurth B-M, Schlack R (2008) How often are German children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD? Prevalence based on the judgment of health care professionals: results of the German Health and Examination Survey (KiGGS). Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 17(Suppl1): 52–58

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (2001) LISREL 8: Users’s Reference Guide. Scientific Software International, Inc., Lincolnwood

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (2002) PRELIS 2: Users’s Reference Guide. Scientific Software International, Inc., Lincolnwood

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lienert GA, Raatz U (1998) Testaufbau und Testanalyse, 6th edn. Beltz, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mash EJ, Johnston C (1983) Parental perceptions of child behavior problems, parenting self-esteem, and mothers’ reported stress in younger and older hyperactive and normal children. J Consult Clin Psychol 51:6899

    Google Scholar 

  35. McDonald RP, Ho MHR (2002) Principals and Practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychol Methods 7:64–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IR (1994) Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn. McCraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ravens-Sieberer U, Kurth B-M, KiGGS study group, BELLA study group (2008) The mental health module (BELLA study) within the German Health Interview and Examination Survey of Children and Adolescents (KiGGS): study design and methods. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 17(Suppl1): 10–21

    Google Scholar 

  38. Riley AW, Coghill D, Forrest CB, Lorenzo MJ, Ralston SJ, Spiel G, the ADORE study group (2006) Validity of the health-related quality of life assessment in the ADORE study: Parent report form of the CHIP-CE edition. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatr 15:S63–S71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Starfield B, Forrest CB, Ryan SA, Riley AW, Ensminger ME, Green BF (1996) Health status of well vs. ill adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 150:1249–1256

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Swanson J (1992) School based assessments and interventions for ADD students. KC Publishing, Irvine

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ullmann RK, Sleator EK, Sprague RL (1985) A change of mind: the Conners abbreviated rating scales reconsidered. J Abnorm Child Psychol 13:553–565

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Winkler J, Stolzenberg H (1999) Social status scaling in the German National Health Interview and Examination Survey. Gesundheitswesen 61:S178–S183

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wolraich ML, Lambert W, Doffing MA, Bickman L, Simmons T, Worley K (2003) Psychometric properties of the Vanderbilt ADHD diagnostic parent rating scale in a referred population. J Pediatr Psychol 28:559–568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Psychosomatics in Children and Adolescents, Centre for Obstetrics and Paediatrics, University Clinic Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, W29, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

    Michael Erhart &  Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer MPH

  2. Dep. of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Manfred Döpfner

Authors
  1. Michael Erhart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manfred Döpfner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

The BELLA study group

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer MPH.

Additional information

Members of the BELLA study group: Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer (Principal Investigator), Claus Barkmann, Susanne Bettge, Monika Bullinger, Manfred Döpfner, Michael Erhart, Beate Herpertz-Dahlmann, Heike Hölling, Franz Resch, Aribert Rothenberger, Michael Schulte-Markwort, Nora Wille, Hans-Ulrich Wittchen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Erhart, M., Döpfner, M., Ravens-Sieberer, U. et al. Psychometric properties of two ADHD questionnaires: comparing the Conners’ scale and the FBB-HKS in the general population of German children and adolescents – results of the BELLA study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 17 (Suppl 1), 106–115 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-008-1012-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-008-1012-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation