Teacher reports of hypoactivity symptoms reflect slow cognitive processing speed in primary school children

The mediating effect of cognitive processing speed on the ability of a primary school child to achieve his/her full potential of intellectual functioning emphasizes the importance of methods to detect “slow” children. Primary school teachers may be the first to have concerns about inattentive pupils who show symptoms of hypoactivity, but may find the symptoms difficult to interpret. In the present study we ask if a primary school teacher’s report of hypoactivity symptoms can be explained by the child’s performance on tests of processing speed. The 255 children included in the present study were part of the first wave of the Bergen Child Study, in which teachers completed a questionnaire including two hypoactivity items from the Five to Fifteen (FTF) questionnaire. Processing speed was measured by the Processing Speed Index (PSI) from the WISC-III, 1–2 years after the teacher rating. Teachers reported “certainly true” on at least one FTF item of hypoactivity for 11.8% of the children. These children obtained lower scores on the PSI than the remaining children in the sample. The PSI accounted for a considerable proportion of the variance of teacher reports on the FTF item “difficulty getting started on a task/activity”. The risk of a PSI score below 85 was increased in children with teacher-reported hypoactivity symptoms. The results indicate that teacher reports of hypoactivity symptoms reflect slow cognitive processing speed and should be followed up by a psychometric examination. Still, future studies are needed to improve detection and treatment of children with slow processing speed

Influence of assessment instrument on ADHD diagnosis

We compared four instruments commonly used to screen for and diagnose Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children. The Bergen Child Study included a DSM-IV ADHD symptom list and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) as screen in Phase one. Phase two included the parent Development and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA), whereas Phase three comprised in-depth clinical assessment, including the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School Aged Children (K-SADS). We compared ADHD as diagnosed by the four instruments in the children with normal intellectual functioning participating in all three phases (N = 234). The DSM-IV ADHD symptom list showed moderate agreement with all other instruments (κ = 0.53-0.57), whereas there was fair agreement between the K-SADS-DAWBA (κ = 0.31) and between SDQ-DAWBA (κ = 0.33). The DAWBA diagnosed fewer children with ADHD than did the other instruments. Implications for use of the instruments are discussed