The graded response model, which is based on item response theory, was used to evaluate the psychometric properties of adult self-ratings (N = 852) of the attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity symptoms presented in the Current Symptoms Scale. This scale has four ordered response categories. The results for the discrimination parameters showed that all symptoms were generally good for discriminating their respective latent traits. For virtually all symptoms, their threshold values showed that they were especially good at representing the appropriate traits from around the mean trait level onward. The item information function values for most symptoms indicated reasonable reliability from approximately the mean trait level onward. All these findings are new and extend existing psychometric information for adult self-ratings of the attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms in the Current Symptoms Scale.
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
2.
American Psychiatric Association. (1986). Diagnostic and statistic manual of mental disorders (3rd ed., text revision). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
3.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
4.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
5.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Ancestry by country of birth of parents—Time series statistics (2001, 2006 Census years). Canberra, Australia: Author.
6.
BarkleyR. A.MurphyK. R. (1998). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A clinical workbook (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
7.
BarkleyR. A.MurphyK. R. (2006). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
8.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indices to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464-503.
9.
EmbretsonS. E.ReiseS. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
FayyadJ.de GraafR.KesslerR.AlonsoJ.AngermeyerM.DemyttenaereK.. . . JinR. (2007). Cross-national prevalence and correlates of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190, 402-409.
11.
FrickP. J.LaheyB. B.ApplegateB.KerdyckL.OllendickT.HyndG. W.. . . WaldmanI. (1994). DSM-IV field trials for the disruptive behavior disorders: Symptom utility estimates. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 529-539.
12.
GomezR. (2008a). Parent ratings of the ADHD items of the Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale: Analyses of their IRT properties based on the generalized partial credit model. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 181-186.
13.
GomezR. (2008b). Item response theory analyses of the parent and teacher ratings of the DSM-IV ADHD Rating Scale. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 865-885.
14.
GomezR. (2010). ADHD and hyperkinetic disorder in Australian adults: Factor structure and gender invariance. Manuscript submitted for publication.
15.
HillC. D.EdwardsM. C.ThissenD.LangerM. M.WirthR. J.BurwinkleT. M.VarniJ. W. (2004). Practical issues in the application of item response theory: A demonstration using items from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 Generic Core Scales. Medical Care, 45(Suppl. 1), S39-S47.
16.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
17.
KesslerR. C.AdlerA. A.BarkleyR.BiedermanJ.ConnersC. K.DemlerO.. . . ZaslavskyA. M. (2006). The prevalence and correlates of adult ADHD in the United States: Results from the national comorbidity survey replication. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 716-723.
18.
LordF. N.NovickM. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
19.
MuthenL. K.MuthenB. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
20.
ReeveB. B.HaysR. D.BjornerJ. B.CookK. F.CraneP. K.TeresiJ. A., . . . PROMIS Cooperative Group. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(Suppl. 1), S22-S31.
21.
SamejimaF. (1969). Estimation of latent trait ability using a response pattern of graded scores (Psychometrika Monograph Supplement No. 17). Richmond, VA: Psychometric Society.
22.
StarkS.ChemyshenkoS.ChuaW. L.WadlingtonP. (2001). Computing chi-square statistics and fit-plots using the MODFIT program. Retrieved from http://work.psych.uiuc.edu/irt/mdf_modfit.asp
23.
ThissenD. (1991). Multilog user’s guide: Multiple category item analysis and test scoring using item response theory. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
24.
World Health Organization. (1992). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
25.
World Health Organization. (1993). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Diagnostic criteria for research. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
