Differences in measurements of hyperactivity between objective testing using infrared motion analysis (QbTest) and behavioural rating scales when comparing problems in alerting functions and response inhibition during the clinical assessment of ADHD

Author Info

Karima Susi Tim Williams Carsten Vogt Sarah Harrison

Corresponding Author

Carsten Vogt
Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Child & Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS), Reading, Berkshire, RG6 6BZ, United Kingdom

A B S T R A C T

Introduction: Little is known how problems in alerting functions or response inhibition affect objective infrared activity measurements during a continuous performance test (QbTest) despite an increasing use of these tests for the clinical assessment of ADHD. Difficulties in alerting functions and response inhibition are both associated with the presence of behavioural features in all three core domains of ADHD, i.e. inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity. We hypothesized that objective infrared activity measurements during CPT and behavioural ratings for hyperactivity from a commonly used questionnaire for ADHD (Conners rating scale) would be raised for both alerting functions and response inhibition. Method: 951 sequential referrals completed a QbTest and parent and teacher Conners rating scales followed by a clinical assessment with a CAMHS clinician. Two groups, one with exclusive difficulties in alerting functions (inattention) and the other with exclusive difficulties in response inhibition (impulsive) resulting from the QbTest performance were extracted from the pool and activity measurements, rating scales and diagnostic outcome were compared. Results: Contrary to our hypothesis, only the group with difficulties in alerting functions (inattentive) showed significantly raised activity measurements during CPT. However, both groups had raised scores for hyperactivity in the behavioural rating scales. A higher number of cases with difficulties in alerting functions (79.6%) were assigned a diagnosis of ADHD compared to the group with exclusively difficulties in response inhibition (61.8%). Discussion: A cautious evaluation of activity measurements during the QbTest with full consideration of the interplay between naturalistic and laboratory environmental effects on motor activity is recommended

Article Info

Article Type

Case Report

Publication history

Received: Mon 13, Aug 2018
Accepted: Tue 04, Sep 2018
Published: Wed 15, Aug 2018

Copyright

© 2023 Carsten Vogt. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.
DOI: 10.31487/j.PDR.2018.02.002