article = {PDR-2018-2-102}
title = {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}
journal = {Psychological Disorders and Research}
year = {2018}
issn = {2674-2470}
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.31487/j.PDR.2018.02.002}
url = {https://www.sciencerepository.org/differences-in-measurements-of-hyperactivity-between-objective-testing-using-infrared-motion-analysis-QbTest_PDR-2-102 
author = { Karima  Susi, Tim  Williams,Carsten  Vogt,Sarah Harrison,}
keywords = {ADHD, Diagnosis Continuous Performance Test (CPT), Conners Rating Scales, Conners Rating Scales}
abstract ={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}