Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Comparison of Youth Diagnosed With ADHD Using DSM-IV and DSM-5 Supports Criteria Revisions

A comparison of young people diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using DSM-IV criteria and the new DSM-5 criteria that extends the age of onset from age 7 to 12, appears to support that change. The study appears online in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Kathleen Merikangas, Ph.D., and colleagues at the national Institute of Mental Health compared the prevalence and clinical correlates of ADHD as described in the two DSM editions in a nationally representative sample of U.S. youth based on the age-of-onset criterion. The sample included nearly 1,900 participants aged 12 to 15 from cross-sectional National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) surveys conducted from 2001 to 2004. Data on DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for ADHD were derived from administration of the parental ADHD module of the National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children, Version IV (DISC-IV).

The researchers found that the extension of the age-of-onset criterion from 7 to 12 led to an increase in the prevalence rate of ADHD from 7.38% (DSM-IV) to 10.84% (DSM-5). Importantly, youth with later age of onset did not differ from those with earlier age of onset in terms of severity and patterns of comorbidity. “The comparability of the clinical significance of the early and later age-of-onset groups supports the DSM-5 extension of the age-of-onset criterion in ADHD,” Merikangas and colleagues concluded.

For more about changes to ADHD criteria in DSM-5, see the Psychiatric News article, "Clinicians in DSM-5 Field Trials Have Positive Response to Revisions." To order any of the publications in the DSM-5 library, click here.

(Image: Docstockmedia/shutterstock.com)


The content of Psychiatric News does not necessarily reflect the views of APA or the editors. Unless so stated, neither Psychiatric News nor APA guarantees, warrants, or endorses information or advertising in this newspaper. Clinical opinions are not peer reviewed and thus should be independently verified.