Validity of the age-of-onset criterion for ADHD: a report from the DSM-IV field trials.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of the DSM-IV requirement of an age of onset of impairment due to symptoms before 7 years of age for the diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: The validity of this criterion was examined in a clinic sample of 380 youths aged 4 through 17 years by comparing youths who met symptom criteria for ADHD and either did or did not display impairment before age 7 years. RESULTS: Nearly all youths who met symptom criteria for the predominantly hyperactive-impulsive subtype also met the age of onset of impairment criterion, but 18% of youths who met symptom criteria for the combined type, and 43% of youths who met symptom criteria for the predominantly inattentive type, did not manifest impairment before 7 years. For the latter two subtypes, requiring impairment before age 7 years reduced the accuracy of identification of currently impaired cases of ADHD and reduced agreement with clinicians' judgments. CONCLUSIONS: These findings raise questions about the validity of the DSM-IV definition of age of onset of ADHD. Marked differences in the ages of onset of both symptoms and impairment for the three subtypes of ADHD support the validity of distinguishing among these subtypes in DSM-IV.

DSM-IV field trials for oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the field trials for oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder was to select valid diagnostic thresholds for these disorders and to compare the psychometric properties of DSM-IV criteria for oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder with previous DSM diagnostic formulations. METHOD: Structured diagnostic interviews, standardized clinician's validation diagnoses, and multiple measures of impairment were obtained for 440 clinic-referred children and adolescents aged 4-17 years. RESULTS: A diagnostic threshold of four symptoms of oppositional defiant disorder optimized identification of impaired children, improved agreement somewhat with the clinician's validation diagnosis, and had somewhat better test-retest agreement than DSM-III-R. In the case of conduct disorder, the optimal time window for ascertainment of symptoms was clarified. A diagnostic threshold of three symptoms of conduct disorder maximized accurate identification of impaired children and agreement with the clinician's validation diagnosis and resulted in slightly better test-retest agreement than DSM-III-R. Compared with the DSM-III-R definition, the DSM-IV definition of oppositional defiant disorder was somewhat more prevalent, but the prevalence of conduct disorder was essentially unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: DSM-IV definitions of oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder are somewhat better than DSM-III-R definitions in terms of internal consistency and test-retest agreement, and the validity of the DSM-IV definition of oppositional defiant disorder is slightly better than that of DSM-III-R.