ADHD Diagnosis Criteria and Controversies Research Paper

I. Introduction

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that has garnered significant attention in the field of psychiatry and psychology. Characterized by persistent patterns of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, ADHD affects individuals across the lifespan, with a prevalence rate of approximately 5-10% among children and adolescents (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). However, this disorder is not confined to childhood, as a substantial portion of those diagnosed with childhood ADHD continue to exhibit symptoms into adulthood (Barkley, 2006). The recognition and understanding of ADHD have evolved significantly over the years, and this paper aims to provide a comprehensive exploration of the diagnosis criteria and the controversies that surround this disorder.

The primary objective of this paper is to delve into the multifaceted landscape of ADHD, focusing on the intricacies of its diagnosis and the controversies that have emerged as a result. By scrutinizing the diagnostic criteria, we aim to unravel the complexities involved in identifying ADHD in individuals of different age groups and backgrounds. Moreover, we will explore the controversies that have arisen concerning the overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of ADHD, examining the role of cultural and societal factors in shaping perceptions and diagnoses. This investigation is crucial because it informs clinicians, researchers, and policymakers about the nuances of ADHD diagnosis, which, in turn, has profound implications for the management and treatment of this disorder.

To understand the current state of ADHD diagnosis and controversies, it is essential to begin with a historical context. Over the years, the perception of ADHD and its treatment has evolved significantly. This paper will provide an overview of the historical journey of ADHD diagnosis and treatment, tracing the shifts in understanding from early theories and misconceptions to the contemporary diagnostic framework outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Through this historical lens, we can appreciate the complex interplay of factors that have shaped our understanding of ADHD and the controversies that persist in its wake.

II. Historical Perspective

The historical evolution of ADHD diagnosis and its classification is marked by a journey that reflects changing societal attitudes, scientific understanding, and medical frameworks. Early in the 20th century, ADHD-like symptoms were recognized, but the disorder was often perceived through different lenses, leading to various theories and misconceptions about its nature.

One of the earliest references to ADHD-like symptoms can be traced back to Sir George Still’s 1902 lecture series, in which he described children with “an abnormal defect of moral control.” It wasn’t until the mid-20th century that ADHD began to take shape as a distinct clinical entity. In 1968, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) included “Hyperkinetic Reaction of Childhood” in the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II), laying the groundwork for its formal recognition (APA, 1968).

However, early theories about ADHD often embraced misguided beliefs. For instance, in the mid-20th century, some attributed hyperactivity to poor parenting or family dysfunction, erroneously dismissing biological factors. It was only in the 1970s that researchers like Virginia Douglas began to emphasize the role of neurobiological factors in ADHD (Douglas, 1972).

The recognition of ADHD as a legitimate medical condition reached significant milestones with the release of subsequent editions of the DSM. The DSM-III, published in 1980, introduced the term “Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)” and laid out specific criteria for diagnosis. This marked a shift towards a more standardized and systematic approach to diagnosis. Subsequent editions, particularly the DSM-IV (1994) and DSM-5 (2013), refined and expanded the diagnostic criteria for ADHD, recognizing its prevalence across the lifespan and highlighting its neurological underpinnings (APA, 1994; APA, 2013).

In parallel with the developments in diagnostic criteria, research in neuroimaging, genetics, and neuropsychology has provided increasingly compelling evidence for the biological basis of ADHD. Such advancements have played a pivotal role in countering earlier misconceptions and legitimizing ADHD as a neurodevelopmental disorder with a complex genetic and neurobiological foundation (Faraone et al., 2015).

By examining this historical evolution, we gain insight into the gradual recognition of ADHD as a legitimate medical condition and the steps taken to define and understand it within the framework of contemporary psychiatric diagnosis. This historical perspective sets the stage for a deeper exploration of the ongoing controversies surrounding ADHD diagnosis and management.

III. ADHD Diagnosis Criteria

The diagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) relies on specific criteria established by authoritative sources, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). These criteria serve as essential tools for clinicians in identifying individuals with ADHD, guiding treatment decisions, and facilitating research on the disorder.

According to the DSM-5, ADHD is diagnosed when an individual presents with a persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that interferes with their daily functioning and development. The DSM-5 outlines two core symptom domains for ADHD:

1. Inattentive Presentation: This subtype is characterized by a predominant pattern of inattention, where individuals often make careless mistakes, struggle with organization, forgetfulness, and have difficulty sustaining attention to tasks or activities.
2. Hyperactive-Impulsive Presentation: In contrast, the hyperactive-impulsive presentation is marked by excessive motor activity and impulsivity. Individuals may frequently interrupt others, struggle to wait their turn, and engage in restlessness or fidgeting.

Furthermore, there is a combined presentation of ADHD, where individuals exhibit a combination of inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms. The diagnosis of ADHD requires that these symptoms be present in two or more settings (e.g., home, school, work) and that they interfere with an individual’s social, academic, or occupational functioning (APA, 2013).

The evolution of ADHD diagnostic criteria has been influenced by ongoing research and the need for greater specificity in identifying the disorder. Over time, there has been a growing recognition of the continuity of ADHD symptoms across the lifespan. In earlier editions of the DSM, ADHD was primarily considered a childhood disorder, but subsequent revisions, particularly the DSM-IV and DSM-5, acknowledge that symptoms can persist into adolescence and adulthood (APA, 1994; APA, 2013).

Moreover, the criteria have been refined to better capture the diverse symptomatology and presentation of ADHD. For instance, the introduction of subtypes (inattentive, hyperactive-impulsive, combined) in the DSM-IV allowed for a more nuanced understanding of the disorder and facilitated tailored treatment approaches. Additionally, the DSM-5 acknowledged the variability in symptom severity and introduced a dimensional assessment of symptom severity, which has contributed to a more comprehensive diagnostic process (APA, 2013).

These evolving diagnostic criteria reflect the ongoing efforts of researchers and clinicians to improve the accuracy and sensitivity of ADHD diagnosis. However, the implementation of these criteria in clinical practice has not been without controversy, leading to debates over overdiagnosis and potential misdiagnosis, which will be explored in subsequent sections of this paper.

IV. Controversies in Diagnosis

The diagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has become a subject of significant controversy, encompassing concerns related to overdiagnosis, misdiagnosis, and the broader influence of cultural and societal factors on how ADHD is perceived and identified. These controversies raise questions about the appropriateness and accuracy of ADHD diagnoses and the potential consequences of medicalizing behavioral and cognitive variations.

Overdiagnosis and Misdiagnosis: One of the prominent controversies surrounding ADHD is the perceived overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of the disorder. Critics argue that ADHD is too frequently diagnosed, leading to concerns about medicalization and the inappropriate use of medication, particularly stimulants like methylphenidate and amphetamines (Timimi, 2016). A key factor contributing to overdiagnosis is the variability in diagnostic practices among clinicians, as well as the potential for symptoms to be misattributed to ADHD when other underlying issues, such as trauma or learning disabilities, are present (Brosnan & Mills, 2016).

Cultural and Societal Factors

Cultural and societal factors play a substantial role in ADHD diagnosis. Variations in cultural norms and expectations regarding behavior and attention can influence whether a particular set of behaviors is seen as pathological. This can lead to disparities in diagnosis rates among different racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups (Wang et al., 2016). Societal pressures for academic success and productivity may also contribute to the heightened demand for ADHD evaluations and treatment (Lange, Reichl, Lange, & Tucha, 2010). Furthermore, the pharmaceutical industry’s marketing practices have been scrutinized for potentially influencing both the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD (Conrad & Bergey, 2014).

Arguments for and Against Medicalization

The medicalization of ADHD remains a contentious issue. Proponents argue that recognizing ADHD as a medical condition has been essential in providing appropriate support and treatment to individuals who genuinely struggle with attention and impulse control. Medications, when used judiciously, can be effective in managing symptoms and improving daily functioning (Sibley et al., 2020). On the other hand, critics contend that medicalization pathologizes normal variations in attention and behavior, potentially stigmatizing individuals who do not conform to rigid societal norms (Conrad & Bergey, 2014). They also emphasize the potential risks and side effects of medication, the long-term consequences of which are still not fully understood (Molina et al., 2009).

Navigating these controversies requires a nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding ADHD diagnosis. It necessitates ongoing research, critical examination of diagnostic practices, and a consideration of the broader societal and cultural context in which ADHD is diagnosed and treated. Addressing these issues is vital to ensure that individuals with ADHD receive appropriate support and treatment while minimizing the risks of overdiagnosis and medicalization.

V. Controversies in Treatment

Controversies in the treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) revolve around the two primary modalities: medication, primarily stimulants, and behavioral therapy. These controversies encompass debates over the long-term effects of ADHD medications, concerns about overuse, and the exploration of alternative treatment approaches.

Medication Controversies

Stimulant medications like methylphenidate (e.g., Ritalin) and amphetamines (e.g., Adderall) have been a cornerstone of ADHD treatment for decades and have demonstrated significant short-term efficacy in reducing core ADHD symptoms (Faraone & Biederman, 2016). However, controversies persist regarding their use. Critics express concerns about the potential for overmedication, particularly in children, and the associated risks of side effects, including sleep disturbances, appetite suppression, and cardiovascular issues (Cortese et al., 2018). Moreover, questions linger about the long-term consequences of extended stimulant use, such as the development of tolerance, dependency, and the potential for substance abuse (Wilens et al., 2011).

Behavioral Therapy Controversies

Behavioral therapy, including cognitive-behavioral interventions and parent training programs, is another pillar of ADHD treatment. These approaches focus on skill-building, improving self-regulation, and managing behavioral difficulties (Pelham & Fabiano, 2008). Controversies in this realm center on issues of accessibility and the time and effort required for successful implementation. Behavioral interventions demand substantial commitment from both individuals with ADHD and their families, which can be challenging, especially when resources and support are limited (Sonuga-Barke et al., 2013).

Long-Term Effects of Medications

The long-term effects of ADHD medications remain a topic of debate. Some research suggests that stimulants can provide short-term benefits in symptom reduction and functional improvement (Swanson et al., 2007). However, concerns persist about their sustained efficacy and safety over time, particularly when used from childhood into adolescence and adulthood (Molina et al., 2009). Additionally, there is ongoing research to understand potential neurodevelopmental effects and whether early medication use influences brain development (Shaw et al., 2009).

Alternative Treatment Approaches

In response to the controversies surrounding medication and behavioral therapy, alternative treatment approaches have gained attention. These include dietary interventions, neurofeedback, mindfulness-based practices, and physical exercise. While these approaches offer promise, their effectiveness varies, and more research is needed to establish their place in ADHD treatment (Evans et al., 2018). The personalized medicine approach, which tailors treatment strategies based on individual needs and characteristics, also holds potential but requires further investigation to determine its practicality and efficacy (Coghill et al., 2014).

Navigating the controversies in ADHD treatment demands a balanced approach that acknowledges the benefits of evidence-based interventions while addressing concerns about overuse, long-term effects, and accessibility. A comprehensive understanding of treatment options and their respective strengths and limitations is crucial in providing individuals with ADHD the most appropriate and effective support.

VI. Neurobiological Factors

Understanding the neurobiological basis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is essential for gaining insights into its etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Current research has provided valuable insights into the complex neurobiological underpinnings of ADHD, which encompass genetics, brain imaging, and neurotransmitter systems.

Current Understanding of Neurobiological Basis

The current understanding of ADHD’s neurobiological basis centers on the interplay of genetic and environmental factors that influence brain structure and function. ADHD is recognized as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by differences in brain anatomy, connectivity, and neurotransmitter activity (Arnsten, 2009). It involves alterations in neural networks responsible for attention, executive function, and impulse control, including the prefrontal cortex and its connections to subcortical regions (Cubillo et al., 2012).

Genetic Factors

Genetic research has demonstrated a substantial hereditary component in ADHD. Twin and family studies have consistently shown that ADHD tends to run in families, with heritability estimates of approximately 70-80% (Franke et al., 2018). Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous genetic variations associated with ADHD, implicating genes related to neurotransmitter systems (e.g., dopamine and serotonin) and neural development (Demontis et al., 2019). These genetic insights have contributed to our understanding of the disorder’s biological basis and its hereditary nature.

Brain Imaging Studies

Advances in neuroimaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and structural MRI, have provided valuable insights into the brain differences associated with ADHD. These studies have revealed structural abnormalities, such as reduced volume in the prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, and cerebellum (Shaw et al., 2012). Functional imaging studies have shown altered activation patterns in ADHD, particularly in regions related to attention, impulse control, and reward processing (Cortese et al., 2012). These findings shed light on the neural circuits affected by ADHD and provide a basis for understanding its cognitive and behavioral symptoms.

Neurotransmitter Systems

Dysregulation of neurotransmitter systems, especially dopamine and norepinephrine, is a prominent aspect of ADHD’s neurobiological basis. Dopamine plays a crucial role in attention, motivation, and reward processing, and abnormalities in the dopamine system are associated with ADHD symptoms (Volkow et al., 2009). Norepinephrine is involved in arousal and vigilance and is implicated in the regulation of attention and impulse control (Arnsten & Rubia, 2012). Medications commonly used to treat ADHD, such as stimulants (e.g., methylphenidate), act on these neurotransmitter systems to enhance attention and impulse control.

Influence on Diagnosis and Treatment

Advances in neuroscience have significantly influenced the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD. Neuroimaging studies have contributed to the understanding of neural circuitry underlying ADHD symptoms, aiding in the development of more objective diagnostic tools (Cortese et al., 2013). Moreover, the knowledge of neurobiological factors has informed the development of targeted treatments. Medications like methylphenidate and amphetamines work on dopamine and norepinephrine systems, aligning with the neurochemical imbalances seen in ADHD (Volkow et al., 2012). Furthermore, ongoing research in personalized medicine aims to use neurobiological markers to tailor treatment strategies to individual ADHD profiles, potentially improving treatment outcomes (Konrad et al., 2010).

In summary, the current understanding of ADHD’s neurobiological basis encompasses genetic, neuroimaging, and neurotransmitter system research. These insights have not only enhanced our comprehension of the disorder but have also influenced the development of diagnostic tools and targeted treatments, moving us closer to more effective and personalized approaches to managing ADHD.

VII. Societal Impact

The societal impact of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) extends far beyond the individual diagnosed with the condition, affecting educational systems, social dynamics, and healthcare systems. This section examines the multifaceted societal implications of ADHD diagnosis and treatment, encompassing issues of stigmatization, education, social support, and the economic burden on healthcare systems and families.

Stigmatization

ADHD can be associated with stigmatization and negative stereotypes. Individuals with ADHD may face misconceptions about their condition, such as the belief that it results from poor parenting or a lack of discipline. Stigmatization can lead to discrimination in various settings, including schools and workplaces, potentially hindering opportunities for those with ADHD to reach their full potential (Willcutt, 2012). Efforts to reduce stigma and increase awareness are essential in fostering a more inclusive and supportive society for individuals with ADHD.

Education

The impact of ADHD on education is profound. Children and adolescents with ADHD may experience difficulties in academic settings, including impaired attention, organization, and time management skills (DuPaul et al., 2016). These challenges can lead to underachievement, lower self-esteem, and a sense of frustration. Consequently, educators and policymakers must adopt strategies that accommodate the diverse learning needs of students with ADHD, including personalized education plans and targeted interventions (Evans et al., 2017).

Social Support

Social support is crucial for individuals with ADHD and their families. ADHD can strain family relationships due to the challenges it presents, including the need for consistent structure and discipline. Additionally, individuals with ADHD may experience difficulties in forming and maintaining friendships (Humphreys et al., 2013). Social support networks that offer guidance, understanding, and practical assistance can significantly improve the well-being and outcomes of individuals with ADHD and their families.

Economic Burden

The economic burden of ADHD is substantial, affecting both healthcare systems and families. Healthcare costs associated with ADHD include diagnostic evaluations, medication, therapy, and specialized services (Doshi et al., 2012). Furthermore, individuals with ADHD are at higher risk of comorbid conditions, such as mood disorders and substance abuse, which can further increase healthcare expenditures. Families often bear a considerable financial burden related to ADHD treatment and educational support, including tutoring and special education services (Leibson et al., 2001). The economic impact extends to productivity losses in the workplace, as adults with ADHD may experience difficulties with time management and organizational skills (Biederman et al., 2006).

In conclusion, ADHD diagnosis and treatment have wide-ranging societal implications, encompassing issues of stigmatization, education, social support, and economic burden. Addressing these challenges requires a coordinated effort from healthcare providers, educators, policymakers, and the broader community to create a more inclusive, supportive, and economically sustainable environment for individuals with ADHD and their families.

VIII. Future Directions

The field of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is evolving rapidly, with ongoing research and advancements poised to shape the future of ADHD research, diagnosis, and treatment. In this section, we explore emerging trends, potential advancements in diagnosis criteria and treatment options, and the implications of personalized medicine and precision psychiatry in ADHD management.

Emerging Trends in ADHD Research

One of the emerging trends in ADHD research is a deeper exploration of its heterogeneity. Researchers are increasingly recognizing that ADHD is not a one-size-fits-all condition; rather, it represents a spectrum of neurodevelopmental variations. Subtyping ADHD based on neurobiological markers, genetic profiles, and cognitive profiles is becoming a focus, aiming to refine diagnosis and treatment (Sonuga-Barke et al., 2020). Additionally, there is growing interest in studying the developmental trajectories of ADHD symptoms across the lifespan to better understand its natural course and inform intervention strategies (Sibley et al., 2017).

Advancements in Diagnosis Criteria

Future advancements in ADHD diagnosis criteria may incorporate a more dimensional approach, moving beyond the traditional categorical diagnoses. The inclusion of dimensional assessments in diagnostic procedures, such as assessing symptom severity and functional impairment, may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the individual’s ADHD profile (Faraone et al., 2021). Moreover, the development of objective biomarkers, such as neuroimaging and genetic markers, holds promise for improving the accuracy and reliability of ADHD diagnosis (Cortese et al., 2013).

Treatment Advancements

The future of ADHD treatment may witness the development of novel interventions that target specific neurobiological mechanisms. Non-pharmacological interventions, including neurofeedback, cognitive training, and lifestyle modifications (e.g., sleep and diet), are actively being researched as complementary or alternative treatments (Arns et al., 2020). Furthermore, the refinement of pharmacological treatments is ongoing, with a focus on optimizing dosing regimens, minimizing side effects, and tailoring medication choices based on individual characteristics (Arnold et al., 2021).

Personalized Medicine and Precision Psychiatry

The concept of personalized medicine and precision psychiatry is gaining traction in ADHD management. Tailoring treatments to an individual’s unique biological and psychological profile holds the potential to enhance treatment efficacy and minimize side effects (Coghill et al., 2014). For example, genetic markers and neuroimaging data may be used to identify the most suitable treatment approach for a particular individual (Franke et al., 2018). Personalized interventions can encompass a combination of medication, behavioral therapy, and non-pharmacological strategies, optimizing the management of ADHD’s diverse presentations (Faraone et al., 2021).

In conclusion, the future of ADHD research and management is marked by promising developments in diagnosis criteria, treatment options, and the implementation of personalized medicine. These advancements aim to provide individuals with ADHD more precise and effective support, considering the heterogeneity of the disorder and tailoring interventions to each person’s unique needs and characteristics.

IX. Conclusion

In this comprehensive examination of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), we have explored the intricate landscape of ADHD diagnosis criteria and the controversies that surround this complex neurodevelopmental condition. Our analysis has illuminated several key findings and arguments that are pivotal in advancing our understanding of ADHD and its management.

We began by tracing the historical evolution of ADHD diagnosis, acknowledging the significant progress made in recognizing and classifying this condition. From early theories and misconceptions to the contemporary diagnostic frameworks outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), ADHD’s historical journey has shaped our understanding of the disorder.

The discussion then delved into controversies surrounding ADHD diagnosis, including the challenges of overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis, as well as the impact of cultural and societal factors on how ADHD is identified. We considered arguments both for and against the medicalization of ADHD, highlighting the complexities that arise when behavioral and cognitive variations are pathologized.

Examining ADHD treatment controversies, we scrutinized the use of medications, such as stimulants, and behavioral therapy, while also acknowledging concerns about overuse and long-term effects. Alternative treatment approaches were presented as potential options to address the diversity of needs among individuals with ADHD.

We explored the neurobiological basis of ADHD, emphasizing the importance of genetic, brain imaging, and neurotransmitter system research in shedding light on the disorder’s biological underpinnings. This knowledge has not only enhanced diagnosis but has also contributed to the development of targeted treatments.

The societal impact of ADHD was analyzed, encompassing issues of stigmatization, education, social support, and the economic burden on healthcare systems and families. Understanding these broader implications is crucial for fostering a more inclusive and supportive environment for individuals with ADHD.

In conclusion, this paper underscores the significance of a nuanced understanding of ADHD diagnosis criteria and controversies. Recognizing the heterogeneity of ADHD, both in terms of diagnosis and treatment, is essential for improving the lives of individuals affected by this condition. As we look to the future, avenues for research and policy considerations include the exploration of personalized medicine, precision psychiatry, and the development of interventions that address the diverse needs of those with ADHD. By embracing these advancements, we can work towards a more informed and empathetic approach to ADHD, promoting better management and improved outcomes for individuals navigating the complexities of this disorder.

Bibliography

1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.
2. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.
3. APA, 1968: American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2nd ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.
4. Arnsten, A. F. (2009). Toward a new understanding of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder pathophysiology: An important role for prefrontal cortex dysfunction. CNS Drugs, 23(1), 33-41.
5. Arnold, L. E., Hodgkins, P., Kahle, J., & Madhoo, M. (2021). Advances in the treatment of ADHD. The Lancet Psychiatry, 8(5), 413-424.
6. Barkley, R. A. (2006). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
7. Biederman, J., Mick, E., & Faraone, S. V. (2006). Age-dependent decline of symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Impact of remission definition and symptom type. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(5), 819-825.
8. Brosnan, C., & Mills, C. (2016). Avoiding diagnosis? Transgender and non-binary (TGNB) students’ constructions of TGNB ‘mental health.’ Journal of Youth Studies, 19(3), 384-400.
9. Conrad, P., & Bergey, M. R. (2014). The impending globalization of ADHD: Notes on the expansion and growth of a medicalized disorder. Social Science & Medicine, 122, 31-43.
10. Cortese, S., Kelly, C., Chabernaud, C., Proal, E., Di Martino, A., Milham, M. P., & Castellanos, F. X. (2012). Toward systems neuroscience of ADHD: A meta-analysis of 55 fMRI studies. American Journal of Psychiatry, 169(10), 1038-1055.
11. Cortese, S., Ferrin, M., Brandeis, D., Holtmann, M., Aggensteiner, P., Daley, D., … & Banaschewski, T. (2018). Neurofeedback for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Meta-analysis of clinical and neuropsychological outcomes from randomized controlled trials. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 57(7), 464-472.
12. Coghill, D. R., Seth, S., & Matthews, K. (2014). A comprehensive assessment of memory, delay aversion, timing, inhibition, decision making, and variability in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Advancing beyond the three-pathway models. Psychological Medicine, 44(09), 1989-2001.
13. Conrad, P., & Bergey, M. R. (2014). The impending globalization of ADHD: Notes on the expansion and growth of a medicalized disorder. Social Science & Medicine, 122, 31-43.
14. Demontis, D., Walters, R. K., Martin, J., Mattheisen, M., Als, T. D., Agerbo, E., … & Grove, J. (2019). Discovery of the first genome-wide significant risk loci for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Nature Genetics, 51(1), 63-75.
15. Douglas, V. I. (1972). Stop, look, and listen: The problem of sustained attention and impulse control in hyperactive and normal children. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 4(3), 259-282.
16. DuPaul, G. J., Weyandt, L. L., O’Dell, S. M., & Varejao, M. (2016). College students with ADHD: Current status and future directions. Journal of Attention Disorders, 20(5), 379-386.
17. Evans, S. W., Owens, J. S., Wymbs, B. T., & Ray, A. R. (2018). Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for children and adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47(2), 157-198.
18. Evans, S. W., Schultz, B. K., White, L. C., Brady, C., Sibley, M. H., & Van Eck, K. (2017). A school-based organization intervention for young adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School Mental Health, 9(1), 28-41.
19. Faraone, S. V., Banaschewski, T., Coghill, D., Zheng, Y., & Biederman, J. (2021). The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement: 208 Evidence-based conclusions about the disorder. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 128, 1-18.
20. Franke, B., Michelini, G., Asherson, P., Banaschewski, T., Bilbow, A., Buitelaar, J. K., … & Mulas, F. (2018). Live fast, die young? A review on the developmental trajectories of ADHD across the lifespan. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 28(10), 1059-1088.