| Abstract: | Implicit in the development and use of the Conners' scales are the assumptions that the raters will agree upon their rating of hyperactivity regardless of a lack of operational defitions of items in such scales, and that the cut-off score (1.5) for ADHD should be higher in cases where the rater has some familiarity with the clinical case. This study describes a method for the evaluation of both assumptions. Seven children were rated by nursing staff and school teachers using the Abbreviated Conners Teachers Rating Scale (ACTRS) daily. Observations were conducted during the 7 a.m.-3 p.m. and 3 p.m.–7 p.m. shifts in order to provide two separate scores across raters. The results supported the assumption of agreement within (for example nurses' ratings during the 7 a.m.–3 p.m. period) and between (i.e. nurses' ratings versus teachers' ratings) settings. The results did not support the assumption of familiarity: scores during early observations were similar to the scores during later observations (when more familiarity with the clinical case is assumed). It was concluded that familiarity with the clinical case does not necessarily lead to higher scores (i.e. a better prediction of hyperactivity as a function of the rater's familiarity with the case) on the ACTRS. Agreements within and between observers could be a function of the raters' agreement in terms of using a specific cut-off point (i.e. 1.5) in their definition of a case as ‘hyperactive’, rather than the raters' agreement on reporting similar scores across observers. |
