Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 May 17;19(5):e0299980. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299980

Factors associated with parent-teacher hyperactivity/inattention screening discrepancy: Findings from a UK national sample

Hei Ka Chan 1,*, Richard Rowe 1, Daniel Carroll 1
Editor: Gerard Hutchinson2
PMCID: PMC11101030  PMID: 38758772

Abstract

Background

To fulfil the diagnostic criteria of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in the Fifth Edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), symptoms should be observed in two or more settings. This implies that diagnostic procedures require observations reported from informants in different settings, such as teachers in school and caregivers at home. This study examined parent-teacher agreement in reporting hyperactivity/inattention and its relationship with child’s, parent’s, and family’s characteristics.

Method

We used data from the 2004 United Kingdom Mental Health of Children and Young People survey, including 7977 children aged 4–17, to investigate cross-informant agreement between parents and teachers on the hyperactivity-inattention subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. The characteristics of different patterns of informant agreement were assessed using multinomial logistic regression.

Results

Cross-informant agreement of parent and teacher was low (weighted kappa = .34, 95% C.I.: .31, .37). Some characteristics, such as male child and parental emotional distress, were associated with higher likelihood of parent-teacher discrepancy.

Conclusion

We found low informant agreement in the hyperactive/inattention subscale, as hypothesised and consistent with previous studies. The current study has found several factors that predict discrepancy, which were partly consistent with previous research. Possible explanation, implications, and further research on parent-teacher informant discrepancy in reporting hyperactivity/inattention were discussed.

Introduction

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a disorder with features of developmentally inappropriate levels of hyperactivity, impulsivity and/or inattention, affects both children and adults worldwide [1–3]. Identifying ADHD is essential for accessing interventions for improving functioning [4], minimising possible longer-term consequences [5], and reducing poorer outcomes from undiagnosed and/or untreated ADHD [6]. To assess children’s and adolescent’s problems, parents and teachers are key informants to provide information.

Parent-teacher rating discrepancy is one of the common dilemmas that clinicians face in practice. This is no surprise to observe low to moderate levels of correlations among informants in all forms of paediatric psychopathology [7–9]. There is no exception for hyperactivity/inattention problems for this phenomenon regardless of tools that applied: parent-teacher agreement correlations are usually low-to-moderate. Estimates range from 0.34 to 0.64 [10] using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire’s [SDQ; 11] hyperactivity/inattention subscale and from 0.17 to 0.60 [12] using the DSM-attentional problems using the Child Behavior Checklist ratings [13]. Understanding the reasons for informant-discrepancy informs evidence-based practice for both researchers and practitioners, facilitating the integration and interpretation of different informant ratings when screening for psychiatric disorder [14]. Several factors have been investigated in previous research as follows:

Child’s characteristics

Age

ADHD symptom presentation changes across development, with declining hyperactivity-impulsivity as age increases, while inattention remains relatively stable [15–18]. Age effects are found in both parent and teacher ratings of hyperactivity/impulsivity, in which higher ratings are observed in younger children by both informants [19, 20]. Murray and colleagues [21] found that parent-teacher discrepancy was independent of child’s age and that there is an opposite trend in inattention along age of child, with parent-reported symptoms increasing while teacher-reported symptoms decrease. Meanwhile, Chamorro and colleagues [22] found a similar trend that teachers report less ADHD symptoms as children develop whereas parents-reported symptoms remained stable, inducing an increase in the discrepancy in later childhood. Overall, studies are inconsistent in their results regarding the effect of age on informant agreement of children’s ADHD behaviours and parent-teacher agreement has been found to be unrelated to age in some studies [19, 23–26].

Gender

ADHD has been reliably found to be more common in males [27–30]. Gender biases on assessing behaviours might affect ratings by informants even when similar problem behaviours are displayed in the same setting [31]. Research conducted by Chamorro and colleagues on 789 Mexican students from six elementary school grades reveals that the discrepancy regarding hyperactivity may be greatest in girls [22]. However, other studies have found no gender difference in parent-teacher agreement [23, 26, 32].

Parent-rater’s characteristics

Gender

Fathers tend to identify more ADHD symptoms in screening assessments than mothers [33]. Regardless of moderate mother-father agreement in ADHD [34], there is little evidence available regarding whether the parent gender will affect parent-teacher discrepancy. Some studies have found parental gender is not related to parent-teacher agreement in ADHD [34, 35]. Consistently, reporting genders or roles of caregivers would be helpful in improving such analysis on the gender-related impacts on discrepancies.

Age

Previous studies found inconsistent results regarding the relationship between parent age and parent-teacher agreement in reporting child’s behaviours [36, 37]. Stone and colleagues [36] found lower parent-teacher agreement with young mothers only in externalising behaviours in samples of 5 to 12 year-old children, while Munzer and colleagues [37] observed higher parent-teacher agreement with young parents and lower parent-teacher agreement with older parents in both internalising and externalising behaviours in pre-schoolers. However, there is limited existing research exploring how parent age may relate to parent-teacher agreement in ADHD.

Education

Parent-teacher disagreement could result from differences in perception under the influence of parent’s characteristics [36]. Education level is associated with awareness of, knowledge about and acceptance of treatment for ADHD [38–40]. Parents with higher education levels may obtain more accurate information about ADHD providing a greater awareness and knowledge of ADHD [38, 40]. Regarding the effect of received education by parents on parent-teacher agreement in ADHD, limited evidence is available and the result is also inconclusive [23, 41]. Parents with higher education predicted more severe reports of inattention than teachers [41]. Parents with higher education levels were most accurate in prediciting ADHD diagnosis compared with teachers, and parents who received less education were the least accurate [42]. A relationship between parental education level and parent-teacher disagreement in ADHD was observed in some studies [41, 42]. However, other evidence indicates that parental education level was was unrelated to parent-teacher agreement in both community and clinical samples [23].

Mental health

The depression-distortion hypothesis suggests that when a parent suffers from depression, their rating of their child’s behaviours would be less accurate and hence affect cross-informant agreement [43]. Results from Harvey and colleagues [32] supported this hypothesis finding that mothers, but not fathers, with depression were more likely to rate child attention problems more highly than teachers. However, comparing mothers with and without depression, Madsen and colleagues [44] found that mother-teacher disagreements were reduced among mothers with depression. Instead of parental depression, van der Oord and colleagues [45] observed that when a parent reported more parenting stress, parent-teacher discrepancy in rating ADHD symptoms was greater. Higher parenting stress predicted more reported ADHD symptoms by mother than teacher [41]. Results from Chen and colleagues [46] supported the findings of association between parenting stress and informant disagreement from van der Oord and colleagues [45] and Yeguez and Sibley (41). The current findings are not conclusive on the influence of parental depression, parenting stress and parental ADHD on cross-informant agreement, especially on the mechanism of how psychological well-being might influence the agreement. Other than reporting bias from the parent, it is also possible that a parent with depression or parenting stress may be more likely to encounter more behavioural problems at home and more impaired parent-child interaction [47].

Family’s characteristics

Ethnicity

Cultural diversity affects attitudes towards ADHD, knowledge of ADHD, and help-seeking behaviours [48]. Children in ethnic minorities are also less likely to receive ADHD diagnosis and treatment [49]. An association between ethnicity of parents and parent-teacher disagreement in ADHD has been observed in previous work [50]. Parents from ethnic minority were more likely to rate inattention and hyperactivity lower than teachers [32, 50, 51], while Latina mothers were more likely to rate hyperactivity higher than teachers [32]. Compared to non-Latino, teachers were more likely to identify symptoms in Latino youths while parents were less likely to identify symptoms [52]. However, these patterns have not been found consistently. Another study found that parents identified more symptoms than teachers but that the disagreements between parents and teachers were not related to the ethnicity [53]. Although some studies are available, the literature is not yet sufficiently developed to conclude on how informant agreement in ADHD varies across cultures [23, 32, 50, 54].

Socioeconomic Status (SES)

Children in lower income families are more at risk for ADHD diagnosis and medication use [30]. Lawson and colleagues [51] found lower SES leads to higher parent-teacher discreprency. There was a higher chance of disagreement regarding inattention symptopms and better agreement on hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms. However, Takeda et al. [50] found no significant relationship between SES and parent-teacher agreement despite using the same measure of SES as Lawson and colleagues [51]. Saffer et al. [23] also found household income was unrelated to parent-teacher discrepancy.

Family structure

The structure of a family, such as numbers of children in the household and parental partnership status may affect how an informant perceives and rates a child’s behaviours. For externalising problems, mother-teacher agreement was the best in the single child group and discepancy was greater when more siblings were present [55]. The authors suggested that increased family size might create more parenting stress and lower tolerance for behavioral problems, which increase the chance to rate more symptoms. However, Harvey and colleauges [32] did not find support for the hypothesis on the relationship between number of children in a household with parent-teacher agreement in ADHD. Single parents experienced more parenting stress with a child with ADHD [56] which may affect their rating. However, marital status was not associated with parent-teacher agreement in ADHD [41].

Limited evidence is currently available for a solid conclusion about the relationship of child, parent, and family factors with parent-teacher informant agreement in ADHD. In the present study, we explored how the factors discussed above were associated with parent-teacher agreement/disagreement in ADHD screening. We examined the correlations of parent and teacher reports on the hyperactivity scale of the SDQ [11] in the United Kingdom’s 2004 survey of Mental Health of Children and Young People (MHCYP) [57]. We expected to find a low correlation between reporters, following Vaz and colleauges [58] who found low agreement [weighted kappa = .31, 95% confidence interval (C.I.): .13, .48]. Second, we examined the effects of characteristics of the parent, child, and family on parent-teacher agreement. We expected to identify relationships between the informant agreement and the selected factors, such as age, gender, ethnicity, family structure, socioeconomic characteristics, and parent’s mental health condition. For instance, we predicted that parents with lower education may identify fewer problems, even if the child presents with inattention-hyperactivity symptoms, which will result in discrepancies with teacher reports.

Methodology

Sample and data collection

The data was taken from the 2004 MHCYP survey in the United Kingdom [57]. Details of this survey can be found at Green and colleagues [57]. The data consisted of multiple informants reporting on children aged 4 to 17. A sample of 12,294 families was identified from the Child Benefit Register, and 10,496 (85% of the sample) families were invited to participate in the interview. Fifteen percent of identified families were not interviewed due to opt-outs, moving without trace, and ineligibility. Parents and children aged from 11 to 17 completed the interview and answered a self-rated questionnaire. Consent from parents was sought to contact a nominated teacher who was then invited to participate in the study.

Missing data

In the existing dataset, 7977 families achieved complete interviews with data from up to three reporters. Ninety four percent of families provided parental consent for teachers’ participation and 6236 (78% of all interviews) teachers provided a response. In the current study, any participant providing one missing or unrecognised coding was excluded. Pairwise deletion was used in the current analysis. This meant a sample of 5781 children with both parent- and teacher-reported ratings remained, after data cleaning.

Measures

Hyperactivity-inattention

The SDQ [11] is a 25-item brief informant questionnaire for screening psychopathology of children from 4–17 over the past six months and available for parents, teachers, and children over 11 years old. The hyperactivity-inattention subscale contains 5 items addressing restlessness (“restless, overactive” and “constantly fidgeting or squirming”), distraction (“easily distracted, concentration wanders”), and impulsivity (“thinks things out before acting” and “sees tasks through to the end”). It has been shown to be a useful screening tool for ADHD [e.g. 59, 60]. The items were scored as “not true = 0”, “partly true = 1” and “certainly true = 2”, with two items reverse coded. The sum of the five items of this subscale from all informants can be categorised into “normal (0–5)”, “borderline (6)” and “abnormal (7–10)” [11]. The categorisation instead of the total scores of the subscale were used for comparisons. The current study proposes a categorical variable set for informant patterns. using the SDQ band category system [11], the “borderline (6)” and “abnormal (7–10)” were regrouped in one group (“at risk"), which is consistent with previous approaches [58], and formed a 2x2 matrix of parent-teacher agreement/disagreement patterns as displayed in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Categorization for parent-teacher agreement/disagreement patterns on the hyperactivity-inattention subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Background measures

Demographic variables, such as age, gender [‘female’ (0), ‘male’ (1)], ethnicity [‘White’ (0), ‘Non-White’ (1)], family structure [‘not lone parent’ (0) or ‘lone parent’ (1), and number of children in household], socioeconomic characteristics [‘above national average income’ (0) or ‘below national average income’ (1) [61]], family’s employment status [‘both parents or one parent working’ (0) or ‘neither parent working’ (1)], parents’ educational level [‘completed at least a formal degree’ (0) or ‘did not completed any formal degree’ (1)]. The last variable in the current study was the parent’s self-reported mental health condition which was measured using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire [GHQ; 62]. The GHQ items were scored as “more so than usual or same as usual (0)” and “less so than usual or much less than usual (1)”. A total score ranging 0 to 12 was calculated and grouped into “screened positive for an emotional issue (1)” for a total score of 3 or more and “not screened positive for an emotional issue (0)”, as defined by Green et al. [57].

Ethical considerations

The MHCYP study was conducted by the Office for National Statistics and commissioned by the Department of Health and the Scottish Executive Health Department in the United Kingdom. Written consent was obtained from parents and verbal consent was obtained from children before participation. Consents from parents were sought to contact the nominated teacher for providing data. The pre-analysis dataset was fully anonymized at the data archive and was downloaded from https://beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk/datacatalogue/studies/study?id=5269 at 24 April 2021. Ethics approval (Reference Number: 040880) for the current analyses was obtained from the Ethics Committee at the University of Sheffield, adhering to ‘Research Ethics: General Principles and Statements’ for secondary analysis.

Statistical analysis

STATA17 [63] was used for all analyses. Cross-informant correlation on the hyperactivity-inattention subscale was examined using weighted kappa. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted to explore predictors of parent-teacher agreement/disagreement patterns. Tests of assumptions [variance information factor (VIF) for multicollinearity between variables, Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) statistic for homogeneity of multinomial logistic regression] of the regression analyses were also conducted. Wald tests on coefficients were employed to test the impact of each factor on likelihood of falling into different agreement/disagreement groups.

Results

Sample description

The dataset contained 7977 parent/child dyads. The majority of parent-informants were female (94.40%) and approximately half of the sampled children were male (51.54%). Child ages ranged from 4 to 17 with a mean age 10.54 years (SD = 3.40). The age of the interviewed parent ranged from 18 to 78 years old (M = 39.08, SD = 6.43). Ethnic origin of White (88.22%) and non-White (11.78%) are recorded. In terms of family structure, the percentage of lone parents was 24.29% and the mean number of children in a household was 2.13 (SD = 1.07). Regarding annual household income, 51.02% of families were below national average income. Regarding the family’s employment status, the percentage of neither parent working was 15.42. The percentage of interviewed parents reported completing any educational qualifications was 81.82%. In terms of emotional issues measured by GHQ-12, 22.58% of interviewed parents scored as “screened positive”. Most children fell into the not at-risk range on the hyperactivity/inattention subscale of the SDQ. Cross-informant agreement on the hyperactivity-inattention subscale was low (weighted kappa = .34, 95% C.I.: .31, .37; see Table 1).

Table 1. Frequency of categorization for parent-teacher agreement/disagreement patterns on the hyperactivity-inattention subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.

Teacher Not at-risk At-risk
Parent N = 4931 N = 997
Not at-risk Both agreed not at-risk Teacher-reported only
N = 6265 n = 4201 (72.67%) n = 508 (8.79%)
At-risk Parent-reported only Both agreed at risk
N = 1494 n = 607 (10.50%) n = 465 (8.04%)
Open in a new tab

Characteristics of parent-teacher discrepancy

Four categories were formed according to the parent-teacher agreement/disagreement patterns: both-agreed not at risk, parent-reported at risk only, teacher-reported only, and both-agreed at risk, as shown in Table 1. Multinomial logistic regression (LR chi2 = 558.58, p < .001, pseudo R2 = .060) was used to regress the categorical outcome variable onto child (gender, age); parent (gender, age, emotional issue, and education level); and family characteristics (marital status of parents, employment, household income, number of children in household, and ethnicity). Descriptive statistics and relative risk ratios are displayed in Table 2, including the distribution of the four parent-teacher agreement/disagreement patterns. Wald tests comparing the informant-agreement categories on each factor are shown in Table 3.

Table 2. Risk factors distributed among parent-teacher agreement/disagreement patterns and parent-teacher agreement/disagreement patterns predicted by risk factors.

Risk factors Mean/Ratea RRRs (base: Both agreed not at risk)
Both agreed not at risk (nb = 4201) Parent-only (nb = 607) Teacher-only (nb = 508) Both agreed at risk (nb = 465) Parent -only Teacher-only Both agreed at risk
Child characteristics
Male 44.80% 59.97% 73.23% 75.05% 1.93*** (1.61, 2.32) 3.29*** (2.65, 4.08) 3.87*** (3.06, 4.89)
Age 10.43 9.92 9.91 9.68 0.97 (0.94, 1.00) 0.97 (0.94, 1.01) 0.96* (0.93, 1.00)
Parent characteristics
Male 4.48% 4.94% 7.09% 3.44% 1.17 (0.75, 1.82) 1.46 (0.97, 2.22) 0.78 (0.43, 1.40)
Age 39.31 37.81 38.13 36.88 0.98** (0.96, 0.99) 0.98* (0.96, 1.00) 0.96*** (0.95, 0.98)
Positive for emotional issue 19.99% 29.57% 22.85% 33.19% 1.62*** (1.32, 1.99) 1.15 (0.90, 1.46) 1.77*** (1.40, 2.23)
Without a formal degree 14.84% 18.67% 22.66% 28.51% 1.69** (1.24, 2.29) 1.22 (0.90, 1.65) 2.41*** (1.55, 3.75)
Family characteristics
Lone parent 20.73% 25.04% 28.35% 34.84% 0.89 (0.69, 1.15) 1.00 (0.76, 1.32) 1.09 (0.83, 1.45)
Neither parent working 11.32% 16.45% 20.28% 27.65% 1.09 (0.81, 1.48) 1.61** (1.18, 2.19) 1.61** (1.19, 2.18)
Below average income 44.54% 55.26% 56.28% 67.70% 1.33** (1.08, 1.65) 1.27 (0.99, 1.61) 1.73*** (1.33, 2.24)
Number of children in household 2.12 2.19 2.20 2.22 1.01 (0.92, 1.11) 0.98 (0.89, 1.09) 0.98 (0.88, 1.10)
Ethnicity as Non-White 10.93% 9.72% 14.2% 7.96% 0.60* (0.41, 0.88) 1.22 (0.88, 1.69) 0.50** (0.31, 0.80)
Open in a new tab

RRR, relative risk ratio; C.I., confidence interval.Bold figures indicate statistically significant findings:

*p < .05;

**p < .01;

***p < .001.

aAll numbers correspond to percentages, except for age given in mean number of years and numbers of children in household.

bNs vary slightly for each risk factor due to occasional missing data.

Table 3. Wald test between RRR of informant pairs.

Parent vs Teacher Parent vs Both Teacher vs Both
Child characteristics
Male 15.22 *** 23.59 *** 1.12
Age 0.06 0.11 0.30
Parent characteristics
Male 0.64 1.32 3.39
Age 0.01 0.86 0.96
Positive for emotional issue 5.51 * 0.35 7.69 **
Without a formal degree 2.45 1.83 6.76 **
Family characteristics
Lone parent 0.48 1.40 0.22
Neither parent working 3.72 3.91 * 0.00
Below average income 0.12 2.55 3.28
Number of children in household 0.18 0.16 0.00
Ethnicity as Non-White 8.89 ** 0.36 10.60 **
Open in a new tab

Bold figures indicate statistically significant findings:

*p < .05;

**p < .01;

***p < .001.

In terms of child’s characteristics, male children were more likely to be rated as at risk by parent alone (RRR = 1.93, p < .001, C.I.: 1.61, 2.32) and by teacher alone (RRR = 3.29, p < .001, C.I.: 2.65, 4.08), comparing to when both informants rated as not at-risk. Male children were less likely to be rated by at risk by parent-alone compared to teacher-alone (chi2 = 15.22, p < .001) and by both informants (chi2 = 23.59, p < .001) as at risk. Child’ age was not related to parent-teacher discrepancy in the current study.

In terms of parent’s characteristics, children rated by older parents were found to be less likely of being rated as at-risk by parent alone (RRR = .98, p < .01, C.I.: .96, .99) and by teacher alone (RRR = .98, p < .05, C.I.: .96, 1.00), compared to when both informants rated as not at-risk. Parents who are screened as positive for an emotional issue were more likely to rate their children at risk by parent alone (RRR = 1.62, p < .001, C.I.: 1.32, 1.99) compared to when both informants reported the child as not at risk. We also found that when parents with positively screened emotional issues, their children were more likely to be rated by parent-alone (chi2 = 5.51, p < .05) and by both informants (chi2 = 7.69, p < .01) than by teacher alone as at risk. For parents without a formal degree, children were more likely to be rated by parent alone (RRR = 1.69, p < .01, C.I.: 1.24, 2.29) as at risk, compared to when both informants rated as not at risk. They were also more likely to be rated as at risk by both informants than being rated by teacher-only (chi2 = 6.76, p < .01). Parental gender was not related to parent-teacher discrepancy.

In terms of family’s characteristics, children from families where neither parent was working were more likely to be rated at risk by teacher only (RRR = 1.61, p < .01, C.I.: 1.18, 2.19) in comparison to both informants rated as not at risk. They were slightly more likely to be rated by both informants (chi2 = 3.91, p < .05) as at risk than by parent only. Family with below average income (RRR = 1.33, p<0.01, C.I.: 1.08, 1.65) and parents who identified themselves as White (RRR = 0.60, p<0.05, C.I.: 0.41, 0.88) were more likely to rate their children at risk by parent alone, when compared to both informants rated as not at risk. Our results also found that non-White children were more likely to be rated by teacher-alone as at risk compared with parent-alone (chi2 = 8.89, p < .01) and both informants (chi2 = 10.60, p < .01) as at risk. Parental marital status and number of children in the household were not associated with discrepancy in the current study.

Discussion

Cross-informant correlations

As hypothesised on the basis of previous research, we found a weak to moderate correlation between informants’ hyperactivity ratings that was consistent with the relationships found in all forms of paediatric psychopathology [e.g., 7–9, 64]. Similar findings of low parent-teacher correlations on the SDQ hyperactive-inattention subscale were observed in previous research in both clinical [e.g. 65] and community [e.g., 66] samples.

Characteristics of parent-teacher discrepancy

The present study also explored relationships among child, parent, and family characteristics with the informant agreement/disagreement patterns. The current study considered a pool of covariates in analysis simultaneously to jointly distinguish the marginal effects of the factors. Some of the relationships found were consistent with the previous literature. Our findings are partly consistent with previous research on factors not significantly associated with parent-teacher agreement on reporting ADHD symptoms, such as child’s age [19, 23–26], parental gender [34, 35], number of children in a household [32] and marital status [41].

Regarding child’s characteristics, male children were more likely to fall into parent-teacher disagreement in our study, which is consistent with previous findings for externalizing disorders [e.g., 10]. It is also consistent with previous research about gender features of ADHD where it has classically been found that symptoms and diagnosis are more common in males, whether in single-informant or both-informant ratings [e.g. 67]. However, it is noticeable that parent-only screen-positive is less likely than teacher-only and both-informant rating among male children. This may imply the interaction of gender with informant agreement, for example, teacher-informants may have a higher likelihood to overestimate the incident among male children.

Regarding parental characteristics, younger parent-informants were more likely to fall into parent-teacher disagreement. This is consistent with Cheng and colleagues’ [10] finding that younger mother-informants were associated with externalizing problems measured by the SDQ. The current result is parallel with previous studies on younger parental age as a risk factor for informant discrepancy when screening ADHD and other externalizing problems in children [36, 37]. In addition, our results showed that parent-teacher disagreement was more common when parents were screen-positive for facing emotional issues. Harvey et al. [32] reported similar findings regarding the association between maternal depression and mother-teacher disagreement; mothers with depression reported more attention problems in their children than teachers. Our findings were consistent with the depression-distortion hypothesis [43], indicating that parents with psychological distress tend to rate more symptoms and are more likely to screen positive alone or to agree with teacher that the child screens positive.

An association between parental education level and parent-teacher disagreement was observed in our study. This is consistent with previous research that has found a positive correlation between parental education levels and knowledge of ADHD [38, 40] and a positive effect of parental education on ADHD identification [42]. Parents with higher education are suggested to have higher knowledge regarding ADHD are more likely to report higher ADHD symptoms of their children.

Regarding family characteristics, some measures of SES, such as number of working parents, and average household income, were significantly associated with parent-teacher disagreement in reporting ADHD symptoms. Our findings suggested that children from families with below average income were rated to have less symptoms by teachers, which is contradictory to previous findings. For example, in one study of pre-school children [51], both parents and teachers report more symptoms for children with lower SES. This contrast may be due to different measures of SES in the current study (income only) or another unexplained mechanism. Difference in measures of SES may have hinder comparison of current results with previous studies.

Our findings also suggested that parents who identified their ethnicity as Non-White rated lower hyperactivity than teachers, which is consistent with previous studies [32, 50, 51]. Our findings also suggested that children rated by Non-White parent-informants were more likely to be rated as at risk for ADHD by teacher-alone. This finding is similar to a previous study comparing Non-Latino and Latino youths, which found that Latino youths were rated for more symptoms by teachers [52]. However, the results might not be directly comparable, as the classification of ethnicity in this previous study is Latino-oriented. This might suggest the phenomenon appearing across different minor ethnicities. Parental marital status and number of children in the household were not associated with discrepancy in the current study.

The current study has brought insights to both scientific and practical issues. For example, when disagreement in rating occurs, clinicians might consider the factors identified to predict interrater discrepancy, such as parental age and mental status. The current study utilized a large, nationally representative sample, that measures many factors that have been studied as predictors of parent/teacher discrepancy. However, interpretation of our results must be considered in the light of some limitations. There are other possible characteristics that were not included in the current dataset that might contribute to parent-teacher discrepancies. For example, teacher’s characteristics, such as ethnicity and stress level, were not measured. Our analysis might have benefited from including such information for exploring possible linkage of informant characteristics with informant agreement/disagreement, as suggested by previous study [e.g. 68]. Nevertheless, our findings confirm results from the previous literature. Future research should focus on enhancing further understanding on the relationships between informant discrepancy with ADHD diagnosis for exploring the impact of agreement/disagreement on screening accuracy.

Conclusion

We found low informant agreement in the hyperactive/inattention subscale, consistent with previous studies. Several characteristics, such as gender of child and parental age, were associated with parent-teacher agreement/disagreement patterns. In conclusion, the current research has found several factors that played a role in informant rating discrepancy, and thus may be important in interpreting screening results especially when informants disagree with each other. As ADHD diagnosis requires symptoms to present in two or more settings, it is important to explore how the informant discrepancy induced then could have influenced the diagnosis, for example, how actual diagnosis might be different between parent-only and teacher-only screening scenarios, and the impacts of screening accuracy. Further research evaluating the screening accuracy from the informants, and the utilization of all the information attainable in clinical process, to facilitate the usage of informant rating in aiding clinical diagnosis may be an important next step.

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because of access level designed by the UK Data Service. Data are available from the UK Data Service (contact via https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from https://beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk/datacatalogue/studies/study?id=5269.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Polanczyk G, de Lima MS, Horta BL, Biederman J, Rohde LA. The worldwide prevalence of ADHD: A systematic review and metaregression analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2007;164(6):942–8. doi: 10.1176/ajp.2007.164.6.942 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Willcutt EG. The prevalence of DSM-IV attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analytic review. Neurotherapeutics. 2012;9(3):490–9. Epub 2012/09/15. doi: 10.1007/s13311-012-0135-8 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed., Text Revision). Washington: American Psychiatric Association; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Roy A, Hechtman L, Arnold LE, Swanson JM, Molina BSG, Sibley MH, et al. Childhood predictors of adult functional outcomes in the Multimodal Treatment Study of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (MTA). Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2017;56(8):687–95.e7. Epub 2017/07/25. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2017.05.020 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Batstra L, Hadders-Algra M, Nieweg E, Van Tol D, Pijl SJ, Frances A. Childhood emotional and behavioral problems: reducing overdiagnosis without risking undertreatment. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2012;54(6):492–4. Epub 2012/05/11. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.04176.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Okumura Y, Yamasaki S, Ando S, Usami M, Endo K, Hiraiwa-Hasegawa M, et al. Psychosocial burden of undiagnosed persistent ADHD symptoms in 12-year-old children: a population-based birth cohort study. Journal of Attention Disorders. 2021;25(5):636–45. doi: 10.1177/1087054719837746 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Achenbach TM, McConaughy SH, Howell CT. Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin. 1987;101(2):213–32. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.De Los Reyes A, Augenstein TM, Wang M, Thomas SA, Drabick DAG, Burgers DE, et al. The validity of the multi-informant approach to assessing child and adolescent mental health. Psychological Bulletin. 2015;141(4):858–900. Epub 2015/04/29. doi: 10.1037/a0038498 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Carneiro A, Soares I, Rescorla L, Dias P. Meta-analysis on parent-teacher agreement on preschoolers’ emotional and behavioural problems. Child Psychiatry & Human Development. 2020. Epub 2020/08/28. doi: 10.1007/s10578-020-01044-y . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cheng S, Keyes KM, Bitfoi A, Carta MG, Koc C, Goelitz D, et al. Understanding parent-teacher agreement of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Comparison across seven European countries. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. 2018;27(1). Epub 2017/10/13. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1589 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Goodman R. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1997;38(5):581–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rescorla LA, Bochicchio L, Achenbach TM, Ivanova MY, Almqvist F, Begovac I, et al. Parent-teacher agreement on children’s problems in 21 societies. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2014;43(4):627–42. Epub 2014/05/03. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2014.900719 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA. Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.De Los Reyes A. Strategic objectives for improving understanding of informant discrepancies in developmental psychopathology research. Development and Psychopathology. 2013;25(3):669–82. Epub 2013/07/25. doi: 10.1017/S0954579413000096 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Newcorn JH, Halperin JM, Jensen PS, Abikoff HB, Arnold E, Cantwell DP, et al. Symptom profiles in children with ADHD: effects of comorbidity and gender. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2001;40(2):137–46. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200102000-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Caye A, Spadini AV, Karam RG, Grevet EH, Rovaris DL, Bau CH, et al. Predictors of persistence of ADHD into adulthood: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2016;25(11):1151–9. Epub 2016/10/28. doi: 10.1007/s00787-016-0831-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Faraone SV, Biederman J, Mick E. The age-dependent decline of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analysis of follow-up studies. Psychological Medicine. 2006;36(2):159–65. Epub 2006/01/20. doi: 10.1017/S003329170500471X . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Halmøy A, Fasmer OB, Gillberg C, Haavik J. Occupational outcome in adult ADHD: impact of symptom profile, comorbid psychiatric problems, and treatment: a cross-sectional study of 414 clinically diagnosed adult ADHD patients. Journal of Attention Disorders. 2009;13(2):175–87. doi: 10.1177/1087054708329777 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Narad ME, Garner AA, Peugh JL, Tamm L, Antonini TN, Kingery KM, et al. Parent-teacher agreement on ADHD symptoms across development. Psychological Assessment. 2015;27(1):239–48. Epub 2014/09/16. doi: 10.1037/a0037864 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Gomez R, Harvey J, Quick C, Scharer I, Harris G. DSM-IV AD/HD: confirmatory factor models, prevalence, and gender and age differences based on parent and teacher ratings of Australian primary school children. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines. 1999;40(2):265–74. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00440 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Murray AL, Booth T, Ribeaud D, Eisner M. Disagreeing about development: An analysis of parent-teacher agreement in ADHD symptom trajectories across the elementary school years. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. 2018;27(3):e1723. Epub 2018/05/31. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1723 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chamorro Y, Bolanos L, Trejo S, Barrios O, Ramirez-Duenas ML, Alvarez-Tostado P, et al. Do teachers confirm parent’s ratings of ADHD DSM-IV criteria? A study of a mexican population. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment. 2021;17:1965–75. Epub 2021/06/25. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S308051 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Saffer BY, Mikami AY, Qi H, Owens JS, Normand S. Factors related to agreement between parent and teacher ratings of children’s ADHD symptoms: an exploratory study using Polynomial Regression Analyses. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10862-021-09892-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Du Y, Kou J, Coghill D. The validity, reliability and normative scores of the parent, teacher and self report versions of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in China. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health. 2008;2(1):8. Epub 2008/05/01. doi: 10.1186/1753-2000-2-8 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sherman EM, Brooks BL, Akdag S, Connolly MB, Wiebe S. Parents report more ADHD symptoms than do teachers in children with epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior. 2010;19(3):428–35. Epub 2010/10/12. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2010.08.015 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.van Widenfelt BM, Goedhart AW, Treffers PD, Goodman R. Dutch version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2003;12(6):281–9. Epub 2003/12/23. doi: 10.1007/s00787-003-0341-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Arnett AB, Pennington BF, Willcutt EG, DeFries JC, Olson RK. Sex differences in ADHD symptom severity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2015;56(6):632–9. Epub 2014/10/07. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12337 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ramtekkar UP, Reiersen AM, Todorov AA, Todd RD. Sex and age differences in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms and diagnoses: implications for DSM-V and ICD-11. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2010;49(3):217–28. doi: 10.1097/00004583-201003000-00005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bauermeister JJ, Shrout PE, Chavez L, Rubio-Stipec M, Ramirez R, Padilla L, et al. ADHD and gender: are risks and sequela of ADHD the same for boys and girls? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2007;48(8):831–9. Epub 2007/08/09. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01750.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sagiv SK, Epstein JN, Bellinger DC, Korrick SA. Pre- and postnatal risk factors for ADHD in a nonclinical pediatric population. Journal of Attention Disorders. 2013;17(1):47–57. Epub 2012/02/03. doi: 10.1177/1087054711427563 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sheaffer AW, Majeika C. E., Gilmour A. F., & Wehby J. H. Classroom behavior of students with or at risk of EBD: Student gender affects teacher ratings but not direct observations. Behavioral Disorders. 2021;46(2):96–107. doi: 10.1177/0198742920911651 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Harvey EA, Fischer C, Weieneth JL, Hurwitz SD, Sayer AG. Predictors of discrepancies between informants’ ratings of preschool-aged children’s behavior: An examination of ethnicity, child characteristics, and family functioning. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2013;28(4):668–82. Epub 2013/08/13. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.05.002 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Caye A, Machado JD, Rohde LA. Evaluating parental disagreement in ADHD diagnosis: Can we rely on a single report from home? Journal of Attention Disorders. 2017;21(7):561–6. Epub 2013/10/08. doi: 10.1177/1087054713504134 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sollie H, Larsson B, Morch WT. Comparison of mother, father, and teacher reports of ADHD core symptoms in a sample of child psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Attention Disorders. 2013;17(8):699–710. Epub 2012/03/24. doi: 10.1177/1087054711436010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Falt E, Wallby T, Sarkadi A, Salari R, Fabian H. Agreement between mothers’, fathers’, and teachers’ ratings of behavioural and emotional problems in 3-5-year-old children. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0206752. Epub 2018/11/02. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206752 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Stone SL, Speltz ML, Collett B, Werler MM. Socioeconomic factors in relation to discrepancy in parent versus teacher ratings of child behavior. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2013;35(3):314–20. Epub 2013/09/18. doi: 10.1007/s10862-013-9348-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Munzer TG, Miller AL, Brophy-Herb HE, Peterson KE, Horodynski MA, Contreras D, et al. Characteristics associated with parent-teacher concordance on Child Behavior Problem Ratings in low-income preschoolers. Acad Pediatr. 2018;18(4):452–9. Epub 2017/10/31. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2017.10.006 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Dodangi N, Vameghi R, Habibi N. Evaluation of knowledge and attitude of parents of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder children towards attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in clinical samples. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry. 2017;12(1):42–18. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Partridge B, Lucke J, Hall W. Public attitudes towards the acceptability of using drugs to treat depression and ADHD. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2012;46(10):958–65. Epub 2012/06/13. doi: 10.1177/0004867412450755 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Amiri S, Shafiee-Kandjani AR, Noorazar SG, Rahmani Ivrigh S, Abdi S. Knowledge and attitude of parents of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder towards the illness. Iran Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. 2016;10(2):e122. Epub 2016/11/03. doi: 10.17795/ijpbs-122 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Yeguez CE, Sibley MH. Predictors of informant discrepancies between mother and middle school teacher ADHD ratings. School Mental Health. 2016;8(4):452–60. Epub 2016/12/17. doi: 10.1007/s12310-016-9192-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Tahillioglu A, Bilac O, Uysal T, Ercan ES. Who predict ADHD with better diagnostic accuracy?: Parents or teachers? Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. 2021;75(3):214–23. Epub 2021/02/23. doi: 10.1080/08039488.2020.1867634 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Richters J, Pellegrini D. Depressed mothers’ judgments about their children: An examination of the depression-distortion hypothesis. Child Development. 1989;60(5):1068–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1989.tb03537.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Madsen KB, Rask CU, Olsen J, Niclasen J, Obel C. Depression-related distortions in maternal reports of child behaviour problems. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2020;29(3):275–85. Epub 2019/05/23. doi: 10.1007/s00787-019-01351-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.van der Oord S, Prins PJ, Oosterlaan J, Emmelkamp PM. The association between parenting stress, depressed mood and informant agreement in ADHD and ODD. Behav Res Ther. 2006;44(11):1585–95. Epub 2006/01/13. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.11.011 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Chen YC, Hwang-Gu SL, Ni HC, Liang SH, Lin HY, Lin CF, et al. Relationship between parenting stress and informant discrepancies on symptoms of ADHD/ODD and internalizing behaviors in preschool children. PLoS One. 2017;12(10):e0183467. Epub 2017/10/11. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183467 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Jacob T, Johnson SL. Parent–child interaction among depressed fathers and mothers: Impact on child functioning. Journal of Family Psychology. 1997;11(4):391–409. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.11.4.391 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Bussing R, Gary FA, Mills TL, Garvan CW. Cultural variations in parental health beliefs, knowledge, and information sources related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Family Issues. 2016;28(3):291–318. doi: 10.1177/0192513x06296117 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Coker TR, Elliott MN, Toomey SL, Schwebel DC, Cuccaro P, Emery ST, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in ADHD diagnosis and treatment. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2):e20160407. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-0407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Takeda T, Nissley-Tsiopinis J, Nanda S, Eiraldi R. Factors associated with discrepancy in parent–teacher reporting of symptoms of ADHD in a large clinic-referred sample of children. Journal of Attention Disorders. 2020;24(11):1605–15. doi: 10.1177/1087054716652476 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Lawson GM, Nissley-Tsiopinis J, Nahmias A, McConaughy SH, Eiraldi R. Do parent and teacher report of ADHD symptoms in children differ by SES and racial status? Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2017;39(3):426–40. doi: 10.1007/s10862-017-9591-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Haack LM, Meza J, Jiang Y, Araujo EJ, Pfiffner L. Influences to ADHD problem recognition: Mixed-method investigation and recommendations to reduce disparities for Latino youth. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2018;45(6):958–77. Epub 2018/05/18. doi: 10.1007/s10488-018-0877-7 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Wexler D, Salgado R, Gornik A, Peterson R, Pritchard A. What’s race got to do with it? Informant rating discrepancies in neuropsychological evaluations for children with ADHD. Clin Neuropsychol. 2022;36(2):264–86. Epub 2021/07/10. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2021.1944671 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Phillips BM, Lonigan CJ. Child and informant influences on behavioral ratings of preschool children. Psychology in the Schools. 2010;47(4):374–90. doi: 10.1002/pits.20476 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Castagna PJ, Laird RD, Calamia M, Davis TE. A basis for comparison: The congruence of mother-teacher ratings of externalizing behavior as a function of family size. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2020;29(12):3335–41. doi: 10.1007/s10826-020-01843-w [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Theule J, Wiener J, Rogers MA, Marton I. Predicting parenting stress in families of children with ADHD: Parent and contextual factors. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2010;20(5):640–7. doi: 10.1007/s10826-010-9439-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Green H, McGinnity A, Meltzer H, Ford T, Goodman R. Mental health of children and young people in Great Britain, 2004. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Vaz S, Cordier R, Boyes M, Parsons R, Joosten A, Ciccarelli M, et al. Is using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a community sample the optimal qay to assess mental health functioning? PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0144039. Epub 2016/01/16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144039 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Hall CL, Guo B, Valentine AZ, Groom MJ, Daley D, Sayal K, et al. The validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) for children with ADHD symptoms. PLoS One. 2019;14(6):e0218518. Epub 2019/06/20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218518 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Algorta GP, Dodd AL, Stringaris A, Youngstrom EA. Diagnostic efficiency of the SDQ for parents to identify ADHD in the UK: a ROC analysis. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2016;25(9):949–57. Epub 2016/01/15. doi: 10.1007/s00787-015-0815-0 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Office for National Statistics. Average disposable income by age of the household reference person, FYE 2004 to FYE 2019, UK (2018 to 2019 prices) 2020 [updated 5 November 2020; cited 2022 20 Jan]. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/adhocs/12459averagedisposableincomebyageofthehouseholdreferencepersonfye2004tofye2019uk2018to2019prices.
  • 62.Williams P, Goldberg DP. A user’s guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Berkshire: Nfer, Nelson; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 17. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Duhig AM, Renk K, Epstein MK, Phares V. Interparental agreement on internalizing, externalizing, and total behavior problems: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2000;7(4):435–53. doi: 10.1093/clipsy.7.4.435 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Coutinho D, Farias AC, Felden EPG, Cordeiro ML. ADHD comorbid with major depression on parents and teachers perceptions. Journal of Attention Disorders. 2021;25(4):508–18. doi: 10.1177/1087054718815574 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Español-Martín G, Mireia P, Raquel P, Rivas C, Sixto L, Valero S, et al. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and normative data for spanish 5-to 17-year-olds. Assessment. 2021;28(5):1445–58. doi: 10.1177/1073191120918929 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Kovess-Masfety V, Woodward MJ, Keyes K, Bitfoi A, Carta MG, Koc C, et al. Gender, the gender gap, and their interaction; analysis of relationships with children’s mental health problems. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2021;56(6):1049–57. Epub 2020/09/12. doi: 10.1007/s00127-020-01950-5 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Gershenson S, Holt SB, Papageorge NW. Who believes in me? The effect of student–teacher demographic match on teacher expectations. Economics of Education Review. 2016;52:209–24. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.03.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gerard Hutchinson

2 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-24488Factors associated with parent-teacher hyperactivity/inattention screening discrepancy: Findings from a UK national samplePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. These are described below. Address every point raised by the reviewer and indicate how the manuscript has been amended to reflect the changes.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 16 2024 11:59PM.  If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gerard Hutchinson, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this study, the authors examine the influence of multiple factors (pertaining to child’s characteristics, parent-rater’s characteristics and family’s characteristics) on cross-informant agreement between parents and teachers on the hyperactivity-inattention subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. To this end, a multinomial regression analysis was performed using a large representative sample (n = 7977) of the UK Mental Health of Children and Young People survey.

Results showed that overall cross-informant agreement of parent and teacher was low. Moreover, concerning child’s characteristics only the child’s sex (but not age) was associated with higher likelihood of parent-teacher discrepancy. With respect to parent-rater’s characteristics, age, mental health issues and educational level were significantly associated with rater disagreement. Among the family characteristics, SES, number of working parents, and ethnicity emerged as significant predictors in the analysis.

General comments

The authors provide a concise but systematic overview of the literature concerned with the factors influencing parent-rater disagreement in ADHD symptoms. The relevance of the study is clearly stated and straightforward. I agree with the authors that there is a need of studies examining the potential influence of the multiple factors simultaneously in one and the same analysis - as done by the authors. I think the study would attract researchers and practitioners in the field, but the manuscript should be improved in some respects. I therefore recommend some minor revisions.

(1) In the theory section, the findings on the factors associated with parent-teacher agreement are presented very systematically, but sometimes the literature is presented too briefly. For instance, it is stated that hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms decrease with age (p.4) – whereas this is true for the hyperactivity symptoms, there is evidence to suggest that impulsivity and risk behavior increase in adolescents with ADHD compared to children with ADHD. Likewise, it is true that ADHD has been reliably reported more commonly in males (p. 4). Yet, I would appreciate it if the authors could go into more detail about the underlying mechanisms contributing to this gender bias (e.g., different symptom expressions in boys and girls contribute to under-identification of ADHD in girl. The inattantive subtype of ADHD is more prevalent in girls, whereas the combined subtype is more prevalent in boys).

(2) I think it is also important to point out that the existence of a discrepancy between observers says nothing about the accuracy of their respective judgments. Because both informants assess the child's separate environments (home versus school), some of the observed behavioral discrepancy may well reflect true differences in the child's behavior in the two contexts instead of reflecting an informant bias. That is, statements about the accuracy of the respective informants can only be made based on validation with a clinical interview - which, unfortunately, is rarely done in research. I would appreciate if the authors could add a brief overview of this issue in the theory section (e.g., this issue is well presented in the papers by Los Reyes et al., 2015, 2019). Likewise, it should also be mentioned in the discussion that that the present findings do not inform about rater accuracy.

(3) On p. 8, the authors present their hypotheses and “predicted that parents with lower education may identify fewer problems, even if the child presents with inattention-hyperactivity symptoms, which will result in discrepancies with teacher reports”. I think, this hypothesis cannot be referred from the present data. Since no clinical interview was additionally performed with the children, information on the actual inattention-hyperactivity symptoms of the children is missing so we do not know if the child presents with respective symptoms or not. The authors should thus rephrase the sentence.

(4) Although the statistical analysis is appropriate for the question at hand, I wonder whether carrying out a comparable analysis on a latent (instead of on a manifest) level would be possible given the large sample size. (However, I am not an expert in this field, so I am not sure whether those methods exist).

(5) In the discussion, I would like the authors to elaborate on the effect sizes of the respective characteristics. The discussion summarizes the results well, makes appropriate comparisons with previous research, and addresses possible reasons for inconsistent findings from other studies. What I still miss in the discussion is that the authors elaborate on the effect sizes of the significant results – especially given the large sample. For example, it can be seen from Tables 2 and 3 that some of the significant factors examined only show small effects on parent-teacher agreement, while others show larger effects. In my opinion, adding a few sentences on the relevance of the respective significant characteristics would strengthen the discussion.

References

Los Reyes A de, Augenstein TM, Wang M et al. (2015) The validity of the multi-informant approach to assessing child and adolescent mental health. Psychol Bull, 141:858–900. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038498 521

Los Reyes A de, Cook CR, Gresham FM et al. (2019) Informant discrepancies in assessments of psychosocial functioning in school-based services and research: Review and directions for future research. J Sch Psychol, 523 74:74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.0

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 May 17;19(5):e0299980. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299980.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

2 Feb 2024

Manuscript PONE-D-23-24488

Response to Reviewer

Date: 2024/02/01

Dear Dr. Hutchinson,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Factors associated with parent-teacher hyperactivity/inattention screening discrepancy: Findings from a UK national sample” for publication in the PLOS ONE. We appreciate the time and effort dedicating to providing feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for the insightful comments and that have led to valuable improvements to our paper.

Revisions made to the manuscript in response to comments are highlighted with tracked changes. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns, and in red, for the changes made. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Reviewer' Comments to the Authors:

Comment 1: In the theory section, the findings on the factors associated with parent-teacher agreement are presented very systematically, but sometimes the literature is presented too briefly. For instance, it is stated that hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms decrease with age (p.4) – whereas this is true for the hyperactivity symptoms, there is evidence to suggest that impulsivity and risk behavior increase in adolescents with ADHD compared to children with ADHD. Likewise, it is true that ADHD has been reliably reported more commonly in males (p. 4). Yet, I would appreciate it if the authors could go into more detail about the underlying mechanisms contributing to this gender bias (e.g., different symptom expressions in boys and girls contribute to under-identification of ADHD in girl. The inattentive subtype of ADHD is more prevalent in girls, whereas the combined subtype is more prevalent in boys).

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have elaborated and the revised text reads as follows on p.4:

“Age. Evidence suggested that impulsivity in general reaches its peak during adolescents, which can be explained by brain development [18], however, ADHD symptom presentation changes across development, with declining hyperactivity-impulsivity as age increases, while inattention remains relatively stable [19-22]. Compared to younger children, adolescents develop more maturity in self-regulation and their ability to sustain attention grows [23, 24].”

“Gender. ADHD has been reliably found to be more common in males [33-36]. Different symptom expressions across gender might contribute to under-identification

of ADHD in females. For example, females with ADHD demonstrated less ADHD core symptoms, less externalising behaviours, but more intellectual impairment and internalising problems [37-39]. Males with ADHD also presented more hyperactive behaviours and more deficits in inhibition and cognitive flexibility, but not attention [40]. In addition, subtype prevalence across gender might also affect identification of ADHD. The inattentive subtype of ADHD is more prevalent in females while the combined subtype is more prevalent in males [3].”

Comment 2: I think it is also important to point out that the existence of a discrepancy between observers says nothing about the accuracy of their respective judgments. Because both informants assess the child's separate environments (home versus school), some of the observed behavioral discrepancy may well reflect true differences in the child's behavior in the two contexts instead of reflecting an informant bias. That is, statements about the accuracy of the respective informants can only be made based on validation with a clinical interview - which, unfortunately, is rarely done in research. I would appreciate if the authors could add a brief overview of this issue in the theory section (e.g., this issue is well presented in the papers by Los Reyes et al., 2015, 2019). Likewise, it should also be mentioned in the discussion that that the present findings do not inform about rater accuracy.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out and the reference provided. We have elaborated and the revised text reads as follows on p.3 and p.18:

(p.3) “Discrepant results in ADHD ratings might be due to rater effects and

cross-situation variability on behaviour presentations and demand [9, 15, 16].”

(p.18) “Nevertheless, although our findings confirm results from the previous literature, the current findings are not informative regarding rater accuracy. Informant discrepancy might reflect differing symptom presentations in different contexts rather than informant bias.”

Comment 3: On p. 8, the authors present their hypotheses and “predicted that parents with lower education may identify fewer problems, even if the child presents with inattention-hyperactivity symptoms, which will result in discrepancies with teacher reports”. I think, this hypothesis cannot be referred from the present data. Since no clinical interview was additionally performed with the children, information on the actual inattention-hyperactivity symptoms of the children is missing so we do not know if the child presents with respective symptoms or not. The authors should thus rephrase the sentence.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have rephrased the sentence, and the revised text reads as follows on p. 8:

“For instance, we predicted that parents with lower education may identify fewer problems than teachers which will result in discrepancies with teacher reports.”

Comment 4: Although the statistical analysis is appropriate for the question at hand, I wonder whether carrying out a comparable analysis on a latent (instead of on a manifest) level would be possible given the large sample size. (However, I am not an expert in this field, so I am not sure whether those methods exist).

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We think this is an interesting suggestion. However, this would be beyond the scope in the current manuscript because that would be beyond the original research question set in the current study. The suggested analysis would be valuable to implement in another manuscript if possible. However, we would be happy to reconsider this issue if the editor or reviewer believe it would be of high value to the journal readership.

 

Comment 5: In the discussion, I would like the authors to elaborate on the effect sizes of the respective characteristics. The discussion summarizes the results well, makes appropriate comparisons with previous research, and addresses possible reasons for inconsistent findings from other studies. What I still miss in the discussion is that the authors elaborate on the effect sizes of the significant results – especially given the large sample. For example, it can be seen from Tables 2 and 3 that some of the significant factors examined only show small effects on parent-teacher agreement, while others show larger effects. In my opinion, adding a few sentences on the relevance of the respective significant characteristics would strengthen the discussion.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised text reads as follows on p. 15-17:

“Regarding child’s characteristics, male children were more likely to fall into parent-teacher disagreement in our study. Male children were found to be 1.93 times more likely to be rated as at risk by parent only, and 3.29 times more likely to be screened positive by teacher only, compared to when both informants agreed not at risk. This is consistent with previous findings for externalizing disorders [e.g., 11] and with previous research about gender features of ADHD where it has classically been found that symptoms and diagnosis are more common in males, whether in single-informant or both-informant ratings [e.g. 77]. However, it is noticeable that parent-only screen-positive was 41.43% less likely than teacher-only and 50.13% less likely than both-informant rating among male children. This may imply the interaction of gender with informant agreement, for example, teacher-informants may have a higher likelihood of overestimating the incidence among male children.

Regarding parental characteristics, younger parent-informants were more likely to fall into parent-teacher disagreement, with around 2% more likely for each year of parental age. This is consistent with Cheng and colleagues’ [11] finding that younger mother-informants were associated with externalizing problems measured by the SDQ. The current result is consistent with previous studies on younger parental age as a risk factor for informant discrepancy when screening ADHD and other externalizing problems in children [46, 47]. In addition, our results showed that parent-teacher disagreement was more common when parents were screen-positive for facing emotional issues. When parent-informants were screened positive for emotional issues, their children were 62% more likely to be rated by parent only than for both informants to agree not at risk. Harvey et al. [42] reported similar findings regarding the association between maternal depression and mother-teacher disagreement; mothers with depression reported more attention problems in their children than teachers. Our findings were consistent with the depression-distortion hypothesis [53], indicating that parents with psychological distress tended to rate more symptoms and were 40.87% more likely to screen positive alone or 35.03% more likely to agree with teacher that the child screens positive compared to be rated by teacher only.

An association between parental education level and parent-teacher disagreement was observed in our study. When parents did not complete a formal degree, the child was 69% more likely to be screened positive by parent only than for both raters to agree not at risk. This is consistent with previous research that has found a positive correlation between parental education levels and knowledge of ADHD [48, 50] and a positive effect of parental education on ADHD identification [52]. In the current study, children with parents without a formal degree were 49.38% less likely to be screened positive by teacher-only than by both informants.

Regarding family characteristics, some measures of SES, such as number of working parents, and average household income, were significantly associated with parent-teacher disagreement in reporting ADHD symptoms. Children with neither parent working were 61% more likely to be reported by teacher-only compared to when both agreed not at risk. Children with neither parent working were 32.30% less likely to be screened positive by parent-only than by both informants. Children from families with below average income were 33% more likely to be reported by parent only rather than both reporters agreeing not at risk. Our findings suggested that children from families with below average income were rated to have less symptoms by teachers, which contradicts previous findings. For example, in one study of pre-school children [61], both parents and teachers report more symptoms for children with lower SES. This contrast may be due to different measures of SES in the current study (income only) or another unexplained mechanism. Difference in measures of SES may have hinder comparison of current results with previous studies.

Our findings also suggested that parents who identified their ethnicity as Non-White rated lower hyperactivity than teachers, which is consistent with previous studies [42, 60, 61]. Children with non-White ethnicity were 40% less likely to be screen positive by parent-only compared to both raters agreeing not at risk and 50.82% less likely to be screen positive by parent-only than by teacher-only. Children with non-White ethnicity were 2.44 times more likely to be screened positive by teacher-only than by both informants. Our findings also suggested that children rated by Non-White parent-informants were more likely to be rated as at risk for ADHD by teacher-alone. This finding is similar to a previous study comparing Non-Latino and Latino youths, which found that Latino youths were rated for more symptoms by teachers [62]. However, the results might not be directly comparable, as the classification of ethnicity in this previous study is Latino-oriented. This might suggest the phenomenon appearing across different minor ethnicities. Parental marital status and number of children in the household were not associated with discrepancy in the current study.”

Thank you again for your valuable feedback. We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Sincerely,

Hei Ka (Nadia) Chan

Corresponding Author: Hei Ka Chan (hkchan3@sheffield.ac.uk)

Additional Contact: Richard Rowe (r.rowe@sheffield.ac.uk)

Department of Psychology,

University of Sheffield

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer_240201.docx

pone.0299980.s001.docx (62.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Gerard Hutchinson

20 Feb 2024

Factors associated with parent-teacher hyperactivity/inattention screening discrepancy: Findings from a UK national sample

PONE-D-23-24488R1

Dear Dr. Chan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Gerard Hutchinson, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study on a relevant problem faced by clinician in the diagnosis of ADHD in children and adolescents, the pervasiveness of the symptoms. Symptoms of innatention and/or hyperactivity/impulsivity must be reported by parents and other informants, mostly by teachers that normally allocate a subtantial amount of time with children. Based on a large sample of children and adolescents and using validated questionnaires, the study focuses on the parent-teacher agreement of ADHD symptoms bringing new and important findings for discussion. The statistical methods were well conducted and reported, as well the results. The discussion effectively explores the findings, draws relevant comparisons to prior research, and identify potential explanations for discrepancies in results observed in other studies. The authors also responded to the reviewers’ suggestions appropriately.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Gerard Hutchinson

7 May 2024

PONE-D-23-24488R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chan,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Gerard Hutchinson

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer_240201.docx

    pone.0299980.s001.docx (62.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because of access level designed by the UK Data Service. Data are available from the UK Data Service (contact via https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from https://beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk/datacatalogue/studies/study?id=5269.

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES