Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Mar 7.
Published in final edited form as: J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2007 Dec;35(6):883–898. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9141-4

Table 5.

Mean impairment for ADHD alone, ADHD comorbid, other diagnoses alone, other diagnoses comorbid, and no diagnoses group in community and treatment samples (weighted data)

Groups

Measures ADHD-A ADHD-C Other Dx-A Other Dx-C No Dx Comparisons
Community Sample
  N 67 75 73 32 1,635
  BIS 11.18 (1.01) 19.03 (1.41) 13.06 (0.90) 16.95 (1.81) 7.25 (0.21) C=OC>A=OA>No
  PICGAS 68.24 (3.20) 55.42 (3.07) 69.24 (2.24) 58.71 (3.11) 86.27 (0.65) C=OC<A=OA<No
Treatment Sample
  N 55 144 70 55 428
  BIS 18.10 (1.14) 24.34 (0.74) 18.78 (1.19) 22.50 (1.48) 12.08 (0.34) C=OC>A=OA>No
  PICGAS 59.53 (2.39) 49.80 (1.66) 54.79 (2.12) 45.90 (2.32) 71.59 (0.87) C=OC<A=OA<No

The five groups were compared controlling for demographic variables. Mean impairment scores are adjusted for demographic variables. Standard errors in parentheses. Means are based on cases with valid values. ADHD attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, A alone, C comorbid, OA other diagnoses alone, OC other diagnoses comorbid, No no diagnoses, BIS Brief Impairment Scale, PICGAS Parent Interviewer Children’s Global Assessment Scale. Higher BIS and lower PICGAS scores indicate more global impairment. For both samples, the null hypothesis of equal mean BIS and PICGAS impairment across groups was rejected (WALD F range: 27.81 to 38.17; p<0.001). Pairwise comparisons were significant at least at the 0.05 alpha levels, except for the PICGAS C vs. OA comparison which was 0.06