ArticleAttention deficit and hyperactivity disorders2019
Psychometric properties of a sluggish cognitive tempo scale in Japanese adults with and without ADHD.
Article in Attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review: Assessment of Sluggish Cognitive Tempo Over the Past Decade.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2021Pooled it
- Validating the Adult Concentration Inventory for Measuring Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome in an Iranian Population: Insights Into Mental Health and Cognitive Functioning.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- The prevalence of SCT in China, its comorbidity with ADHD and its association with life events and parental-rearing behaviors.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Validation of the Farsi Version of the Adult Concentration Inventory for Assessing Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This study examined the psychometric properties, convergent validity, and divergent validity of a Japanese translation of Barkley (The Barkley adult ADHD rating scale-IV, Guilford Press, New York, 2011) rating scale for assessing sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT) in adults. In total, 429 Japanese adults participated across three samples: 26 diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; ages 19-50), 81 adults without ADHD (ages 22-65), and 322 university students (ages 18-27). All participants completed rating scales of SCT, ADHD, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. A subset of participants completed the SCT measure at two time points two weeks apart. The SCT measure (5 items) showed acceptable levels of internal consistency and test-retest reliability. This scale also demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity, as evidenced by factor analyses between SCT and ADHD inattention (ADHD-IN) symptoms as well as adequate fit of a four-factor model involving SCT, ADHD-IN, ADHD-hyperactivity/impulsivity (ADHD-HI), and internalizing symptoms. Additionally, SCT and ADHD-IN dimensions were differentially associated with ADHD-HI and internalizing factors. The ADHD group scored higher on SCT ratings compared to the student and adult non-ADHD groups even after controlling for the severity of ADHD and internalizing symptoms. The 5-item SCT measure appears reliable and demonstrates preliminary evidence of validity in Japanese adults, providing initial support for the transcultural validity of the SCT construct. Additional studies are needed to further evaluate the SCT items that did not meet criteria for convergent and discriminant validity in the current study, and to examine functional outcomes of individuals recruited based on clinically elevated SCT symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.