ArticleBMC psychiatry2024
Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Quick Delay Questionnaire (C-QDQ) and ecological characteristics of reward-delay impulsivity of adults with ADHD.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Quick Delay Questionnaire (QDQ) is a short questionnaire designed to assess delay-related difficulties in adults. This study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the QDQ (C-QDQ) in Chinese adults, and explore the ecological characteristics of delay-related impulsivity in Chinese adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
methodsData was collected from 302 adults, including ADHD (n = 209) and healthy controls (HCs) (n = 93). All participants completed the C-QDQ. The convergent validity, internal consistency, retest reliability and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the C-QDQ were analyzed. The correlations between C-QDQ and two laboratory measures of delay-related difficulties and Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11), the comparison of C-QDQ scores between ADHD subgroups and HCs were also analyzed.
resultsThe Cronbach's α of C-QDQ was between 0.83 and 0.89. The intraclass correlation coefficient of C-QDQ was between 0.80 and 0.83. The results of CFA of C-QDQ favoured the original two-factor model (delay aversion and delay discounting). Significant positive associations were found between C-QDQ scores and BIS-11 total score and performance on the laboratory measure of delay-related difficulties. Participants with ADHD had higher C-QDQ scores than HCs, and female ADHD reported higher scores on delay discounting subscale than male. ADHD-combined type (ADHD-C) reported higher scores on delay aversion subscale than ADHD-inattention type (ADHD-I).
conclusionThe C-QDQ is a valid and reliable tool to measure delay-related responses that appears to have clinical utility. It can present the delay-related impulsivity of patients with ADHD. Compared to HCs, the level of reward-delay impulsivity was higher in ADHD.
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.