ArticleNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2024
The Chinese Version of the Compensatory ADHD Behaviors Scale (CABS): A Study on Reliability, Validity, and Clinical Utility.
Article in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: With the further development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) research, more and more assessment tools related to ADHD have been used. However, there is still no measurement instrument to evaluate the compensatory behavior of ADHD in China. This study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of the Compensatory ADHD Behaviors Scale (CABS) adapted in Chinese and explore ecological characteristics in adults with ADHD using the CABS. Patients and Methods: Data were collected from a sample of 306 adults ( Results: CABS exhibited good construct validity (two factors: present-oriented and future-oriented), content validity (content validity index: 0.98), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.85 to 0.87) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.59 to 0.88). The results of CFA showed acceptable fitness for each subscale. CABS demonstrated significant associations with inattention symptoms and plan/organizational abilities. Medicated ADHD individuals scored higher on future-oriented effectiveness subscale of CABS than non-medicated ( Conclusion: The results indicate that the Chinese CABS exhibited good validity and reliability. It can be considered a valid tool for assessing compensatory behaviors in Chinese adults with ADHD. Further research is needed to explore the connection between medication and compensatory behavior.
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.