ArticleScientific reports2024
Validation of the dispositional adult hyperfocus questionnaire (AHQ-D).
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Delayed goal-directed processing underlies inhibitory control challenges in adult ADHD.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Investigating autistic hyperfocus and monotropism: Limited convergence of event-related potentials, laboratory tasks, and questionnaire responses.Research in autism · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hyperfocus (HF), or intense, deep concentration on a task, has gained significant research attention in recent years, particularly in regard to clinical populations such as Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The present work aims to provide validation of the 12-item dispositional adult hyperfocus questionnaire (AHQ-D) as a quantitative metric of HF in adults. We preregistered the study design and hypotheses. We administered the AHQ-D and several additional questionnaires to 347 adults (mean ± SD age: 33 ± 11 years; 47% female). Exploratory factor analysis revealed high factor loadings (0.57-0.81) on a single HF factor; item response theory analysis suggested that the questionnaire items had high discrimination and covered a wide range of responses; and we report strong internal consistency metrics (Cronbach's alpha 0.93, mean split-half reliability 0.93). Replicating our previous work, HF was positively correlated with Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) scores (r(345) = 0.53), suggesting that HF may be related to ADHD traits (though in this sample we did not specifically recruit individuals with ADHD). The AHQ-D demonstrated the hypothesized convergent validity; HF on the AHQ-D was positively correlated with HF measured using a different HF scale (r(344) = 0.69), as well as flow (r(345) = 0.12) and mind wandering (r(345) = 0.39) scores. AHQ-D HF scores showed a weak negative correlation with grit (r(345) = - 0.29). Though there was a weak negative correlation between HF and social desirability response tendency (r(345) = - 0.24), suggesting that those who care more about what others think may report less HF, there was no relationship between HF and extrasensory perception beliefs (r(345) = 0.01), suggesting that participants were not simply biased in their response tendencies. Taken together, we demonstrate strong scale metrics for the AHQ-D, the expected convergent validity, and a general lack of response bias, in addition to replicating our previous association of HF with ADHD traits. We suggest that the AHQ-D can be confidently used in future work as a valid way to measure HF in adults.
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.