ArticleAssessment2026
Indicators of Impulsivity in Routine Clinical Assessment of Adult ADHD.
Article in Assessment, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Impulsivity in adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) represents a multidimensional construct rather than a unitary trait. This study examined a proposed three-factor model of impulsivity comprising (a) self-reported impulsive behavior (Barratt Impulsiveness Scale), (b) commission errors, and (c) reaction time measures from neuropsychological tests in 654 adults undergoing routine clinical assessment of adult ADHD. Using confirmatory factor analyses on split subsamples, we found consistent support for the proposed three-factor structure, whereas the network analysis favored a two-group conceptualization that separates performance-based from self-report-based measures. Self-reported impulsivity demonstrated the highest severity levels, followed by commission errors, with reaction times being least affected. Demographic and clinical characteristics significantly predicted self-reports and commission error measures but not reaction times. The results emphasize the importance of interpreting self-reports independently of performance-based tests. The coherence between commission errors and reaction time variables across tasks of related constructs suggests that administering multiple tasks may yield redundant information in the clinical assessment of impulsivity.
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.