Background: Emotional symptoms are increasingly considered a core feature of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We aimed to quantify the evidence of emotional dysregulation and its respective facets in individuals with adult ADHD compared to healthy controls using meta-analysis. Methods: Two electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO) were reviewed to identify studies. Studies were eligible for inclusion that had reports on any measure of emotion (dys) regulation in adults (> 18 years of age) in clinically diagnosed patients with ADHD as well as healthy control participants. We included a total of 13 studies (N = 2535) to assess (1) the standardized mean difference in emotion dysregulation (ED) as a general factor and its specific facets (i.e., emotional lability, negative emotional responses, and emotion recognition) between adults with ADHD and healthy controls; and (2) the association between ADHD symptom severity and ED. Results: Compared to healthy controls, adults with ADHD revealed significantly higher levels of general ED (Hedges’ g = 1.17, p < 0.001; Hedges’ g is the adjusted effect size). With regard to intermediate dimensions of ED, emotional lability exhibited the strongest weighted effect (Hedges’ g = 1.20, CI [0.57, 1.83], p < 0.001). Furthermore, symptom severity and general ED correlated significantly (r = 0.54, p < 0.001). Regarding intermediate dimensions of ED, negative emotional responses correlated closely with ADHD symptom severity (r = 0.63, p < 0.001) and emotional lability (r = 0.52, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our findings support ED symptoms as a core feature of ADHD’s psychopathology. With respect to dimensions of ED, emotional lability, and negative emotional responses play a more definitive role in the psychopathology of adults with ADHD. Due to insufficient statistical reports in the included studies, we could not perform meta-regressions to control the role of moderator variables.

Diagnostic guidelines recommend using a variety of methods to assess and diagnose ADHD. Applying subjective measures always incorporates risks such as informant biases or large differences between ratings obtained from diverse sources. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that ratings and tests seem to assess somewhat different constructs. The use of objective measures might thus yield valuable information for diagnosing ADHD. This study aims at evaluating the role of objective measures when trying to distinguish between individuals with ADHD and controls. Our sample consisted of children (n = 60) and adults (n = 76) diagnosed with ADHD and matched controls who completed self- and observer ratings as well as objective tasks. Diagnosis was primarily based on clinical interviews. A popular pattern recognition approach, support vector machines, was used to predict the diagnosis. We observed relatively high accuracy of 79% (adults) and 78% (children) applying solely objective measures. Predicting an ADHD diagnosis using both subjective and objective measures exceeded the accuracy of objective measures for both adults (89.5%) and children (86.7%), with the subjective variables proving to be the most relevant. We argue that objective measures are more robust against rater bias and errors inherent in subjective measures and may be more replicable. Considering the high accuracy of objective measures only, we found in our study, we think that they should be incorporated in diagnostic procedures for assessing ADHD.

Background: The German version of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) has proven to show very high model fit in confirmative factor analyses with the established factors inattention/memory problems, hyperactivity/restlessness, impulsivity/emotional lability, and problems with self-concept in both large healthy control and ADHD patient samples. This study now presents data on the psychometric properties of the German CAARS-self-report (CAARS-S) and observer-report (CAARS-O) questionnaires.Methods: CAARS-S/O and questions on sociodemographic variables were filled out by 466 patients with ADHD, 847 healthy control subjects that already participated in two prior studies, and a total of 896 observer data sets were available. Cronbach's-alpha was calculated to obtain internal reliability coefficients. Pearson correlations were performed to assess test-retest reliability, and concurrent, criterion, and discriminant validity. Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC-analyses) were used to establish sensitivity and specificity for all subscales.Results: Coefficient alphas ranged from .74 to .95, and test-retest reliability from .85 to .92 for the CAARS-S, and from .65 to .85 for the CAARS-O. All CAARS subscales, except problems with self-concept correlated significantly with the Barrett Impulsiveness Scale (BIS), but not with the Wender Utah Rating Scale (WURS). Criterion validity was established with ADHD subtype and diagnosis based on DSM-IV criteria. Sensitivity and specificity were high for all four subscales.Conclusion: The reported results confirm our previous study and show that the German CAARS-S/O do indeed represent a reliable and cross-culturally valid measure of current ADHD symptoms in adults.

Background: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often persists into adulthood. Instruments for diagnosing ADHD in childhood are well validated and reliable, but diagnosis of ADHD in adults remains problematic. Attempts have been made to develop criteria specific for adult ADHD, resulting in the development of self-report and observer-rated questionnaires. To date, the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) are the international standard for questionnaire assessment of ADHD. The current study evaluates a German version of the CAARS self-report (CAARS-S).Methods: Eight hundred and fifty healthy German control subjects were recruited to fill out the CAARS-S and to answer questions on sociodemographic variables. Explorative and confirmative factor analyses were conducted to obtain the factor structure for the German model and to replicate the factor structure of the original American model. Analyses on gender, age, and education level were calculated for normative data.Results: The explorative factor analysis of the German sample results in a six-factor solution that explained 52% of the variance. A confirmative analysis that was based on the 42 items of the original American model showed a high model-fit. Analyses of normative data showed significant influences of age, gender, and education level on the emerging subscales.Conclusion: Even though the explorative factor analysis yields a solution different from the American original, the confirmative factor analysis results in such a high model-fit that use of the American version is justified with respect to international multicenter studies, for which this instrument will be highly valuable.

As a multidimensional and universal stressor, the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected the mental health of children, adolescents, and adults worldwide. In particular, families faced numerous restrictions and challenges. From the literature, it is well known that parental mental health problems and child mental health outcomes are associated. Hence, this review aims to summarize the current research on the associations of parental mental health symptoms and child mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a systematic literature search in Web of Science (all databases) and identified 431 records, of which 83 articles with data of over 80,000 families were included in 38 meta-analyses. A total of 25 meta-analyses resulted in significant small to medium associations between parental mental health symptoms and child mental health outcomes (r = 0.19 to 0.46, p < 0.05). The largest effects were observed for the associations of parenting stress and child mental health outcomes. A dysfunctional parent–child interaction has been identified as a key mechanism for the transmission of mental disorders. Thus, specific parenting interventions are needed to foster healthy parent–child interactions, to promote the mental health of families, and to reduce the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.