DSM-IV criteria for ADHD specify two dimensions of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms that are used to define three nominal subtypes: predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type (ADHD-H), predominantly inattentive type (ADHD-I), and combined type (ADHD-C). To aid decision-making for DSM-5 and other future diagnostic systems, a comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis of 546 studies was completed to evaluate the validity of the DSM-IV model of ADHD. Results indicated that DSM-IV criteria identify individuals with significant and persistent impairment in social, academic, occupational, and adaptive functioning when intelligence, demographic factors, and concurrent psychopathology are controlled. Available data overwhelmingly support the concurrent, predictive, and discriminant validity of the distinction between inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms, and indicate that nearly all differences among the nominal subtypes are consistent with the relative levels of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms that define the subtypes. In contrast, the validity of the DSM-IV subtype model is compromised by weak evidence for the validity of ADHD-H after first grade, minimal support for the distinction between ADHD-I and ADHD-C in studies of etiological influences, academic and cognitive functioning, and treatment response, and the marked longitudinal instability of all three subtypes. Overall, it is concluded that the DSM-IV ADHD subtypes provide a convenient clinical shorthand to describe the functional and behavioral correlates of current levels of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms, but do not identify discrete subgroups with sufficient long-term stability to justify the classification of distinct forms of the disorder. Empirical support is stronger for an alternative model that would replace the subtypes with dimensional modifiers that reflect the number of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms at the time of assessment.

Objective To conduct the first meta-analysis evaluating the internal and external validity of the sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT) construct as related to or distinct from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and as associated with functional impairment and neuropsychological functioning. Method Electronic databases were searched through September 2015 for studies examining the factor structure and/or correlates of SCT in children or adults. The search procedures identified 73 papers. The core SCT behaviors included across studies, as well as factor loadings and reliability estimates, were reviewed to evaluate internal validity. Pooled correlation effect sizes using random effects models were used to evaluate SCT in relation to external validity domains (i.e., demographics, other psychopathologies, functional impairment, and neuropsychological functioning). Results Strong support was found for the internal validity of the SCT construct. Specifically, across factor analytic studies including over 19,000 individuals, 13 SCT items loaded consistently on an SCT factor as opposed to an ADHD factor. Findings also support the reliability (i.e., internal consistency, test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability) of SCT. In terms of external validity, there is some indication that SCT may increase with age (r = 0.11) and be associated with lower socioeconomic status (r = 0.10). Modest (potentially negligible) support was found for SCT symptoms being higher in males than females in children (r = 0.05) but not adults. SCT is more strongly associated with ADHD inattention (r = 0.63 in children, r = 0.72 in adults) than with ADHD hyperactivity-impulsivity (r = 0.32 in children, r = 0.46 in adults), and it likewise appears that SCT is more strongly associated with internalizing symptoms than with externalizing symptoms. SCT is associated with significant global, social, and academic impairment (rs = 0.38–0.44). Effects for neuropsychological functioning are mixed, although there is initial support for SCT being associated with processing speed, sustained attention, and metacognitive deficits. Conclusion This meta-analytic review provides strong support for the internal validity of SCT and preliminary support for the external validity of SCT. In terms of diagnostic validity, there is not currently enough evidence to describe SCT in diagnostic terms. Key directions for future research are discussed, including evaluating the conceptualization of SCT as a transdiagnostic construct and the need for longitudinal research.

Factor analysis of a measure of psychopathy was conducted in a sample of 95 clinic-referred children between the ages of 6 and 13 years. These analyses revealed 2 dimensions of behavior, one associated with impulsivity and conduct problems (I/CP) and one associated with the interpersonal and motivational aspects of psychopathy (callous/unemotional: CU). In a subset of this sample (n = 64), analyses indicated that scores on the I/CP factor were highly associated with traditional measures of conduct problems. In contrast, scores derived from the CU factor were only moderately associated with measures of conduct problems and exhibited a different pattern of associations on several criteria that have been associated with psychopathy (e.g., sensation seeking) or childhood antisocial behavior (e.g., low intelligence, poor school achievement, and anxiety). These analyses suggest that psychopathic personality features and conduct problems are independent, yet interacting, constructs in children, analogous to findings in the adult literature.

Background: Persistent antisocial behavior in adulthood is often preceded by childhood-onset aggressive conduct disorder. Aggressive syndromes in both children and adults have previously been associated with abnormalities in peripheral responses to stress. One peripheral measure, salivary cortisol concentration, may reflect individual differences in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis that underlie propensities for aggression, socialization, and adaptation to stress.

Guanfacine extended release met the primary and secondary efficacy end points. It was well tolerated and effective compared with placebo.