Abstract. The Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS) is a popular research and clinical tool for obtaining parental reports of childhood behavior problems.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1998, pp 257-268
The Revised Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R): Factor Structure, Reliability, and Criterion Validity C. Keith Conners,1,4 Gill Sitarenios,2 James D. A. Parker,3 and Jeffery N. Epstein1 Received June 19, 1997; accepted September 8, 1997
The Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS) is a popular research and clinical tool for obtaining parental reports of childhood behavior problems. The present study introduces a revised CPRS (CPRS-R) which has norms derived from a large, representative sample of North American children, uses confirmatory factor analysis to develop a definitive factor structure, and has an updated item content to reflect recent knowledge and developments concerning childhood behavior problems. Exploratory and confirmatory factor-analytic results revealed a seven-factor model including the following factors: Cognitive Problems, Oppositional, Hyperactivity-Impulsivity, Anxious-Shy, Perfectionism, Social Problems, and Psychosomatic. The psychometric properties of the revised scale appear adequate as demonstrated by good internal reliability coefficients, high test-retest reliability, and effective discriminatory power. Advantages of the CPRS-R include a corresponding factor structure with the Conners' Teacher Rating Scale—Revised and comprehensive symptom coverage for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and related disorders. Factor congruence with the original CPRS as well as similarities with other parent rating scales are discussed. KEY WORDS: ADHD; CPRS-R; rating scale; parents; childhood.
The initial Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS) was developed as a comprehensive checklist for acquiring parental reports of the basic presenting problems for children referred to an outpatient psychiatric setting (Conners, 1970). This scale was used to form the basis for a detailed parental interview about the child's problems. In its original form, the CPRS contained items grouped in terms of problems with sleep, problems eating, problems with temper, problems with keeping friends, problems in school, etc. Later, an "additional" problems category was added that included items covering the cardinal symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): hyperactivity, impulsivity, and inattention. Since its introduction (Conners, 1970), the psychometric properties of the CPRS have been well
studied. The original scoring procedure required grouping of items according to rationally derived problem groups. Though this scoring procedure was face valid, it was not until a series of factor-analytic studies of the CPRS were conducted (Blouin, Conners, Seidel, & Blouin, 1989; Conners, 1970, 1973) that an empirical scoring methodology was employed. These factor analyses of the CPRS (Blouin et al., 1989; Conners, 1970) utilized 316 clinic patients and 367 normal controls whose parents were recruited from Baltimore-area public schools. Using the 93 CPRS items as the unit of analysis, eight factors were identified: Conduct Disorder, Anxious-Shy, Restless-Disorganized, Learning Problems, Psychosomatic, Obsessive-Compulsive, Antisocial, and Hyperactive-Immature. The factor structure and norms from this sample have been used for scoring the 93item CPRS (Conners, 1989). With time, the CPRS has developed into a popular instrument for screening and assessing behavior problems and has become a useful and effective parent rating scale for assessing psychosocial (e.g., Horn, lalongo, Popovich, & Peradotto, 1987)
1Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710. University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J-1P3. 3Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J-7B8. 4Address all correspondence concerning this article to C. Keith Conners, Box 3431, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710. 2York
257 0091-0627/98/0800-0257$15.00/0 C 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation
258 and drug treatment outcomes in children with disruptive behavior problems (e.g., Fischer & Newby, 1991). Several versions of the CPRS are currently in use including a 48-item questionnaire resulting from a restandardization of a subset from the original scale (Goyette, Conners, & Ulrich, 1978). A 10-item abbreviated questionnaire was also constructed from the items with the best factor loadings (Conners, 1994). Some factor analytic research with the CPRS and its related scales on clinical samples have suggested slightly differing CPRS factor structures (Cohen, DuRant, & Cook, 1988; O'Connor, Foch, Sherry, & Plomin, 1980) than was reported originally. For example, Cohen (Cohen et al., 1988) found that Learning Problems did not form a separate factor in his clinic sample but instead loaded on the Impulsive-Hyperactive factor, thereby forming an overall ADHD factor. Cohen argued that this factor structure was consistent with some investigators contentions that attention (Learning Problems) and hyperactivity (Impulsivity-Hyperactivity) tend to present as a single disorder in clinical populations (Cohen & Hynd, 1986; Werry, Sprague, & Cohen, 1975). Despite some differences in factor structure across studies, the psychometric properties of the CPRS have made this scale an attractive research and clinical tool. Good reliability of the CPRS as assessed by test-retest (Glow, Glow, & Rump, 1982) and interrater reliability (Conners, 1973) has been established. In addition, the CPRS's concurrent validity is well established by high correlations with similar factors on other parent rating scales, such as the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983; Mash & Johnston, 1983) and Behavior Problem Checklist (Arnold, Barnebey, & Smeltzer, 1981; Campbell & Steinert, 1978). Further evidence of its validity comes from research demonstrating the discriminatory power of the CPRS in differentiating behaviorally disordered children from normal children (Prior & Wood, 1983; Ross & Ross, 1976, 1982) and between differing types of behavioral disorders (Conners, 1970; Kuehne, Kehle, & McMahon, 1987; Leon, Kendall, & Garber, 1980). Though the CPRS continues to experience widespread use by both clinicians and researchers, several issues indicate that an update and restandardization of the CPRS is necessary. First, current norms for the CPRS are based on normative data from a relatively small sample of Baltimore-area school children gathered in the 1960s. The size, geographical representation, and demographics of this sample are prob-
Conners, Sitarenios, Parker and Epstein ably not representative of the wide range of children for whom the CPRS is applied today. Second, as discussed above, the factor structure of the CPRS has varied across studies. No studies to date have ever tested and confirmed the CPRS factor structure using cross-validation, replication, or confirmatory factor analysis. Therefore, a definitive factor structure has not been established. Third, the original item content was developed to provide a comprehensive and broad assessment of childhood behaviors, including feeding, eating, and sleeping problems among others. But many of these items are unrelated to the most common behavior problems typically encountered. The scale has also been criticized for lacking sufficient emphasis on internalizing states such as anxiety and depression. Extensive use has shown that a briefer and more focused scale would be useful. Scale brevity and focus is relevant for ease of use and increasing parent compliance. This becomes increasingly important when repeated administration is necessary (i.e., when monitoring behavioral or pharmacologic interventions ). Last, item content of the CPRS has not been updated to reflect the accumulating body of knowledge about behavior disorders. The original item content was reflective of conceptualizations of behavioral problems during the 1960s-1970's. Some ADHD-related behaviors (e.g., academic problems) and ADHD symptoms (e.g. excessive talking) were not included because neither well-developed ADHD criteria nor information about comorbid disorders were available at the time of scale development. Thus, the goal of the present study was to revise the CPRS by (1) deriving norms using a large, representative sample of North American children; (2) using confirmatory factor analysis to develop a definitive factor structure; (3) focusing the revised scales on behaviors that are directly related to ADHD and its associated behaviors; and (4) updating the item content to reflect recent knowledge and developments concerning ADHD. In addition, the reliability and validity of this revised scale was examined.
STUDY 1: SCALE DEVELOPMENT Method Subjects Subjects consisted of 2,200 students (1,099 males and 1,101 females) ranging in age from 3 to 17 years.
259
Revised Conners' Parent Rating Scale
Females had a mean age of 10.43 years (SD = 3.73) and males a mean age of 10.09 years (SD = 3.68). The median annual household income of the students rated by their parents was between $40,001 and $50,000. Eighty-four percent of the students were European American, 5% African American, 4% Hispanic, and 7% other.
Procedure
Officials and school psychologists from approximately 200 schools throughout Canada and the United States functioned as site coordinators for the present study. Site coordinators were provided with consent forms, questionnaires, and forms which outlined the background of the study to parents and students in the school. Parent who agreed to participate were asked to rate as many of their schoolage children as possible. Children and adolescents in special education classes were not included in this study. Many new items were created in order to strengthen some of the weaker factors (e.g., internalizing behaviors) and those previously underrepresented. A preliminary item analysis on approximately 100 ratings was used to remove items with restricted variance or comments regarding readability, interpretability, or vagueness. Parents were asked to rate each item on the 193 item-pool using 4-point Likert scales (ranging from 0 for not at all true to 3 for very much true). Completed forms were returned to the site coordinators and forwarded to the authors.
Statistical Analyses The sample was randomly divided into a derivation sample (n = 1,100) and a replication sample (n = 1,100). The 193 items from the derivation sample were intercorrelated and the resulting matrix subjected to principal axis factoring. A series of factor analyses was conducted to determine what items should be retained. Items were included on the final version of the scale if the following criteria were met: (1) Items had to load significantly (greater than .30) on a given factor and lower than .30 on the other factors, and (2) following the rational approach to scale construction, an item was eliminated if it lacked conceptual coherence with its factor. Scree test and eigenvalues (> 1.0) were used to select the number
of factors for rotation (Cattell, 1978). In addition, we employed the split-half factor comparabilities method (Everett, 1983) to determine the most reliable factor solution. The factor structure for the CPRS-R was tested in the replication sample (n = 1,100) using confirmatory factor analysis with EQS for Windows (version 5.1; Bentler, 1995). As recommended by Cole (1987) and Marsh, Balla, and McDonald (1988), multiple criteria were used to assess the goodnessof-fit of the six-factor model: the goodness-of-fit index (GFI; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986), the adjusted GFI (AGFI; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986), and the root mean-square residual (RMS). Based on the recommendations of Anderson and Gerbing (1984), Cole (1987), and Marsh et al. (1988), the following criteria were used to indicate the goodness-of-fit of the model to the data: GFI > .85; AGFI > .80; RMS < .01.
Results Scale Development
The correlation matrix of the 193 item-pool was subjected to principal-axis factoring and scree test and eigenvalue greater than 1.0 criteria (Cattell, 1978). These criteria indicated the relative suitability of six, seven, and eight factors for rotation. In order to determine the most reliable number of factors to retain for rotation, the split-half factor comparabilities method was applied (Everett, 1983). To this end, the derivation sample was randomly split into two subsamples (n = 550 and 550). For each sample six-, seven-, and eight-factor solutions were rotated to solution (varimax rotation). Results indicated that the seven-factor solution produced the highest factor comparability coefficients. Based on these results, the entire derivation sample was factor-analyzed and seven factors were rotated to a varimax solution. Items were eliminated from further analyses because they failed to load (above .30) on any one factor, or because they loaded above .30 on more than one factor (in several cases items were retained that double-loaded above .30 because there was a high loading for the target factor and the loading for the second factor was just above .30). The remaining items were factor-analyzed and seven factors rotated to a varimax solution. This procedure was repeated until 57 items remained. Table I presents the factor loadings, eigenvalues, and percentage of variance for
260
Conners, Sitarenios, Parker and Epstein Table I. Rotated Factor Loadings from a Principal Axis Factor Analysis of Items from the Conners' Parent Rating Scale— Revised (CPRS-R) (Derivation Sample, n = 1,100) Factors CPRS-R items
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
.047 .019 .106 .161 .100 .049 .153 -.022 .110 .100 .061 .073
.019 .027 -.013 .006 -.062 .033 -.047 -.050 -.008 -.105 -.021
.113 .048 .103 .111 .106 .144 .074 .099 .030 .082 .080 .110
.095 .078 .076 .057 .090 .073 .142 .080 .095 .069 .130 .121
.106 .049 .112 .089 .107 .069 .177 .109 .107 .148
.065 .057 .081 .087 .017 -.006 .117 .002 .055 -.015
.132 .049 .125 .075 .046 .117 .157 .093 .151 .112
.204 .117 .116 .161 .061 .120 .153 .072 .096 .052
.012 .135 .106 .174 .105 .130 .117 -.063 .138
.123 -.051 -.028 .072 .055 -.012 .023 .107 .112
.024 .024 .052 .126 .138 -.028 .219 .137 .120
.030 .019 -.006 .114 .056 .027 .003 .114 .094
.726 .710 .700 .626 .630 .521 .538 .481
.141 .105 .067 .032 .129 .144 .146 .061
.081 .114 .114 .004 .079 -.036 .179 .145
.116 .053 .079 .107 .190 .086 .034 .140
.117 .067 .099 .218 .151 -.053 .119
.740 .698 .570 .694 .632 .647 .612
.070 .039 -.054 .095 .075 .042 .052
.075 .056 -.023 .041 .029 .087 .052 (c.ontinued)
Factor 1: Cognitive Problems Difficulty completing Fails to complete Needs supervision Avoids mental effort Trouble concentrating Careless mistakes Arithmetic problems Sloppy handwriting Fails to finish Forgetful Loses things Poor spelling
.793 .760 .752 .737 .691 .686 .557 .604 .620 .600 .581 .545
Angry Argues Loses temper Irritable Defies adults Annoy people Touchy Blames others Spiteful Fights
.161 .194 .195 .212 .213 .210 .162 .273 .190 .069
180 56 178 172 183 52 179 182 60
Always on the go Hard to control Runs excessively Restless Difficulty waiting Run around at meals Difficulty being quiet Blurts out answers Excitable
.192 .149 .170 .196 .228 .063 .225 .230 .259
95 90 89 91 94 170 138 156
Timid Afraid of people Afraid of new situations Afraid of being alone Many fears Afraid of the dark Shy Clings to parents
.055 .051 .174 .048 .162 .015 .084 .111
114 117 116 85 78 81 112 111 84 87 175 110
.207 .232 .130 .280 .175 .209 .053 .119 .311 .294 .204 .024
.063 .135 .240 .230 .295 .184 .010 .074 .288 .269 .257 .064
007
Factor 2: Oppositional 48 43 42 20 44 45 47 46 24 4
.723 .638 .653 .648 .643 .611 .639 .575 .581 .471
.122 .187 .244 .187 .275 .200 .085 .173 .161 .181
Factor 3: Hyperactivity-Impulsivity
.121 .240 .190 .137 .275 .088 .284 .218 .294
.708 .708 .728 .637 .644 .577 .627 .506 .577
Factor 4: Anxious-Shy
.136 .165 .187 .037 .241 .055 .053 .037
.038 .027 .063 .193 .100 .205 -.033 .274
Factor 5: Perfectionism 130 133 135 131 137 132 136
Everything just so Keeps checking Fussy Things done same way Has rituals Sets high goals Upset if things moved
-.114 -.028 .036 .002 .052 -.148 .043
.078 -.029 -.024 .096 .112 -.066 .179
.072 .038 -.008 .148 .094 -.032 -.043
Revised Conners' Parent Rating Scale
261 Table I. (Continued) Factors
CPRS-R items
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.153 .046 .272 .070 .215
.048 .045 .102 .075 .096
.793 .725 .704 .636 .424
.012 .043 .029 .133 .162
.101 .144 .120 .032 .181 .161
.066 .095 .011 .098 -.024 .098
.011 .055 -.022 .125 .060 .110
.750 .616 .648 .452 .531 .306
Factor 6: Social Problems 140 143 142 147 144
No friends Loses friends Does not make friends Doesn't get invited Feels inferior
.162 .203 .197 .137 .242
123 124 125 122 128 126.
Stomach aches Aches and pains Aches before school Headaches Complains Seems tired
.083 .091 .166 .151 .144 .187
.164 .212 .142 .180 .211
.112 .192 .120 .115 -.004
Factor 7: Psychosomatic
Eigenvalues % of Variance
14.67 25.7
.137 .154 .086 .129 .174 .243
.094 .032 .069 .002 .118 -.040
4.20
2.59
2.15
2.11
1.86
1.37
7.4
4.5
3.8
3.7
3.3
2.4
each factor for this analysis. The seven rotated factors accounted for 50.8% of the total variance. The first factor accounted for 25.7% of the total variance and the 12 items that loaded on this factor appeared to tap a "cognitive problems" dimension. The second factor accounted for 7.4% of the total variance and the 10 items that loaded on this factor appeared to tap an "oppositional" dimension. The third factor accounted for 4.5% of the total variance and the nine items that loaded on this factor appeared to tap a "hyperactivity-impulsivity" dimension. The fourth factor accounted for 3.8% of the total variance and the eight items that loaded on this factor appeared to tap an "anxious/shy" dimension. The fifth factor accounted for 3.7% of the total variance and the seven items that loaded on this factor appeared to tap a "perfectionism" dimension. The sixth factor accounted for 3.3% of the total variance and the five items that loaded on this factor appeared to tap a "social problems" dimension. The seventh factor accounted for 2.4% of the total variance and the six items that loaded on this factor appeared to tap a "psychosomatic" dimension.
and RMS = .0291).5 All of the parameter estimates between items and factors were significant: For the Oppositional Factor, the 10-parameter estimates ranged from .603 to .792 (mean = .720); for the Cognitive Problems factor, the 12-parameter estimates ranged from .529 to .866 (mean = .743); for the Hyperactivity-impulsivity factor, the nine-parameter estimates ranged from .610 to .791 (mean = .715); for the Anxious/Shy factor, the eight-parameter estimates ranged from .518 to .752 (mean = .644); for the Perfectionism factor, the seven-parameter estimates ranged from .528 to .699 (mean = .643); for the Social Problems factor, the five-parameter estimates ranged from .597 to .855 (mean = .767); for the Psychosomatic factor, the six-parameter estimates ranged from .476 to .751 (mean = .632). STUDY 2: RELIABILITY, INTERNAL CONSISTENCY, AND AGE AND SEX DIFFERENCES Method Participants
Factor Replication The seven-factor oblique model for the 57-item CPRS-R was tested using confirmatory factor analysis on the cross-validation sample (n = 1,100). All three goodness-of-fit indicators suggested that the model had good fit to the data (GFI = .863, AGFI = .849,
The sample consisted of the 2,200 students used in Study 1 (1,101 males and 1,099 females). A subset 5
The model had to be slightly modified with the addition of selected correlated errors (0.9% of possible correlated errors). See Tanaka and Huba (1984) for a discussion of this procedure. The mean for these error correlation was .244 (range = .134 to .399).
262
Conners, Sitarenios, Parker and Epstein Table II. Internal Reliability Coefficients for Scales on the Conners' Parent Rating Scale-Revised (CPRS-R) 3 to 7 years
8 to 12 years
13 to 17 years
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Oppositional Cognitive Problems Hyperactivity-Impulsivity Anxious/Shy Perfectionism Social Problems Psychosomatic
.89 .92 .92 .86 .86 .85 .77
.88 .92 .91 .86 .88 .87 .83
.92 .94 .91 .85 .82 .88 .75
.91 .92 .83 .85 .83 .81 .79
.92 .93 .85 .81 .84 .87 .82
.90 .93 .75 .82 .82 .85 .75
n
307
286
479
467
315
346
CPRS-R Scale
tions: .60 (p < .05) for Oppositional, .78 (p < .05) for Cognitive Problems, .71 (p < .05) for Hyperactivity-Impulsivity, .42 (p < .05) for Anxious/Shy, .60 (p < .05) for Perfectionism, .13 (p = n.s.) for Social Problems, and .55 (p < .05) for Psychosomatic. Means and standard deviations for the various CPRS-R scales (separately by sex and age group) are presented in Table III. A series of (Sex x Age Group) analyses of variance were conducted with each of the CPRS-R scales as the dependent variable. For the Oppositional scale, males were rated significantly higher than females [F(l, 2,194) = 14.55, p < .001], but the main effect for age group and the interaction were not significant. For the Cognitive Problems scale, males were rated significantly higher than females [F(l, 2,194) =
of 49 children (23 males and 26 females) were rated by their parent on the CPRS-R on two occasions approximately 6 weeks apart.
Results Table II presents the internal reliability coefficients for the CPRS-R scales, separately for 3- to 7year-olds, 8- to 12-year-olds, and 13- to 17-year-olds. Coefficient alphas for the seven scales on the CPRSR ranged from .75 to .94 for males and .75 to .93 for females, suggesting that the scales on the CPRSR have excellent internal reliability. Using Pearson product-moment correlations (n = 50), the CPRS-R scales had the following 6-week test-retest correla-
Table III. Means and Standard Deviations for Scales on the Conners' Parent Rating Scale— Revised (CPRS-R) 3 to 7 years CPRS-R Scale Oppositional
Mean
SD Cognitive Problems
Mean
SD Hyperactivity-Impulsivity
Mean
SD Anxious/Shy
Mean
SD Perfectionism
Mean
SD Social Problems Psychosomatic
Total
13 to 17 years
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
4.89 (4.44)
5.61 (5.00)
4.59 (4.88)
5.89 (5.68)
4.82 (4.96)
5.37 (5.53)
4.74 (4.79)
5.66 (5.46)
3.84 (5.80)
5.93 (7.07)
4.14 (5.69)
8.33 (8.28)
4.87 (6.79)
8.31 (8.29)
4.29 (6.09)
7.65 (8.03)
3.60 (4.75)
4.83 (5.79)
1.54 (2.65)
3.18 (4.74)
1.26 (2.18)
1.93 (3.28)
1.99 (3.36)
3.28 (4.83)
4.78 (4.33)
4.19 (4.28)
2.71 (3.45)
2.89 (3.72)
2.12 (3.04)
1.50 (2.66)
3.06 (3.73)
2.85 (3.76)
3.97 (4.23)
3.42 (3.94)
3.73 (3.80)
3.36 (3.56)
4.52 (4.28)
4.15 (4.29)
4.04 (4.08)
3.60 (3.90)
.78
.86
.88
1.2
SD
(1.82)
(2.03)
(1.77)
(2.43)
11.0 (2.13)
11.0 (2.32)
8.89 (1.90)
1.07 (2.29)
Mean
1.60 (2.42)
1.24 (2.04)
1.55 (2.23)
1.62 (2.16)
1.92 (2.32)
1.58 (2.43)
1.68 (2.31)
1.50 (2.21)
286
307
467
479
346
315
1,099
1,101
Mean
SD
n
8 to 12 years
263
Revised Conners' Parent Rating Scale Table IV. Correlations Among Scales on the Conners' Parent Rating Scale— Revised (CPRS-R)a
1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Oppositional Cognitive Problems Hyperbctivity-Impulsivity Anxious/Shy Perfectionism Social Problems Psychosomatic
2 .57b
.50b .51b .37b .13b .43b .44b
3
—
.58b .55b
.49b .30b -.02 .45b .42b
.36b .12b .35b .33b
—
4
5
6
7
.38b .33b .41b
.17b
.49b .44b .42b .40b .17b
—
.40b .36b .24b .34b .15b .33b
.34b
—
.26b .39b .34b
.00 .17b .27b
—
.12b .14b
aMales (n = 1,101) above the diagonal and females (n = 1,099) below. b p < .01.
110.12, p < .001], a significant main effect was found for age group [F(2, 2,194) = 10.16, p < .001], and the interaction of Group Age x Sex was significant [F(2, 2,194) = 4.04, p < .05]. Using univariate analysis of variance for age group, the 3- to 7-year-olds were rated significantly higher than the 8- to 12-yearolds [F(l, 2,194) = 13.29, p < .001] and the 13- to 17-year-olds [F(l, 2,194) = 18.09, p < .001]. For the Hyperactivity-Impulsivity scale, males were rated significantly higher than females [F(l, 2,194) = 45.23, p < .001] and a significant main effect was found for age group [F(2, 2,194) = 69.70, p < .001]; the interaction was not significant. Using univariate analysis of variance for age group, the 3to 7-year-olds were rated significantly higher than the 8- to 12-year-olds [F(l, 2,194) = 77.31, p < .05] and the 13- to 17-year-olds [F(l, 2,194) = 131.87, p < .001], and the 8- to 12-year-olds were rated significantly higher than the 13- to 17-year-olds [F(l, 2,194) = 13.93, p < .001]. For the anxious/shy scale, females were rated significantly higher than males [F(l, 2,194) = 4.81, p < .05], a significant main effect was found for age group [F(2, 2,194) = 87.43, p < .001], and the interaction was significant [F(2, 2,194) = 3.24, p < .05]. Using univariate analysis of variance for age group, the 3- to 7-year-olds were rated significantly higher than the 8- to 12-year-olds [F(l, 2,194) = 79.22, p < .001] and the 13- to 17-year-olds [F(l, 2,194) = 171.79, p < .001], and the 8- to 12-year-olds were rated significantly higher than the 13- to 17-year-olds [F(l, 2,194) = 29.51, p < .001]. For the Perfectionism scale, females were rated significantly higher than males [F(l, 2,194) = 6.17, p < .05] and a significant main effect was found for age group [F(2, 2,194) = 8.12, p < .001]; the interaction was not significant. Using univariate analysis of variance for age group, the 13- to 17-year-olds were rated significantly higher than the 3- to 7-year-
olds [F(1, 2,194) = 8.03, p < .005] and the 8- to 12year-olds [F(l, 2,194) = 15.43, p < .001]. For the Social Problems scale, the main effects for sex and age group, and the effect for the interaction, were not significant. For the Psychosomatic scale, females were rated significantly higher than males [F(l, 2,194) = 4.78, p < .05] and a significant main effect was found for age group [F(2, 2,194) = 3.34, p < .05]; the interaction was not significant. Using univariate analysis of variance for age group, the 3- to 7-year-olds were rated significantly higher than the 13- to 17-year-olds [F(l, 2,194) = 6.67, p < .01]. The intercorrelation matrix of the CPRS-R scales is presented in Table IV , separately for males and females. To examine possible gender differences in the pattern of intercorrelations, the equality of the correlation matrices was tested using EQS for Windows (version 5.1; Bentler, 1995). The criteria for determining the equality of the correlation matrices were a nonnormed fit index (NNFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980) greater than .900 and a comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) greater than .900. Results indicated that the pattern of intercorrelations for the CPRS-R scales was virtually identical across the sexes (NNFI = .988 and CFI = .989). A similar pattern of results was found when the equality of the correlation matrices among the three age groups was tested using EQS (NNFI = .956 and CFI = .962). STUDY 3: CRITERION VALIDITY Method Participants
Two groups of children were used in the present study. The first group consisted of 91 children (68
264
Conners, Sitarenios, Parker and Epstein Table V. Means and Standard Deviations for the Non-ADHD (n = 91) and ADHD (n = 91) Groups on the Conners' Parent Rating Scale— Revised (CPRS-R)a Non-ADHD CPRS-R Scale Oppositional Cognitive Problems Hyperactivity-Impulsivity Anxious/Shy Perfectionism Social Problems Psychosomatic
ADHD
Mean
(SD)
Mean
(SD)
t
P
4.26 5.17 1.97 2.43 3.78 0.62 1.28
(3.99) (6.50) (3.43) (2.90) (4.21) (1.19) (2.07)
10.83 22.64 10.65 4.14 2.91 3.92 3.04
(6.99) (7.97) (6.70) (3.89) (3.83) (4.03) (3.07)
7.79 16.20 11.00 3.36 1.45 7.49 4.55
