Analysis of two questionnaires for ADHD screening in schoolchildren

*Correspondence: [e-mail].

Abstract

Background: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder common in early childhood, characterized by generalized and harmful symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. Assessment scales are screening tools for ADHD commonly applied to parents and/or teachers for symptoms analysis, because their use is simpler and presents high efficiency for screening, aid in the diagnosis and follow-up of children with ADHD and academic underachievement.

Objective: To apply two questionnaires to screening of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and its subtypes in students with academic underachievement and to evaluate the agreement between them for screening for ADHD.

Methods: Application of the questionnaires SNAP-IV scale and Conner´s Scale Francisco Rosa Neto’s Brazilian version in students attended in publics schools in Cascavel City, PR, Brazil. Another analyzed variable were gender, age, grade, and body mass index. The Kappa Index was used as an indicator of agreement, being classified as: below 0.40 = low agreement; values between 0.40 and 0.75 = moderate to good agreement; and values above 0.75 = excellent agreement.

Results: The mean age was 8.9 years, 69.2% of the participants were male, most had normal weight and were concentrated between the 3rd and 5th grades. Both instruments identified the same prevalence of hyperactivity and a difference of 11.5 percentage points for the estimate of attention deficit. Association was observed in the relationship between age and attention deficit by the Conners’ Scale, with higher prevalence in older children (9 to 12 years). The agreement between the Conners’ Scale and the SNAP-IV questionnaire for the diagnosis of hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder was low, with a Kappa Index of 0.114 and 0, respectively.

Conclusion: There was low agreement between the Conners’ and SNAP-IV’s scales. Nevertheless, the use of these tools is a feasiable option, but clinical evaluation through objective criteria is the most important diagnostic resource

Publication History

Article published online:
12 May 2025