Connors is flawed, misses significant percentage of diagnoses

"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Sumbuny" wrote in message
news:5OR7f.135$0M1.125@dukeread12...


"Jeff" wrote in message
.net...

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
ADD test methods questioned
Report says common way to check whether the affliction is present
misses almost half of those with symptoms

BY JAMIE TALAN
STAFF WRITER

October 24, 2005

A popular tool to diagnose attention deficit disorder, or ADD, may fail
to identify children in need of treatment, according to a new study.

Connor's is not part of the diagnosis for ADHD.

Ah...what *is* the Connors used for, then?

To help determine if a child has a problem.

Jeff

Ahhh....all this time I--and the doctors my sons have used over the
decade--have mistakenly used the Connors as an observational tool for the
teachers to give the observational feedback to the doctors to let them know
what what happening in the environment of the classroom (i.e., the student
was observed by trained professionals in an educational setting---i.e., they
were observed by educators in a classroom--and the observations were then
listed on the appropriate form)...and then shared with the medical
professional...rather than have the medical professional take an entire day
off to observe the child in the educational setting--which would be a false
observation, because having the doctor in the classroom would negate the
entire observation because the child--and the rest of the class--would not
behave in a "typical" manner (you do not believe me? Think about your own
behavior when your boss or his/her boss is in your place of work
observing)....

"To help determine if a child has a problem"...how is this *not* part of the
diagnostic procedure???? how is this not part of the diagnosis of ADHD???

Gotta admit...this gave me one of the best laughs of the day!!!
--
Buny

" Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be
normal."
~ Albert Camus

"Sumbuny" wrote in message
news:x%88f.698$0M1.590@dukeread12...

"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Sumbuny" wrote in message
news:5OR7f.135$0M1.125@dukeread12...


"Jeff" wrote in message
.net...

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
ADD test methods questioned
Report says common way to check whether the affliction is present
misses almost half of those with symptoms

BY JAMIE TALAN
STAFF WRITER

October 24, 2005

A popular tool to diagnose attention deficit disorder, or ADD, may
fail to identify children in need of treatment, according to a new
study.

Connor's is not part of the diagnosis for ADHD.

Ah...what *is* the Connors used for, then?

To help determine if a child has a problem.

Jeff

Ahhh....all this time I--and the doctors my sons have used over the
decade--have mistakenly used the Connors as an observational tool for the
teachers to give the observational feedback to the doctors to let them
know what what happening in the environment of the classroom (i.e., the
student was observed by trained professionals in an educational
setting---i.e., they were observed by educators in a classroom--and the
observations were then listed on the appropriate form)...and then shared
with the medical professional...rather than have the medical professional
take an entire day off to observe the child in the educational
setting--which would be a false observation, because having the doctor in
the classroom would negate the entire observation because the child--and
the rest of the class--would not behave in a "typical" manner (you do not
believe me? Think about your own behavior when your boss or his/her boss
is in your place of work observing)....

"To help determine if a child has a problem"...how is this *not* part of
the diagnostic procedure???? how is this not part of the diagnosis of
ADHD???

Gotta admit...this gave me one of the best laughs of the day!!!
--
Buny

" Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be
normal."
~ Albert Camus

Read the criteria for a diagnosis of ADHD. The Connors is not mentioned.

I am not saying that it is not a tool that shouldn't be used in the
evaluation of ADHD. But rather, it is up to the ordering physician to
understand the limits of the tests that she is using.

Jeff

Jeff wrote:
"Sumbuny" wrote in message
news:x%88f.698$0M1.590@dukeread12...

"Jeff" wrote in message
link.net...

"Sumbuny" wrote in message
news:5OR7f.135$0M1.125@dukeread12...


"Jeff" wrote in message
link.net...

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

ADD test methods questioned
Report says common way to check whether the affliction is present
misses almost half of those with symptoms

BY JAMIE TALAN
STAFF WRITER

October 24, 2005

A popular tool to diagnose attention deficit disorder, or ADD, may
fail to identify children in need of treatment, according to a new
study.

Connor's is not part of the diagnosis for ADHD.

Ah...what *is* the Connors used for, then?

To help determine if a child has a problem.

Jeff

Ahhh....all this time I--and the doctors my sons have used over the
decade--have mistakenly used the Connors as an observational tool for the
teachers to give the observational feedback to the doctors to let them
know what what happening in the environment of the classroom (i.e., the
student was observed by trained professionals in an educational
setting---i.e., they were observed by educators in a classroom--and the
observations were then listed on the appropriate form)...and then shared
with the medical professional...rather than have the medical professional
take an entire day off to observe the child in the educational
setting--which would be a false observation, because having the doctor in
the classroom would negate the entire observation because the child--and
the rest of the class--would not behave in a "typical" manner (you do not
believe me? Think about your own behavior when your boss or his/her boss
is in your place of work observing)....

"To help determine if a child has a problem"...how is this *not* part of
the diagnostic procedure???? how is this not part of the diagnosis of
ADHD???

Gotta admit...this gave me one of the best laughs of the day!!!
--
Buny

" Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be
normal."
~ Albert Camus


Read the criteria for a diagnosis of ADHD. The Connors is not mentioned.

Correct. Connors, and other rating scales, are based on the criteria in
the DSM. They are an information gathering tool, and, as such, should
gather the appropriate information.

The study clearly shows that the short form Connors is flawed as it
misses an entire subtype of AD/HD.

I am not saying that it is not a tool that shouldn't be used in the
evaluation of ADHD. But rather, it is up to the ordering physician to
understand the limits of the tests that she is using.

Mark Probert wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

[snip]


Comment: This research further shows that there is a strong likelihood
that AD/HD is actually UNDERdiagnosed.

Bull****.

AD(x)D is OVERDIAGNOSED in it's current catch-all.

Proof: ?

... hah!

'cause I say so, obviously won't cut it. Nevertheless ...

---

It all begins with the question ... "What is AD(H)D ?"

If one answers such a question in the context of an opertional
description ...

Unable to concentrate ...
Easily distracted ...

... as AD(H)D is currently described, it is over-diagnosed,
IMO.

---

There are at least a few distinct contextual ways of 'Perusing the
AD(H)D type'

The route which is taken makes a big difference.

Proof ? ... I am making it up as I go along.




RL

Jeff wrote:
"Sumbuny" wrote in message
news:x%88f.698$0M1.590@dukeread12...

"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Sumbuny" wrote in message
news:5OR7f.135$0M1.125@dukeread12...


"Jeff" wrote in message
.net...

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
ADD test methods questioned
Report says common way to check whether the affliction is present
misses almost half of those with symptoms

BY JAMIE TALAN
STAFF WRITER

October 24, 2005

A popular tool to diagnose attention deficit disorder, or ADD, may
fail to identify children in need of treatment, according to a new
study.

Connor's is not part of the diagnosis for ADHD.

Ah...what *is* the Connors used for, then?

To help determine if a child has a problem.

Jeff

Ahhh....all this time I--and the doctors my sons have used over the
decade--have mistakenly used the Connors as an observational tool for the
teachers to give the observational feedback to the doctors to let them
know what what happening in the environment of the classroom (i.e., the
student was observed by trained professionals in an educational
setting---i.e., they were observed by educators in a classroom--and the
observations were then listed on the appropriate form)...and then shared
with the medical professional...rather than have the medical professional
take an entire day off to observe the child in the educational
setting--which would be a false observation, because having the doctor in
the classroom would negate the entire observation because the child--and
the rest of the class--would not behave in a "typical" manner (you do not
believe me? Think about your own behavior when your boss or his/her boss
is in your place of work observing)....

"To help determine if a child has a problem"...how is this *not* part of
the diagnostic procedure???? how is this not part of the diagnosis of
ADHD???

Gotta admit...this gave me one of the best laughs of the day!!!
--
Buny

" Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be
normal."
~ Albert Camus

Read the criteria for a diagnosis of ADHD. The Connors is not mentioned.

I am not saying that it is not a tool that shouldn't be used in the
evaluation of ADHD. But rather, it is up to the ordering physician to
understand the limits of the tests that she is using.

Jeff

The criteria for a diagnosis of ADHD is totally shredded. Get real.

If I could settle down from ROTFALMGO, I would put some substance
behind my hard-blow.

RL

Ra♥ï�g L♂♀♫iε wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:


[snip]



Comment: This research further shows that there is a strong likelihood
that AD/HD is actually UNDERdiagnosed.


Bull****.

AD(x)D is OVERDIAGNOSED in it's current catch-all.

Proof: ?

... hah!

'cause I say so, obviously won't cut it. Nevertheless ...

---

It all begins with the question ... "What is AD(H)D ?"

If one answers such a question in the context of an opertional
description ...

Unable to concentrate ...
Easily distracted ...

... as AD(H)D is currently described, it is over-diagnosed,
IMO.

---

There are at least a few distinct contextual ways of 'Perusing the
AD(H)D type'

The route which is taken makes a big difference.

Proof ? ... I am making it up as I go along.

I thought so....





RL

Mark Probert wrote:
Ra♥ï�g L♂♀♫iε wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:


[snip]



Comment: This research further shows that there is a strong likelihood
that AD/HD is actually UNDERdiagnosed.


Bull****.

AD(x)D is OVERDIAGNOSED in it's current catch-all.

Proof: ?

... hah!

'cause I say so, obviously won't cut it. Nevertheless ...

---

It all begins with the question ... "What is AD(H)D ?"

If one answers such a question in the context of an opertional
description ...

Unable to concentrate ...
Easily distracted ...

... as AD(H)D is currently described, it is over-diagnosed,
IMO.

---

There are at least a few distinct contextual ways of 'Perusing the
AD(H)D type'

The route which is taken makes a big difference.

Proof ? ... I am making it up as I go along.

Yes, your horizon of understand is THAT severely limited.

I thought so....

RL

"Ra?ï?g L???i?" wrote in message
oups.com...
(...)

I am not saying that it is not a tool that shouldn't be used in the
evaluation of ADHD. But rather, it is up to the ordering physician to
understand the limits of the tests that she is using.

Jeff

The criteria for a diagnosis of ADHD is totally shredded. Get real.

If I could settle down from ROTFALMGO, I would put some substance
behind my hard-blow.

You would also need to get a clue.

Jeff


RL

Ra♥ï�g L♂♀♫iε wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

Ra♥ï�g L♂♀♫iε wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:


Mark Probert wrote:


[snip]




Comment: This research further shows that there is a strong likelihood
that AD/HD is actually UNDERdiagnosed.


Bull****.

AD(x)D is OVERDIAGNOSED in it's current catch-all.

Proof: ?

... hah!

'cause I say so, obviously won't cut it. Nevertheless ...

---

It all begins with the question ... "What is AD(H)D ?"

If one answers such a question in the context of an opertional
description ...

Unable to concentrate ...
Easily distracted ...

... as AD(H)D is currently described, it is over-diagnosed,
IMO.

---

There are at least a few distinct contextual ways of 'Perusing the
AD(H)D type'

The route which is taken makes a big difference.

Proof ? ... I am making it up as I go along.


Yes, your horizon of understand is THAT severely limited.

You wrote "Proof ? ... I am making it up as I go along."



I thought so....


RL

Mark Probert wrote:
Ra♥ï�g L♂♀♫iε wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

Ra♥ï�g L♂♀♫iε wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:


Mark Probert wrote:



[snip]




---

There are at least a few distinct contextual ways of 'Perusing the
AD(H)D type'

The route which is taken makes a big difference.

Proof ? ... I am making it up as I go along.


Yes, your horizon of understand is THAT severely limited.

' Yes, your horizon of understanding is THAT severely limited. '
... this isn't an insult. It is a source of bemusement for me.

You wrote "Proof ? ... I am making it up as I go along."

Correct.

1) Think of the *Joys of Science* when the field is *new* and pristine,
being unlittered with points of citation.
... the good old days,
... the happy times.

It is also *indicative* of getting on with that which is meaninful,
worthwhile and productive.

Science is as prone to becoming *choked* in bureaucracy and politics as
much as any other endeavor.

I am not rejecting scholarship, ad hoc
... NOR am I dismissing the important role which it provides.
... NOR am I making excuses for my own inherent weakness in such
things.

It is within my grasp to come across "proof" as I progress forward.

It is very difficult for me to stop my *thought process* and be
concretely discursive about such 'Eureka' recognition. The alteration
of cognitive focus tends to ' throw out the baby and KEEP the
bath-water '.

Example:

You can clearly notice that my writing predomimently is fragmented and
incoherent. ... On many occasions I don't say anything.

... As with Shakespeare's actor: "All sound and fury, signifying
NOTHING"

These are *both* effects caused by stimulants.
... Yet, my apparent dysphasia is NOT pathological, unwelcome,
unexpected or inappropriate.

The quick-and-dirty explanation is to point to 'Stream of
consciousness'

Nevertheless, I will be explicit concerning it. ...

1) Myself ..., Any person ...
... has a limited amount of focal 'awareness'

To extend the SPAN of such a limited resource, I allow myself to
fragment and dismember that focal condensation. The individual shards
are left static and in close proximity to each other. I am not insecure
this type of disintegration.

.... Alternately, I am secure in my assuredness in re-assembly, AS
NECESSARY.

"Think" absent-mindedness ...
hyperfocus ...


2) Unremarkably, NOW THAT I MENTION IT, there are many situations in
reality which do NOT condense/converge into a singular, independent,
cohesive whole.

... Instead of a solid object ...
perhaps a poorly "packed" agglomerate is too much to *expect* ?

Most of Reality/Life is like *this* ...
... and as the saying goes, "Close only counts in Horseshoes &
Handgrenades"

When it comes to 'Critical Objective Thought'
~~~~ "Roughly correct" SUCKS THE BIG ONE.

Summarizing:

Well duh!

... most situations DON'T come together perfectly. It's even
UNREASONABLE to assume that such a solution exists ... NOR is it
NECESSESARY for there to be such a solution.

Focal awareness is a LIMITED commodity. ... actually, it doesn't
matter if a person is super brilliant or a complete idiot. It is
predominantly the simple situations which admit to hard, deep, intense
CONVERGENCE.

In other words, a large focal awareness is uncalled for. ... EXCEPT
when ...

And the *MISSING* "... EXCEPT when ..." is everything.

Thus I afford myself the luxury of fragmenting and dismembering my
focal awareness.

WYSIWYG, disjointed inchorency. ... Whoopie do. Now, you know what
you are observing.

3)THE "All sound and fury, signifying NOTHING" BIT ...

Quick-and-dirty explanation.

I have anchored myself at a location in thought space and am gawking
at the panoramic spectacle around me.

Example:

... Holy ****. This is f*u*c*k*i*n*g AMAZING ~@#&^%#!

Get it, Mark ?

3a) And what EXACTLY is the problem with gawking, with having a
"... Holy ****. This is f*u*c*k*i*n*g AMAZING @#&^%#! " moment ?

Snappy answer:

... It's a vision. ... It is being aware of a broad sweeping
situation

A vision, ANY VISION ...
... is exceedingly difficult to REALIZE.

If a person is *lucky*, it can take hours, days, years, perhaps a
lifetime to manufacture/discover a *viable/suitable* SINGULAR
CONVERGENCE.

And THAT is if the person is lucky and skilled at such things.

----

Yeah, I discover my proofs as I go along.

It is one ~royal~bitch~ to attempt to slow down, stop and be more
rigorous bout such things. That is just how it "IS" right now.


HTH

RL





I thought so....


RL