Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News


Neurofeedback/ Quantitative EEG for ADHD diagnosis

Like all psy­chi­atric dis­or­ders, ADHD is diag­nosed based on the pres­ence of par­tic­u­lar behav­ioral symp­toms that are judged to cause sig­nif­i­cant impair­ment in an indi­vid­u­al’s func­tion­ing, and not on the results of a spe­cif­ic test. In fact, recent­ly pub­lished ADHD eval­u­a­tion guide­lines from the Amer­i­can Acad­e­my of Pedi­atrics (AAP) explic­it­ly state that no par­tic­u­lar diag­nos­tic test should be rou­tine­ly used when eval­u­at­ing a child for ADHD.

While most ADHD experts would agree that no sin­gle test could or should be used in iso­la­tion to diag­nose ADHD, there are sev­er­al impor­tant rea­sons why the avail­abil­i­ty of an accu­rate objec­tive test would be use­ful.

First, many chil­dren do not receive a care­ful and com­pre­hen­sive assess­ment for ADHD but are instead diag­nosed with based on eval­u­a­tion pro­ce­dures that are far from opti­mal.

Sec­ond, although AAP guide­lines indi­cate that spe­cif­ic diag­nos­tic tests should not be rou­tine­ly used, many par­ents are con­cerned about the lack of objec­tive pro­ce­dures in their child’s eval­u­a­tion. In fact, many fam­i­lies do not pur­sue treat­ment for ADHD because the the absence of objec­tive eval­u­a­tion pro­ce­dures leads them to ques­tion the diag­no­sis. You can read a review of an inter­est­ing study on this issue at

For these rea­sons an accu­rate and objec­tive diag­nos­tic test for ADHD could be of val­ue in many clin­i­cal sit­u­a­tions. Two impor­tant con­di­tions would have to be met for such a test to be use­ful.

First, it would have to be high­ly sen­si­tive to the pres­ence of ADHD, i.e., indi­vid­u­als who tru­ly have ADHD as deter­mined by a com­pre­hen­sive eval­u­a­tion should score pos­i­tive for ADHD on the test. If the test were 100% sen­si­tive, every indi­vid­ual who has ADHD based on cur­rent diag­nos­tic cri­te­ria would score pos­i­tive on the test. As the sen­si­tiv­i­ty of a test drops, the num­ber of “false neg­a­tives” — nor­mal test results in indi­vid­u­als who tru­ly have the dis­or­der increase and its util­i­ty goes down.

Sec­ond, indi­vid­u­als who don’t have ADHD should nev­er score pos­i­tive on the test, i.e., a pos­i­tive result should occur only for indi­vid­u­als with ADHD and no one else. When a diag­nos­tic test has high speci­fici­ty, indi­vid­u­als with­out the con­di­tion rarely score pos­i­tive on the test. When speci­fici­ty is low, many indi­vid­u­als with­out the con­di­tion will score pos­i­tive and may be incor­rect­ly diag­nosed as a result. This is referred to as a “false pos­i­tive”.

Although many psy­cho­log­i­cal tests yield dif­fer­ent results, on aver­age, for indi­vid­u­als with and with­out ADHD, they are not sen­si­tive or spe­cif­ic enough to be par­tic­u­lar­ly use­ful when mak­ing indi­vid­ual diag­nos­tic deci­sions. For exam­ple, a wide­ly used objec­tive test in ADHD eval­u­a­tions are Con­tin­u­ous Per­for­mance Tests (CPTs). These tests pro­vide a com­put­er­ized mea­sure of a child’s abil­i­ty to sus­tain atten­tion and refrain from impul­sive respond­ing. Although aver­age per­for­mance on CPTs for chil­dren with ADHD is below that of peers, and CPT data can be help­ful when thought­ful­ly inte­grat­ed with oth­er diag­nos­tic infor­ma­tion, these tests yields too many false pos­i­tives and false neg­a­tives to be use­ful as an “objec­tive” diag­nos­tic test for ADHD.

- Is there any­thing bet­ter? -

Sev­er­al past issues of Atten­tion Research Update have reviewed Quan­ti­ta­tive EEG, i.e., QEEG, as a diag­nos­tic aide for ADHD. The use of QEEG is based on find­ings that indi­vid­u­als with ADHD have a dis­tinc­tive pat­tern of brain elec­tri­cal activ­i­ty that is often referred to as “cor­ti­cal slow­ing”; this is char­ac­ter­ized by an ele­va­tion of low fre­quen­cy theta waves and a reduc­tion of high­er fre­quen­cy beta waves in the pre­frontal cor­tex. Theta wave activ­i­ty is asso­ci­at­ed with an unfo­cused and inat­ten­tive state while beta activ­i­ty is asso­ci­at­ed with more focused atten­tion. Thus, an ele­vat­ed theta/beta ratio reflects a less alert and more unfo­cused state.

In a QEEG test­ing, EEG data is col­lect­ed from a child or adult in a non-inva­sive pro­ce­dure that requires about 30 min­utes. The EEG data is dig­i­tized and com­put­er scored so that an indi­vid­u­al’s theta/beta ratio can be com­put­ed; this ratio is then com­pared to what is typ­i­cal for indi­vid­u­als of sim­i­lar age. When this ratio is suf­fi­cient­ly ele­vat­ed ratio — the cut-off typ­i­cal­ly used is 1.5 stan­dard devi­a­tions above aver­age which cor­re­sponds to the high­est 7% of the pop­u­la­tion — the indi­vid­ual is con­sid­ered to have the EEG mark­er for ADHD.

In past stud­ies, rough­ly 90% of indi­vid­u­als diag­nosed with ADHD based on a com­pre­hen­sive eval­u­a­tion test­ed pos­i­tive for this EEG mark­er. In con­trast, about 95% of nor­mal con­trols test­ed neg­a­tive. Thus, while not a per­fect­ly reli­able indi­ca­tor, the sen­si­tiv­i­ty and speci­fici­ty of QEEG in iden­ti­fy­ing ADHD was extreme­ly strong. You can review these stud­ies at and

The impor­tant lim­i­ta­tion of this work was that QEEG was test­ed using indi­vid­u­als known to have ADHD and nor­mal con­trols with­out any dis­or­der. Dif­fer­en­ti­at­ing between ADHD and no dis­or­der, how­ev­er, is not the sit­u­a­tion that clin­i­cians typ­i­cal­ly face. Instead, a child is referred because of atten­tion and/or behav­ior prob­lems and the clin­i­cian must deter­mine whether these prob­lems reflect ADHD, are bet­ter explained by anoth­er dis­or­der, or do not rise to the lev­el where any diag­no­sis is appro­pri­ate. Thus, for QEEG to be use­ful in ADHD eval­u­a­tions, it must also accu­rate­ly dis­tin­guish between ADHD and oth­er dis­or­ders.

One recent­ly pub­lished pre­lim­i­nary study indi­cat­ed promis­ing find­ings in this regard. Twen­ty-six chil­dren and ado­les­cents referred to an out­pa­tient psy­chi­a­try clin­ic for atten­tion and behav­ior prob­lems received a thor­ough ADHD assess­ment con­duct­ed by a team of child psy­chi­a­trists. They also received a QEEG eval­u­a­tion. Six­teen of the 26 were deter­mined to meet DSM-IV cri­te­ria for ADHD by the psy­chi­atric team while 10 were diag­nosed with oth­er con­di­tions. Of the 16 diag­nosed with ADHD, 15 showed the QEEG mark­er for ADHD; in con­trast, none of the 10 diag­nosed with oth­er con­di­tions showed the QEEG mark­er. Thus, the QEEG test per­formed extreme­ly well. A com­pre­hen­sive review of this study can be found at

While these results were encour­ag­ing, the sam­ple was small and from a sin­gle clin­i­cal site. This rais­es impor­tant ques­tions about the gen­er­al­iz­abil­i­ty of the find­ings that need to be addressed in a study that incor­po­rates a larg­er sam­ple drawn from mul­ti­ple clin­i­cal sites. Recent­ly, a study meet­ing these cri­te­ria was pub­lished; I believe it is one of the most inter­est­ing and impor­tant stud­ies I have seen in sev­er­al years [Sny­der et al. (2008). Blind­ed, mul­ti-cen­ter val­i­da­tion of EEG and rat­ing scales in iden­ti­fy­ing ADHD with­in a clin­i­cal sam­ple. Psy­chi­a­try Research, 159, 346–358.]

- Meth­ods -

Par­tic­i­pants — Par­tic­i­pants were 159 6–18-year olds (101 males and 58 females) tak­en by par­ents to 1 of 4 pedi­atric and psy­chi­atric clin­ics because of con­cerns relat­ed to atten­tion and behav­ior prob­lems. One hun­dred and fif­teen were chil­dren (6–11 years old) and the remain­der were ado­les­cents. There was a good rep­re­sen­ta­tion of African Amer­i­cans in the sam­ple (37%).

Psy­chi­atric Exam — At each site, chil­dren received a stan­dard­ized psy­chi­atric eval­u­a­tion that includ­ed a semi-struc­tured inter­view (the KSADS-PL) and mea­sures of func­tion­al impair­ment and dis­or­der sever­i­ty. Both par­ents and children/adolescents were inter­viewed, the opti­mal pro­ce­dure for cov­er­ing both exter­nal­iz­ing and inter­nal­iz­ing dis­or­ders. Oth­er clin­i­cal pro­ce­dures includ­ed tak­ing a med­ical his­to­ry, a devel­op­men­tal his­to­ry, and pro­vid­ing a phys­i­cal exam.

Using results of these inter­views and asso­ci­at­ed mea­sures, the clin­i­cal team per­formed a com­plete dif­fer­en­tial diag­no­sis for the pres­ence of ADHD, comor­bid con­di­tions, and oth­er childhood/adolescent dis­or­ders. Diag­nos­tic deci­sions about ADHD fol­lowed a stan­dard pro­to­col to deter­mine whether strict DSM-IV diag­nos­tic cri­te­ria were met. The team’s deter­mi­na­tion about the pres­ence or absence of ADHD was con­sid­ered the “gold stan­dard” against which diag­nos­tic deci­sions based on the results from stan­dard­ized behav­ior rat­ing scales and QEEG were com­pared.

Rat­ing Scales — Par­ents and teacher com­plet­ed 2 behav­ior rat­ing scales that are wide­ly used in the assess­ment of ADHD — the Con­ners Rat­ing Scale and the ADHD-IV Rat­ing Scale. Chil­dren were con­sid­ered to be pos­i­tive for ADHD if their scores on these scales exceed­ed the rec­om­mend­ed cut-off for iden­ti­fy­ing ADHD. This enabled the researchers to deter­mine how well diag­nos­tic deci­sions derived fro rat­ing scales agreed with results from the com­pre­hen­sive psy­chi­atric exam.

QEEG — EEG data was col­lect­ed on each child using stan­dard col­lec­tion pro­ce­dures by trained EEG tech­ni­cians. The theta/beta ratio com­put­ed for each child and com­pared to val­ues for age matched con­trols from a large nor­ma­tive data base. Par­tic­i­pants whose theta/beta ratio was at 1.5 stan­dard devi­a­tions above the aver­age score, i.e., rough­ly the top 7%, were con­sid­ered to show the EEG mark­er for ADHD.

It is impor­tant to note that diag­nos­tic deci­sions from the psy­chi­atric eval­u­a­tion were made with­out the team hav­ing any access to rat­ing scale or QEEG data. Thus, deci­sions made about the pres­ence or absence of ADHD from the psy­chi­atric eval­u­a­tion was not influ­enced in any way by knowl­edge of these oth­er results.

- Results -

The log­ic of this study is sim­ple and straight for­ward. The authors treat­ed results of the psy­chi­atric exam as the “gold stan­dard” for deter­min­ing which of the 159 par­tic­i­pants met diag­nos­tic cri­te­ria for ADHD. Then, they exam­ined how well results based on the behav­ior rat­ing scales and the EEG exam matched this stan­dard.

Nine­ty-sev­en of the 159 chil­dren and ado­les­cents (61%) were diag­nosed with ADHD by the psy­chi­atric eval­u­a­tion. Six­ty-four of these chil­dren were diag­nosed with at least 1 oth­er dis­or­der, 35 had at least 2 addi­tion­al dis­or­ders, and 11 had at least 3 addi­tion­al dis­or­ders. The most com­mon comor­bidi­ties were one of the dis­rup­tive behav­ior dis­or­ders (Oppo­si­tion­al Defi­ant Dis­or­der or Con­duct Dis­or­der) which occurred in 66 of the 97, fol­lowed by an anx­i­ety dis­or­der (46 of 97), learn­ing dis­or­der (33 of 97), and mood dis­or­der (23 of 97).

Of the 62 par­tic­i­pants not meet­ing cri­te­ria for ADHD, all but 8 were diag­nosed with one of these oth­er dis­or­ders while 8 had no diag­no­sis.

Over­all, there­fore, this was a diverse clin­i­cal sam­ple that includ­ed the full range of psy­chi­atric dif­fi­cul­ties that clin­i­cians are called on to address.

- How accu­rate were behav­ior rat­ing scales at iden­ti­fy­ing ADHD? -

The behav­ior rat­ing scales did not per­form well. The results were as fol­lows:

ADHD-IV Par­ent — 28% false neg­a­tives, 67% false pos­i­tives, 56% over­all accu­ra­cy.

ADHD-IV Teacher — 62% false neg­a­tives, 39% false pos­i­tive, 47% over­all accu­ra­cy.

ADHD-IV P&T com­bined — 45% false neg­a­tives, 57% false pos­i­tives, 50% over­all accu­ra­cy.

Con­ners Par­ent — 22% false neg­a­tives, 86% false pos­i­tives, 55% over­all accu­ra­cy.

Con­ners Teacher — 33% false neg­a­tives, 59% false pos­i­tives, 58% over­all accu­ra­cy.

Con­ners P&T com­bined — 28% false neg­a­tives, 81% false pos­i­tives, 53% com­bined.

As can be seen, the rate of false neg­a­tives (chil­dren diag­nosed with ADHD based on the psy­chi­atric eval­u­a­tion that scored below the rec­om­mend­ed ADHD cut-off on the rat­ing scale) ranged from 28% for the par­ent ver­sion of the Con­ners Rat­ing Scales to 62% for the teacher ver­sion of the ADHD-IV rat­ing scale.

False pos­i­tive rates (chil­dren with­out ADHD based on the psy­chi­atric eval­u­a­tion who scored pos­i­tive for ADHD on the rat­ing scale) ranged from 39% to 86%. The extreme­ly high false pos­i­tive rate for the par­ent ver­sion of the Con­ners indi­cates that par­ents tend­ed to rate their child high on ADHD symp­toms even when ADHD was not judged to be present.

Over­all clas­si­fi­ca­tion accu­ra­cy — how often rat­ing scale results agreed with psy­chi­atric eval­u­a­tion results — was below 60% for every scale. Thus, the lev­el of agree­ment was not much bet­ter than chance.

- QEEG Accu­ra­cy -

The accu­ra­cy of QEEG as a diag­nos­tic test was much high­er — the false neg­a­tive rate was only 13% and the false pos­i­tive rate was only 6%; this result­ed in an over­all accu­ra­cy rate of 89%. These fig­ures indi­cate the fol­low­ing:

- 87% of chil­dren diag­nosed with ADHD by the psy­chi­atric eval­u­a­tion showed the EEG mark­er for the dis­or­der;

- 94% of chil­dren with­out ADHD screened neg­a­tive for the EEG mark­er;

- If ADHD diag­no­sis was based strict­ly on the pres­ence or absence of the EEG mark­er, it would match deci­sions based on the psy­chi­atric eval­u­a­tion almost 90% of the time.

Over­all, these results are far supe­ri­or to the clas­si­fi­ca­tion accu­ra­cy using rat­ing scales.

- Extend­ing the find­ings to dif­fer­ent sub­groups and comor­bidi­ties -

Because par­tic­i­pants rep­re­sent­ed a diverse clin­i­cal sam­ple, the researchers could test whether QEEG accu­ra­cy was sim­i­lar for chil­dren vs. ado­les­cents, whites vs. blacks, and males vs. females. Across these dif­fer­ent demo­graph­ic groups, over­all accu­ra­cy rates ranged from 87% to 95%. Thus, QEEG worked well with­in all demo­graph­ic groups.

The authors also exam­ined whether diag­nos­tic accu­ra­cy of the QEEG was con­sis­tent depend­ing on whether or not oth­er dis­or­ders were present. When the psy­chi­atric eval­u­a­tion indi­cat­ed ADHD, the QEEG was equal­ly like­ly to be pos­i­tive regard­less of what oth­er psy­chi­atric con­di­tions were diag­nosed. Sim­i­lar­ly, when ADHD was not diag­nosed, the like­li­hood that the QEEG mark­er was neg­a­tive did not depend on what oth­er con­di­tions were present. Thus, the clas­si­fi­ca­tion accu­ra­cy of QEEG as a diag­nos­tic test for ADHD was not influ­enced by the pres­ence or absence of oth­er psy­chi­atric con­di­tions.

- Sum­ma­ry and Impli­ca­tions -

I believe these find­ings are very impor­tant. One clear impli­ca­tion is that results from behav­ior rat­ing scales must be used cau­tious­ly in ADHD eval­u­a­tions. Mak­ing diag­nos­tic deci­sions based on count­ing symp­toms and/or deter­min­ing whether a child’s rat­ing scale results falls in a clin­i­cal­ly ele­vat­ed range for ADHD will lead to high rates of mis­di­ag­no­sis in com­par­i­son to what would emerge from a com­pre­hen­sive psy­chi­atric eval­u­a­tion. In par­tic­u­lar, data from this study sug­gests that many chil­dren who do not tru­ly have ADHD would be erro­neous­ly diag­nosed with the dis­or­der.

I should empha­size that ADHD eval­u­a­tion guide­lines from the Amer­i­can Acad­e­my of Pedi­atrics and the Amer­i­can Acad­e­my of Child and Ado­les­cent Psy­chi­a­try clear­ly indi­cate that rat­ing scales should nev­er be used in iso­la­tion to diag­nose an indi­vid­ual with ADHD. Thus, using rat­ing scales in this way is incon­sis­tent with best prac­tice guide­lines. How­ev­er, giv­en the lim­it­ed time avail­able in many pri­ma­ry care set­tings to con­duct com­pre­hen­sive eval­u­a­tions, it would not be sur­pris­ing if rat­ing scale results are some­times giv­en greater empha­sis than is rec­om­mend­ed.

This is where QEEG results can be so help­ful. In regards to match­ing ADHD diag­nos­tic deci­sions that result from a com­pre­hen­sive eval­u­a­tion, this test per­formed quite well — over­all accu­ra­cy rates were near­ly 90%. The false pos­i­tive rate of only 6% means that few chil­dren and ado­les­cents for whom ADHD is ruled out by a com­pre­hen­sive psy­chi­atric exam would be diag­nosed if QEEG find­ings were used to make the deci­sion. This is a strik­ing con­trast to false pos­i­tive rates that exceed­ed 80 % for some of the rat­ing scale mea­sures. Although adjust­ing how rat­ing scale data is used to make deci­sions about ADHD might improve clas­si­fi­ca­tion accu­ra­cy some­what, it is dif­fi­cult to imag­ine that over­all accu­ra­cy rates would ever approach that found for QEEG.

It is impor­tant to under­score that despite the strong results found for QEEG, this tool is not a sub­sti­tute for a com­pre­hen­sive diag­nos­tic exam and should not be used as a stand alone test for ADHD. One essen­tial rea­son for this is that diag­nos­tic eval­u­a­tions for ADHD should go beyond sim­ply decid­ing whether ADHD is present and gath­er oth­er infor­ma­tion that is crit­i­cal for devel­op­ing an opti­mal treat­ment plan. While QEEG may help with the for­mer, it does not con­tribute to the lat­ter, beyond iden­ti­fy­ing indi­vid­u­als for whom med­ica­tion treat­ment would be an appro­pri­ate option to con­sid­er. I have heard expe­ri­enced users of QEEG dis­cuss that oth­er data from the pro­ce­dure can be use­ful in more expan­sive treat­ment plan­ning, but I am not famil­iar with research that sup­ports this broad­er use.

Giv­en this lim­i­ta­tion, what val­ue would there be to rou­tine­ly incor­po­rat­ing QEEG into ADHD diag­nos­tic eval­u­a­tions. Sev­er­al things come to mind includ­ing the fol­low­ing:

1. In pri­ma­ry care set­tings where a com­pre­hen­sive psy­chi­atric exam can be dif­fi­cult to pro­vide, results from a 30–40 minute QEEG pro­ce­dure can iden­ti­fy with rea­son­ably high accu­ra­cy indi­vid­u­als for whom ADHD is like­ly to be an appro­pri­ate diag­no­sis.

2. Because false pos­i­tive rates are so low, QEEG could reduce the num­ber of indi­vid­u­als who are per­haps inap­pro­pri­ate­ly treat­ed with ADHD med­ica­tion if physi­cians referred indi­vid­u­als with neg­a­tive results for fur­ther eval­u­a­tion.

3. In cas­es where par­ents are reluc­tant to pur­sue treat­ment for their child because of con­cerns that objec­tive eval­u­a­tion pro­ce­dures were lack­ing, QEEG pro­vides an objec­tive bio­log­i­cal mark­er of ADHD that can increase par­ents’ con­fi­dence in their child’s eval­u­a­tion.

4. For peo­ple who con­tin­ue to doubt that ADHD is an actu­al con­di­tion with impor­tant bio­log­i­cal under­pin­nings, these find­ings high­light that the vast major­i­ty of indi­vid­u­als meet­ing DSM-IV cri­te­ria for ADHD have a dis­tinc­tive pat­tern of brain EEG activ­i­ty.

Over­all, find­ings from this care­ful­ly con­duct­ed study make an impor­tant con­tri­bu­tion to doc­u­ment­ing the util­i­ty of QEEG as an objec­tive test to assist in the diag­no­sis of ADHD. If this pro­ce­dure were to become more wide­ly used, these data sug­gest that the num­ber of chil­dren and ado­les­cents who are inap­pro­pri­ate­ly diag­nosed and treat­ed for the dis­or­der would dimin­ish sub­stan­tial­ly.

Rabiner_David– Dr. David Rabin­er is a child clin­i­cal psy­chol­o­gist and Direc­tor of Under­grad­u­ate Stud­ies in the Depart­ment of Psy­chol­ogy and Neu­ro­science at Duke Uni­ver­sity. He pub­lishes Atten­tion Research Update, an online newslet­ter that helps par­ents, pro­fes­sion­als, and edu­ca­tors keep up with the lat­est research on ADHD, and teach­es the online course  How to Nav­i­gate Con­ven­tion­al and Com­ple­men­tary ADHD Treat­ments for Healthy Brain Devel­op­ment.

For relat­ed read­ing, you may enjoy:

- How Strong is the Research Sup­port for Neu­ro­feed­back in Atten­tion Deficits?.

- More on Neu­ro­feed­back­’s Brain Train­ing Val­ue

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

2 Responses

  1. chris harper says:

    Thank you for the excel­lent infor­ma­tion regard­ing objec­tive test­ing of ADHD. Hope­ful­ly, there will be fur­ther devel­op­ment in tests sim­i­lar to the QEEG and the psy­chi­atric com­mu­ni­ty will be able to fend off those that doubt that ADHD exists.

  2. Impor­tant arti­cle, well writ­ten Dr. Rabin­er. Thanks. The accu­ra­cy rate for the QEEG trumps every oth­er method! I had­n’t real­ized how impor­tant the Sny­der, 2008 study is. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Categories: Attention and ADD/ADHD

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters,  SharpBrains is an independent market research firm tracking how brain science can improve our health and our lives.

Search in our archives

Follow us and Engage via…

RSS Feed

Watch All Recordings Now (40+ Speakers, 12+ Hours)