Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News


Sensible and perplexing changes in ADHD diagnostic criteria (DSM-V)

Taking a Closer Look at ADHD Attention Deficit DisorderThe Amer­i­can Psy­chi­atric Asso­ci­a­tion recent­ly pub­lished DSM-V, the first major revi­sion to the diag­nos­tic man­u­al for psy­chi­atric dis­or­ders since 1994. In DSM-V, ADHD is includ­ed in the sec­tion on Neu­rode­vel­op­men­tal Dis­or­ders, rather than being grouped with the dis­rup­tive behav­ior dis­or­ders, i.e., Oppo­si­tion­al Defi­ant Dis­or­der and Con­duct Dis­or­der. This change bet­ter reflects the way ADHD is cur­rent­ly con­cep­tu­al­ized.

Below I review changes that have been made to the actu­al diag­nos­tic cri­te­ria for ADHD.

Core symp­toms

A com­mon crit­i­cism of the ADHD diag­nos­tic cri­te­ria has been that the core symp­toms reflect how the dis­or­der presents in school age chil­dren and does not cap­ture how it presents in old­er ado­les­cents and adults. Because of this, some have argued that dif­fer­ent symp­tom sets should be devel­oped for dif­fer­ent age groups. How­ev­er, the new diag­nos­tic cri­te­ria essen­tial­ly retain the same symp­toms as before.

The 9 inat­ten­tive symp­toms are:

  1. often fails to give close atten­tion to details or makes care­less mis­takes in school­work, work, or dur­ing oth­er activ­i­ties (e.g. over­looks or miss­es details, work is inac­cu­rate).
  2. often has dif­fi­cul­ty sus­tain­ing atten­tion in tasks or play activ­i­ties (e.g., has dif­fi­cul­ty remain­ing focused dur­ing lec­tures, con­ver­sa­tions, or lengthy read­ing).
  3. often does not seem to lis­ten when spo­ken to direct­ly (e.g., mind seems else­where, even in the absence of any obvi­ous dis­trac­tion).
  4. often does not fol­low through on instruc­tions and fails to fin­ish school work, chores, or duties in the work place (e.g., starts tasks but quick­ly los­es focus and is eas­i­ly side­tracked).
  5. often has dif­fi­cul­ty orga­niz­ing tasks and activ­i­ties (e.g., dif­fi­cul­ty man­ag­ing sequen­tial tasks; dif­fi­cul­ty keep­ing mate­ri­als and belong­ings in order; messy, dis­or­ga­nized work; has poor time man­age­ment; fails to meet dead­lines).
  6. often avoids or is reluc­tant to engage in tasks that require sus­tained men­tal effort (e.g. school­work or home­work; for old­er ado­les­cents and adults, prepar­ing reports, com­plet­ing forms, review­ing lengthy papers).
  7. often los­es things nec­es­sary for tasks or activ­i­ties (e.g., school mate­ri­als, pen­cils, books, tools, wal­lets, keys, paper­work, eye­glass­es, mobile tele­phones).
  8. is often eas­i­ly dis­tract­ed by extra­ne­ous stim­uli (e.g., for old­er ado­les­cents and adults may include unre­lat­ed thoughts).
  9. is often for­get­ful in dai­ly activ­i­ties (e.g., doing chores, run­ning errands; for old­er ado­les­cents and adults, return­ing calls, pay­ing bills, keep­ing appoint­ments).

The only dif­fer­ence from DSM-IV is that all symp­toms are fol­lowed by exam­ples of dif­fer­ent ways they may show up, includ­ing ways they would appear in old­er ado­les­cents and adults. Thus, although the symp­tom list remains the same, the inclu­sion of devel­op­men­tal­ly appro­pri­ate exam­ples should help guide clin­i­cians eval­u­at­ing old­er ado­les­cents and adults.

The 9 hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms are:

  1. often fid­gets with or taps hands or squirms in seat.
  2. often leaves seat in sit­u­a­tions when remain­ing seat­ed is expect­ed (e.g., leaves his or her place in the class­room, in the office or oth­er work­place, or in oth­er sit­u­a­tions that require remain­ing in place).
  3. often runs about or climbs in sit­u­a­tions where it is inap­pro­pri­ate (e.g., in ado­les­cents or adults, may be lim­it­ed to feel­ing rest­less).
  4. often unable to play or engage in leisure activ­i­ties qui­et­ly;
  5. is often “on the go” act­ing as if “dri­ven by a motor” (e.g., is unable to be or uncom­fort­able being still for extend­ed time, as in restau­rants, meet­ings; may be expe­ri­enced by oth­ers as being rest­less or dif­fi­cult to keep up with).
  6. often talks exces­sive­ly.
  7. often blurts out answers before ques­tions have been com­plet­ed (e.g., com­pletes people’s sen­tences; can­not wait for turn in con­ver­sa­tion).
  8. often has dif­fi­cul­ty await­ing turn (e.g., while wait­ing in line).
  9. often inter­rupts or intrudes on oth­ers (e.g. butts into conversations,games, or activ­i­ties. may start using oth­er people’s things with­out ask­ing or receiv­ing per­mis­sion; for ado­les­cents and adults, may intrude into or take over what oth­ers are doing).

These are only slight­ly mod­i­fied ver­sions of the hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms from DSM-IV. As was done for the inat­ten­tive symp­toms, how­ev­er, the new DSM-V gen­er­al­ly includes devel­op­men­tal­ly appro­pri­ate exem­plars of these symp­toms in old­er ado­les­cents and adults.

Num­ber of symp­toms required and dura­tion of symp­toms

To pos­si­bly war­rant a diag­no­sis of ADHD, indi­vid­u­als younger than 17 must dis­play at least 6 of 9 inat­ten­tive and/or hyper­ac­tive impul­sive symp­toms. This is the same num­ber as was required in DSM-IV.

For indi­vid­u­als 17 and above, how­ev­er, only 5 or more symp­toms are need­ed. This change from DSM-IV was made because of the reduc­tion in symp­toms that tends to occur with increas­ing age. The expla­na­tion for this change pro­vid­ed on the DSM-V web site is that a slight­ly low­er symp­tom thresh­old is suf­fi­cient to make a reli­able diag­no­sis in adults.

As in DSM-IV, the symp­toms must be present for at least 6 months to a degree that is judged to be incon­sis­tent with an individual’s devel­op­men­tal lev­el.

Addi­tion­al diag­nos­tic cri­te­ria

As in DSM-IV, a suf­fi­cient inat­ten­tive and/or hyper­ac­tive impul­sive symp­toms is only the ini­tial cri­te­ria that must be met for ADHD to be diag­nosed. Addi­tion­al diag­nos­tic cri­te­ria, and mod­i­fi­ca­tions that have been made to these, are pre­sent­ed below.

Age of onset cri­te­ria

In DSM-IV, the age of onset cri­te­ria was “some hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive or inat­ten­tive symp­toms that caused impair­ment were present before age 7 years.” This reflect­ed the view that ADHD emerged rel­a­tive­ly ear­ly in devel­op­ment and inter­fered with a child’s func­tion­ing at a rel­a­tive­ly young age.

In DSM-V this has been revised to “sev­er­al inat­ten­tive or hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms were present pri­or to 12 years.” Thus, symp­toms can now appear up to 5 years lat­er. And, there is no longer the require­ment that the symp­toms cre­ate impair­ment by age 12, just that they are present.

The ratio­nale for the old­er age of onset is that research pub­lished since DSM-IV did not iden­ti­fy mean­ing­ful dif­fer­ences in func­tion­ing, response to treat­ment, or out­comes in indi­vid­u­als whose symp­toms were present at younger vs. old­er ages. How­ev­er, there is also no longer the require­ment for symp­toms to cause impair­ment. This com­bi­na­tion — old­er age of onset and remov­ing the impair­ment require­ment — is clear­ly more lenient.

Mul­ti­ple set­tings require­ment

In DSM-IV, symp­toms were required to cause some impair­ment in at least 2 set­tings. Thus, not only did symp­toms need to be evi­dent in more than one set­ting, e.g., both school and home, but they also had to under­mine the child’s func­tion­ing in mul­ti­ple set­tings.

DSM-V has changed this to “sev­er­al inat­ten­tive or hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms are present in two or more set­tings.” Thus, symp­toms must only be evi­dent in more than one con­text but don’t have to impair an individual’s func­tion­ing in mul­ti­ple con­texts.

This is also more lenient.

Need for clin­i­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant impair­ment

DSM-IV required “clear evi­dence of clin­i­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant impair­ment in social, aca­d­e­m­ic, or occu­pa­tion­al func­tion­ing.”

This has been changed to “…clear evi­dence that the symp­toms inter­fere with, or reduce the qual­i­ty of, social, aca­d­e­m­ic, or occu­pa­tion­al func­tion­ing.”

I believe this is a sig­nif­i­cant change. In DSM-IV, indi­vid­u­als could meet symp­tom cri­te­ria, i.e., show at least 6 of 9 inat­ten­tive and/or hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms and not be diag­nosed if symp­toms were not judged to be suf­fi­cient­ly impair­ing. Requir­ing clin­i­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant impair­ment is a high­er bar than requir­ing symp­toms to ‘..inter­fere with or reduce the qual­i­ty of’ an individual’s per­for­mance in impor­tant life domains. In fact, it is dif­fi­cult to imag­ine how one could dis­play a suf­fi­cient num­ber of symp­toms to pos­si­bly war­rant the diag­no­sis with­out this inter­fer­ing with one’s social, occu­pa­tion­al, or aca­d­e­m­ic func­tion­ing.

How this change is inter­pret­ed by clin­i­cians will be very impor­tant. Sup­pose a stu­dent seems to have the poten­tial to earn all A’s in school. If ADHD symp­toms result in the stu­dent receiv­ing A’s and B’s, is that suf­fi­cient inter­fer­ence for the stu­dent to be diag­nosed with ADHD? This is the type of judge­ment that all pro­fes­sion­als involved in diag­nos­ing ADHD will need to make as the DSM-V offers no clear guide­lines on this issue.

As the above sug­gests, remov­ing the need for ‘clin­i­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant impair­ment’ can make it eas­i­er to meet full diag­nos­tic cri­te­ria for ADHD and thus increase the per­cent­age of the pop­u­la­tion who qual­i­fy for the diag­no­sis. I wish that I under­stood the ratio­nale for this change, but there is no expla­na­tion of this pro­vid­ed on the DSM-V web site.

Rule out alter­na­tive expla­na­tions for symp­toms

As in DSM-IV, the final cri­te­ria is deter­min­ing that an indi­vid­u­als ADHD symp­toms are not bet­ter account­ed for by anoth­er men­tal dis­or­der. In DSM-IV, this was stat­ed as:

The symp­toms do not occur exclu­sive­ly dur­ing the course of a per­va­sive devel­op­men­tal dis­or­ders, schiz­o­phre­nia, or oth­er psy­chot­ic dis­or­der and are not bet­ter account­ed for by anoth­er men­tal dis­or­der.”

This has been changed to “The symp­toms do not occur exclu­sive­ly dur­ing the course of a schiz­o­phre­nia or oth­er psy­chot­ic dis­or­der and are not bet­ter account­ed for by anoth­er men­tal dis­or­der.”

Thus, what has changed is that per­va­sive devel­op­men­tal dis­or­der no longer rules out the diag­no­sis of ADHD. Actu­al­ly, in DSM-V the per­va­sive devel­op­men­tal dis­or­der cat­e­go­ry has been renamed ‘Neu­rode­vel­op­men­tal Dis­or­ders’. How­ev­er, unlike in DSM-IV, ADHD can now be diag­nosed in con­junc­tion with Autism Spec­trum Dis­or­der. In the past, ADHD would have been ruled out based on the assump­tion that ADHD symp­toms were always bet­ter explain by the child’s autism.

Minor change in sub­type des­ig­na­tion

In DSM-IV, there were 3 ADHD sub­types:

Com­bined Type for indi­vid­u­als who showed at least 6 inat­ten­tive and 6 hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms, in addi­tion to meet­ing all the oth­er cri­te­ria;

Pre­dom­i­nant­ly Inat­ten­tive Type when suf­fi­cient inat­ten­tive but insuf­fi­cient hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms were present; and,

Pre­dom­i­nant­ly Hyper­ac­tive-Impul­sive Type when suf­fi­cient hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms inat­ten­tive but insuf­fi­cient inat­ten­tive symp­toms were present.

In DSM-V these cat­e­gories have been retained, but are now referred to as Com­bined pre­sen­ta­tion, Pre­dom­i­nant­ly inat­ten­tive pre­sen­ta­tion, and Pre­dom­i­nant­ly hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive pre­sen­ta­tion. I sus­pect this word­ing change reflects a desire to move from the more sta­t­ic lan­guage of ‘types’ to use ter­mi­nol­o­gy that bet­ter reflects the flu­id­i­ty and change in how the dis­or­der may present in the same indi­vid­ual over time.

New require­ment to spec­i­fy sever­i­ty

DSM-V also requires clin­i­cians to spec­i­fy the sever­i­ty lev­el of a client’s ADHD as either Mild, Mod­er­ate, or Severe.

Mild is restrict­ed to cas­es where there are few, if any, symp­toms beyond those required to make the diag­no­sis and no more than minor impair­ment in func­tion­ing. In DSM-IV, where clin­i­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant impair­ment was required, these indi­vid­u­als would not be diag­nosed.

Mod­er­ate is sim­ply defined as symp­toms or func­tion­al impair­ment between ‘mild’ and ‘severe’. Peo­ple in this cat­e­go­ry may not nec­es­sar­i­ly show clin­i­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant impair­ment and thus also would not have been diag­nosed under DSM-IV.

Severe is reserved for cas­es with many symp­toms in excess of those required for the diag­no­sis, or sev­er­al symp­toms that are espe­cial­ly severe, or marked impair­ment result­ing from symp­toms.

New cat­e­gories for indi­vid­u­als not meet­ing full cri­te­ria

DSM-IV had a cat­e­go­ry called ADHD Not Oth­er­wise Spec­i­fied (NOS) for indi­vid­u­als who dis­played promi­nent symp­toms but who did not meet required cri­te­ria.

In DSM-V, this has been changed to Oth­er Spec­i­fied ADHD and Unspec­i­fied ADHD. The for­mer is used when full cri­te­ria are not met, symp­toms that are present cre­ate clin­i­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant dis­tress or impair­ment in func­tion­ing, and the clin­i­cian choos­es to con­vey why full cri­te­ria are not met. For exam­ple “Oth­er spec­i­fied ADHD with insuf­fi­cient inat­ten­tion symp­toms”. Unspec­i­fied ADHD should be used in the same cir­cum­stance except that the clin­i­cian choos­es not to spec­i­fy the rea­son that full cri­te­ria are not met and mak­ing a more spe­cif­ic diag­no­sis is not pos­si­ble.

What I find a bit per­plex­ing is that these 2 diag­noses require clin­i­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant dis­tress or impair­ment from the ADHD symp­toms that are present while the full pre­sen­ta­tions do not. Thus, indi­vid­u­als giv­en either of these diag­noses could actu­al­ly be more impaired from their ADHD symp­toms than those meet­ing full cri­te­ria. Per­haps this is because the Task Force respon­si­ble for the new ADHD cri­te­ria want­ed to make sure there was severe impair­ment to assign any type of ADHD diag­no­sis in cas­es where the full com­ple­ment of nec­es­sary symp­toms was not evi­dent.

Oth­er note­wor­thy aspects of new diag­nos­tic guide­lines

DSM-V spec­i­fies the diag­nos­tic cri­te­ria for ADHD but pro­vides no spec­i­fi­ca­tion for how clin­i­cians should acquire the infor­ma­tion need­ed to deter­mine if these cri­te­ria are met. This was true for DSM-IV and applies to all dis­or­ders in the DSM. There also con­tin­ues to be no rec­om­men­da­tion for any spe­cif­ic diag­nos­tic test that should be used rou­tine­ly.

Thus, as before, ADHD remains a clin­i­cal judg­ment that clin­i­cians make based on the infor­ma­tion they obtain using the meth­ods they choose to obtain it. Sug­gest­ed eval­u­a­tion guide­lines from the Amer­i­can Acad­e­my of Pedi­atrics can be found here.

Sum­ma­ry and Impli­ca­tions

As dis­cussed above, there have been a num­ber of sub­tle but impor­tant changes to the diag­nos­tic cri­te­ria for ADHD. In my view, a note­wor­thy pos­i­tive change is the effort to make the cri­te­ria more sen­si­tive to the man­i­fes­ta­tion of ADHD in ado­les­cents and adults, both by includ­ing adult exem­plars for most symp­toms and slight­ly reduc­ing the num­ber of symp­toms required for the diag­no­sis among old­er indi­vid­u­als.

Giv­en the absence of research data doc­u­ment­ing sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ences in func­tion­ing, response to treat­ment, or out­comes in indi­vid­u­als whose symp­toms were present at younger vs. old­er ages, increas­ing the age of onset for symp­toms from 7 to 12 seems rea­son­able. At a min­i­mum, there is noth­ing in the exist­ing research lit­er­a­ture that con­tra­dicts this change.

What is per­plex­ing is the deci­sion to replace the require­ment that symp­toms be asso­ci­at­ed with clin­i­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant impair­ment in social, academic,or occu­pa­tion­al func­tion­ing to what appears to be a clear­ly low­er thresh­old. As you are prob­a­bly aware, there are many who believe that ADHD is sim­ply a med­ical term inap­pro­pri­ate­ly attached to chil­dren who show large­ly ‘typ­i­cal’ behav­ior. With DSM-IV, one could argue against this by not­ing that the diag­no­sis was not made unless symp­toms sig­nif­i­cant­ly impaired the child’s func­tion­ing in impor­tant domains. Thus, the con­di­tion was reserved for indi­vid­u­als who strug­gled sub­stan­tial­ly because of their symp­toms, which jus­ti­fies regard­ing the symp­toms as man­i­fes­ta­tion of a dis­or­der and not typ­i­cal behav­ior.

Now, how­ev­er, that is not real­ly the case as the need for ‘clin­i­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant impair­ment’ has been changed to evi­dence that symp­toms inter­fere with or reduce the qual­i­ty of per­for­mance in impor­tant life domains. To me, that sounds like a much less strin­gent require­ment. For exam­ple, indi­vid­u­als who will be diag­nosed with the ‘mild’ spec­i­fi­er, and even some with the ‘mod­er­ate’ spec­i­fi­er under DSM-V guide­lines would not have met diag­nos­tic cri­te­ria — as I under­stand them — under DSM-IV. An increase in diag­noses may also result in more indi­vid­u­als being treat­ed with med­ica­tion when this is not real­ly nec­es­sary. On the oth­er hand, this may also result in indi­vid­u­als obtain­ing ser­vices they could ben­e­fit from when this would not pre­vi­ous­ly have been the case, e.g., accom­mo­da­tions at school.

What remains unknown, how­ev­er, is how clin­i­cians will inter­pret these new guide­lines and how much prac­ti­tion­ers actu­al­ly relax the impair­ment require­ment in their own eval­u­a­tions. If clin­i­cians make a care­ful effort to fol­low the new guide­lines, how­ev­er, as the devel­op­ers of the DSM-V would cer­tain­ly want, it is dif­fi­cult to imag­ine how the rate of ADHD diag­noses will not increase.

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.

Pre­vi­ous arti­cles by Dr. Rabin­er:

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

One Response

  1. Madelyn Griffith-Haynie, MCC, SCAC says:

    Decid­ed­ly *NOT* a fan of DSM-5, I am prob­a­bly one of the BIGGEST fans of David Rabin­er and his always excel­lent dis­cours­es on [what I will always insist on call­ing] ADD, “boy­cotting” the “H.”

    I pine for the return of the DSM-III (not R) approach to this dis­or­der, since that is the clos­est descrip­tion of the Exec­u­tive Func­tion­ing dys­reg­u­la­tions that I expe­ri­ence per­son­al­ly and have seen in MANY oth­ers in my 20+ years in the field (clos­er to Thom Brown’s mod­el).

    If we could refo­cus the stud­ies on ADD’s ATTENTIONAL dys­reg­u­la­tons and EF ele­ments, include the dif­fer­ences in ADD seen in women and girls, then see that reflect­ed in a DSM-6 — and didn’t have to wait anoth­er 20 years for a whole­sale replace­ment — I’d die a hap­py woman.

    More to the point, a great many non-H ADDers, cur­rent­ly left to limp along under-func­tion­ing and undi­ag­nosed, would have sig­nif­i­cant­ly more suc­cess­ful lives before THEIR deaths.

    The arti­cle here, how­ev­er, is anoth­er well-con­sid­ered, charge-neu­tral report­ing among a sea of those more inflam­ma­to­ry, that deserves wide dis­tri­b­u­tion. I shall be link­ing to it on blog arti­cles on

    Made­lyn Grif­fith-Haynie, CMC, SCAC, MCC
    — ADD Coach Train­ing Field founder; ADD Coach­ing co-founder -
    (blogs: ADDand­So­Much­More, ADDer­World & ethoscon­sul­tan­cynz — dot com)
    “It takes a vil­lage to edu­cate a world!”

Leave a Reply

Categories: Attention and ADD/ADHD, Cognitive Neuroscience, Health & Wellness

Tags: , , , ,

All Slidedecks & Recordings Available — click image below

Search for anything brain-related in our article archives

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters, and more, SharpBrains is an independent market research firm and think tank tracking health and performance applications of brain science.