Conners 4™

Conners 4:
This form is the most comprehensive and is recommended for use in initial evaluations and full re-evaluations.​ This form includes all Conners 4 items and scales. ​

Conners 4–Short:
This form is useful when a rater has limited time, or when the rater will be asked to complete the Conners 4 repeatedly (e.g., monthly assessment of treatment response).​ This form takes less time to complete than the full-length form but is not as comprehensive because it has fewer scales and fewer items per scale (for both Content and Impairment & ​Functional Outcome scales).​

Conners 4–ADHD Index:
This index can be used as a screener to determine which youth are most likely to require a more comprehensive evaluation.​ The Conners 4–ADHD Index contains 12 items from the full-length form that best differentiate youth diagnosed with ADHD from youth in the general population. ​

Single Rater Report:
Provides detailed information about scores from a single administration, presented numerically, graphically, and within an interpretive summary. A youth’s scores are compared to those in one or more Normative Samples, and optionally, to an ADHD Reference Sample. Also includes a Within-Profile Comparison of the youth’s results to their own average score. Elevations at both the scale and item level are included. Key results are provided in a one-page overview.

Reliability:

The Conners 4 Parent, Teacher, and Self-Report scale have excellent internal consistency (median omega coefficient = .94), strong test-retest reliability (median r = .89), and moderate to strong inter-rater reliability (median r = .84 for two parent raters; median r = .52 for two teacher raters).

Validity:

• Results from confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) provided evidence to support the structure of the Conners 4 scales (6-factor model for the Content Scales [CFI ≥ .940, RMSEA ≤ .051]) and 3-factor model for Parent and Self-Report and 2-factor model for Teacher for the Impairment & Functional Outcome Scales [CFI ≥ .935; RMSEA ≤ .094]).
• Evidence to support the convergent validity of the Conners 4 was found, given the moderate to very strong correlations between the Conners 4 and established assessments measuring related constructs (median |r| across four convergent validity studies = .73.
• The Conners 4 also demonstrated a high degree of criterion-related validity, as various clinical groups had distinctly different profiles of scores. Ratings of youth with ADHD yielded higher scores than ratings of both youth from the General Population (median Cohen’s d for significant differences: Parent = 1.51, Teacher = 0.87, Self-Report = 0.77) and youth with Depression or Anxiety (median Cohen’s d for significant differences: Parent = 0.88, Teacher = 0.49, Self-Report = 0.57). Furthermore, endorsement of Self-Harm Critical Items and the Sleep Problems Indicator Items from ADHD groups was higher than the General Population groups. Additionally, unique symptom profiles of Conners 4 scores were observed for ADHD Inattentive, ADHD Hyperactive/Impulsive, and ADHD Combined presentation groups (e.g., scores on scales related to hyperactivity and impulsivity tended to be higher in the ADHD Hyperactive/Impulsive and ADHD Combined groups than the ADHD Inattentive group).

Fairness:

There is strong evidence that the Conners 4 meets or exceeds the fairness requirements outlined in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014). When investigating differences by gender, race/ethnicity, country of residence, and parental education levels, there was (a) no evidence of meaningful measurement invariance in the factor models, (b) no evidence of meaningful differential test functioning between groups, and (c) negligible to small differences in average test scores between groups (median |d| = .07).

Updated normative data was derived from a large sample designed to be representative of the North American population (based on the U.S. and Canadian census figures), stratified based on age, gender, race/ethnicity, parental education level, and geographic region. A total of 3,120 youth were included in the Normative Samples (N = 1,560 for Parent; N = 1,560 for Teacher; and N = 1,100 for Self-Report). Combined gender norms are provided for youth in 1-year age intervals; separate norms for males and females are also available. ADHD Reference Samples are also available (N = 560 for Parent, N = 321 for Teacher, and N = 229 for Self-Report).