Vanderbilt Assessment Scales (VAS)

1. Abstract

The Vanderbilt Assessment Scales (VAS), alternatively recognized as the NICHQ Vanderbilt Assessment Scales, represent one of the most widely implemented, psychometrically validated behavioral rating instruments utilized in contemporary pediatric, neuropsychiatric, and educational contexts. Developed collaboratively in 2002 by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality (NICHQ), the VAS was engineered to operationalize the diagnostic criteria for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) as delineated in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV and DSM-5). The parent-report version comprises 55 categorical items, whereas the corresponding teacher-report variant contains 43 items, both integrating a dual-axis structural architecture: a 4-point Likert scale evaluating core and co-occurring behavioral symptoms (scored 0 to 3) and a 5-point performance scale evaluating academic achievement and classroom or familial behavioral functioning (scored 1 to 5).

The primary constructs assessed encompass the two cardinal dimensions of ADHD—predominantly inattentive presentation (9 items) and predominantly hyperactive/impulsive presentation (9 items)—alongside critical comorbid behavioral and internalizing dimensions, including Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Conduct Disorder (CD), and internalizing anxiety and depressive manifestations. Psychometrically, the instrument exhibits exceptional internal consistency, yielding Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding .90 for parent evaluations and .89 for teacher evaluations across diverse populations. Test-retest reliability estimates demonstrate strong temporal stability (r > .80), whereas cross-informant inter-rater reliability reflects characteristic moderate-to-low convergence (r = .27 to .34), underscoring situational specificity across home and academic environments. Factor analyses consistently support a distinct multi-factor structure aligned with DSM diagnostic taxonomy. The parent scale displays strong diagnostic sensitivity (80%) and specificity (75%), and when combined with teacher reports, produces an outstanding negative predictive value (98%), establishing the VAS as an indispensable screening and treatment-monitoring tool in child mental healthcare.

2. Keywords

Vanderbilt Assessment Scales, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, ADHD, pediatric psychometrics, behavioral rating scale, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Conduct Disorder, internalizing symptoms, parent-teacher rating, diagnostic screening

3. Authors

The Vanderbilt Assessment Scales were conceptualized, standardized, and validated under the leadership of Mark L. Wolraich, M.D., and an esteemed multidisciplinary consortium of behavioral pediatricians, child psychologists, and clinical psychometricians in conjunction with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality (NICHQ).

• Mark L. Wolraich, M.D.: Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, CMRI/F.L. Earle Chief of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Child Study Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. Dr. Wolraich served as the primary investigator guiding the clinical operationalization of DSM criteria into standardized rating instruments for pediatric primary care settings.
• David E. Bard, Ph.D.: Professor of Pediatrics and Biostatistics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. Dr. Bard spearheaded extensive latent variable modeling, psychometric validation, and structural equation investigations of both community and referred samples.
• Collaborating Psychometricians & Clinical Investigators: Notable co-investigators include Barbara Neas, Ph.D., Melissa Doffing, M.A., Leonard Bickman, Ph.D. (Vanderbilt University), E. Michael Foster, Ph.D., and Kristi Worley, B.A., whose collective empirical contributions formalized the factor structure and validation profiles of the scales.
• Institutional Oversight: National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality (NICHQ), 30 Winter Street, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02108, USA; and American Academy of Pediatrics, 345 Park Blvd, Itasca, IL 60143, USA.

4. Purpose

The Vanderbilt Assessment Scales were deliberately engineered to address a persistent, critical challenge in pediatric behavioral medicine: the translation of complex, categorical psychiatric criteria into an accessible, ecologically valid, and psychometrically robust instrument operable within fast-paced primary care and educational environments. Prior to the formal introduction of the VAS in 2002, primary care clinicians faced a fragmented assessment landscape characterized by proprietary, time-consuming rating inventories that placed substantial financial and administrative burdens on school districts and clinical practices. The primary purpose of the VAS is to systematically capture parent and teacher observations regarding the presence, frequency, and functional impairment of ADHD symptoms and the most prevalent childhood psychiatric comorbidities.

In clinical practice, the VAS fulfills multiple functional mandates:

• Diagnostic Screening & Categorical Alignment: The tool directly mirrors the symptom criteria outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, enabling physicians, clinical child psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers to evaluate whether a child meets the requisite symptom count (e.g., six or more inattentive or hyperactive/impulsive behaviors) across multiple naturalistic settings.
• Differential Diagnosis & Comorbidity Screening: Recognizing that ADHD infrequently manifests in isolation, the scale incorporates targeted behavioral screens for Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Conduct Disorder (CD), and internalizing mood dimensions (anxiety and major depression). This structural design prevents premature diagnostic closure and facilitates holistic clinical case conceptualization.
• Quantification of Functional Impairment: Psychiatric symptoms lack clinical significance unless they engender demonstrable impairment in life functioning. The VAS uniquely segregates behavioral frequency from functional impairment by providing dedicated performance subscales that measure scholastic mastery (reading, mathematics, written expression) and interpersonal competence (relationships with parents, siblings, peers, and classroom teachers).
• Treatment Titration & Longitudinal Monitoring: Beyond baseline diagnostic classification, the instrument functions as an objective longitudinal metric. By administering the follow-up editions of the VAS at regular intervals (e.g., 30 days, 6 months, annually), clinicians can evaluate pharmacological responsiveness to psychostimulants or non-stimulant medications, monitor behavioral interventions, track side effect profiles, and calibrate therapeutic interventions accordingly.

In empirical research settings, the VAS serves as a standardized, cost-effective metric of symptom severity, behavioral change, and phenotypic variation across large-scale epidemiological investigations, clinical trials, and implementation science initiatives.

5. Psychological Construct

The Vanderbilt Assessment Scales assess a multifaceted constellation of behavioral, emotional, and functional constructs situated within developmental psychopathology. The conceptual architecture of the instrument segregates these phenomena into specific latent subscales:

1. Inattention Subtype (Items 1–9)

This construct captures regulatory failures within sustained cognitive effort, selective attention, and executive functioning. Manifestations include an inability to maintain focused vigilance during scholastic or recreational tasks, frequent careless errors resulting from poor stimulus discrimination, organizational deficits in managing materials and schedules, forgetfulness in daily routines, and elevated distractibility by extraneous environmental stimuli. Clinically, this construct reflects disruption in the fronto-striatal and dorsolateral prefrontal networks governing top-down executive control.

2. Hyperactivity / Impulsivity Subtype (Items 10–18)

This dimension operationalizes neurodevelopmental deficits in behavioral and motor inhibition. Hyperactivity is expressed through excessive squirming, unauthorized leaving of one’s seat, inappropriate running or climbing, and a persistent subjective state of being “on the go” or driven by an internal motor. Impulsivity encompasses the cognitive and motor inability to defer gratification or withhold prepotent responses, manifesting as conversational intrusiveness, inability to wait one’s turn in structured activities, and blurting out responses prior to query completion. This construct indexes dysregulation within ventral striatal reward pathways and mesolimbic circuitry.

3. Oppositional Defiant Disorder (Items 19–26)

This subscale captures a recurrent pattern of irritable mood, argumentative or defiant behavior, and vindictiveness toward authority figures. Items operationalize behavioral phenomena such as arguing with adults, actively disobeying rules or directives, deliberately annoying peers or caregivers, projecting personal accountability onto others, and displaying persistent anger, touchiness, or spitefulness. Within developmental psychopathology, this construct is conceptualized as an emotion regulation deficit paired with hostile social information processing.

4. Conduct Disorder (Items 27–40)

The conduct disorder subscale captures severe violations of basic human rights, major societal norms, and legal boundaries. The items encompass physical aggression toward people and animals (bullying, starting physical fights, weapon usage, physical cruelty), non-aggressive destruction of property (vandalism, deliberate fire-setting), deceitfulness or theft (breaking into premises, conning others, shoplifting), and serious violations of rules (truancy, staying out at night before age 13, running away overnight). In the parent form, this subscale also flags severe antisocial risk trajectories.

5. Internalizing Symptoms: Anxiety and Depression (Items 41–47)

This affective construct measures internalized emotional distress, characterized by negative cognitive schemas, heightened autonomic vigilance, and mood disturbance. Behavioral indicators include pervasive fearfulness and chronic worry, social and performance anxiety driven by catastrophic expectations of failure, deep-seated feelings of worthlessness, self-directed blame and excessive guilt, perceived interpersonal rejection (feeling unloved or unwanted), pervasive sadness, and acute self-consciousness or embarrassment.

6. Academic and Behavioral Performance (Items 48–55)

This ecological construct evaluates functional adaptation across core life domains. Rather than measuring symptom frequency, it captures the real-world operational impact of the aforementioned psychiatric dimensions across scholastic competencies (reading mastery, mathematical computation, written expression) and social systems (parental attachment, sibling dynamics, peer group integration, and cooperative team participation).

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundation of the Vanderbilt Assessment Scales is situated at the intersection of developmental psychopathology, Russell Barkley’s unified model of behavioral inhibition and executive functioning, and the categorical taxonomy of the American Psychiatric Association.

Barkley’s Dual-Component & Behavioral Inhibition Model

Barkley’s theoretical model posits that the fundamental neurobehavioral impairment in ADHD (specifically the combined and hyperactive/impulsive subtypes) is a core deficit in behavioral inhibition. This primary deficit subsequently disrupts four secondary executive neuropsychological capacities:

• Working Memory: Holding events in mind, manipulating mental representations, and temporal foresight, directly mirrored in the inattentive items of the VAS (e.g., forgetfulness, losing items, failure to complete multi-step tasks).
• Self-Regulation of Affect/Motivation/Arousal: Inhibiting immediate emotional reactions to allow for goal-directed behavior, theoretical grounds for the high degree of emotional lability captured in both the hyperactivity and oppositional subscales.
• Internalization of Speech: The development of internal reflection, rule-governed behavior, and verbal inhibition, represented by items addressing excessive talking, blurting out answers, and interrupting.
• Reconstitution: The behavioral analysis and synthesis that permits flexible, novel problem-solving in complex academic and social environments.

Ecological Systems Theory & Multi-Informant Architecture

The VAS is deeply rooted in Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, which emphasizes that child behavior is inextricably linked to the context in which it occurs. Recognizing that neurodevelopmental symptoms manifest differentially across microsystems—such as the highly structured, cognitively demanding academic classroom versus the comparatively unstructured, emotionally intimate home environment—the VAS was engineered with parallel parent and teacher rating scales. This dual-informant paradigm acknowledges that cross-informant divergence is not merely statistical measurement error; rather, it reflects genuine environmental and context-dependent phenotypic expression.

Dimensional vs. Categorical Diagnostic Paradigms

The VAS operates as an empirical bridge between dimensional psychometrics and categorical nosology. While human behavior varies continuously along dimensional spectrums of attention, motor activity, and emotional regulation, clinical decision-making requires categorical thresholds to establish treatment eligibility. The scale addresses this theoretical dualism by utilizing continuous Likert scales that can simultaneously be transformed via clinical cut-off algorithms into discrete, DSM-aligned symptom criteria.

7. Validity

The Vanderbilt Assessment Scales have undergone extensive psychometric validation across clinical, referred, and epidemiological community samples involving thousands of pediatric subjects across North America, Europe, and Latin America.

Construct & Factorial Validity

Construct validity is substantiated through rigorous structural equation modeling and exploratory factor analysis across diverse demographic cohorts (Wolraich et al., 2002; Bard et al., 2013). Latent factor models demonstrate that items load cleanly onto their theoretical constructs without problematic multi-loading. Confirmatory factor analysis robustly supports a four-factor latent structural model differentiating (1) Inattention, (2) Hyperactivity/Impulsivity, (3) ODD/Conduct problems, and (4) Anxiety/Depression, mirroring the theoretical organization of the DSM-IV and DSM-5.

Convergent Validity

The convergent validity of the VAS has been substantiated through concurrent administration with gold-standard structured clinical diagnostic interviews and established behavioral rating scales:

• Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children-IV (DISC-IV): Investigations by Bard et al. (2013) and Collett et al. (2003) demonstrated moderate-to-high correlations between VAS dimension scores and corresponding DISC-IV parent diagnostic modules, validating that the VAS accurately identifies the psychiatric phenotypes it claims to capture.
• Conners Rating Scales & CBCL: In comparative psychometric studies, the VAS inattention and hyperactivity subscales correlate strongly (r = .70 to .84) with the Conners Rating Scales and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Attention Problems scale.

Diagnostic Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values

Empirical analyses investigating diagnostic utility reveal strong classification indices:

• Parent Scale: Demonstrates a sensitivity of approximately 80% and a specificity of 75% when predicting a formal clinical diagnosis of ADHD in pediatric populations (Bard et al., 2013).
• Teacher Scale: Yields robust criterion-related validity, exhibiting substantial correlation with clinical diagnoses and high sensitivity within the classroom milieu (Austerman, 2015).
• Combined Informant Paradigm: When parent and teacher rating scales are integrated in clinical decision models, the Negative Predictive Value (NPV) surges to an extraordinary 98%, while the Positive Predictive Value (PPV) drops to approximately 19% in unselected community cohorts (Bard et al., 2013). This psychometric property illustrates that the combined VAS operates with supreme efficacy as an exclusionary screening instrument: if a child does not meet clinical thresholds across both parent and teacher Vanderbilt forms, the likelihood that the child meets full diagnostic criteria for ADHD is exceptionally low.

Discriminant Validity

The internalizing subscale demonstrates moderate discriminant differentiation from externalizing problems. However, psychometric literature notes that discriminant validity between Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Conduct Disorder (CD) is somewhat attenuated, primarily because ODD symptoms often serve as developmental precursors or severe manifestations of shared disruptive behavioral liability. Further, distinguishing primary inattention from secondary cognitive slowing secondary to severe childhood depression requires comprehensive clinical interviewing beyond raw checklist screening.

8. Reliability

The reliability profile of the Vanderbilt Assessment Scales has been evaluated across multiple standard psychometric parameters, confirming excellent internal consistency, temporal stability, and characteristic cross-informant variance.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

The internal consistency of the VAS subscales meets and exceeds the stringent standards required for clinical screening instruments (Nunnally & Bernstein criteria > .80):

• Parent Rating Scale: Overall scale internal consistency demonstrates a Cronbach’s alpha of α > .90. Subscale alphas consistently range between .86 and .93 for the Inattentive and Hyperactive/Impulsive dimensions (Wolraich et al., 2003; Bard et al., 2013). The ODD subscale yields α values typically between .84 and .88, while the Anxiety/Depression subscale exhibits α coefficients between .79 and .85.
• Teacher Rating Scale: Teacher ratings consistently demonstrate exceptional homogeneity, generating a total Cronbach’s alpha of α > .89, with inattention and hyperactivity dimensions frequently exceeding α = .92 (Wolraich et al., 2013). The Academic Performance section displays high internal reliability (α > .88).

Test-Retest Reliability (Temporal Stability)

Temporal stability assessments conducted over intervals spanning 2 to 4 weeks indicate that the VAS maintains robust stability in the absence of therapeutic interventions. Test-retest reliability coefficients for parent and teacher ratings across the cardinal ADHD dimensions are consistently reported at r > .80 (Bard et al., 2013; Wolraich et al., 2003), confirming that symptom reporting remains dependable over time and is not primarily driven by transient day-to-day contextual stressors.

Inter-Rater Reliability (Cross-Informant Concordance)

In accordance with global meta-analytic findings concerning childhood behavioral assessment (e.g., Achenbach et al.), cross-informant concordance between parents and teachers on the VAS is modest to low, with Pearson correlation coefficients spanning r = .27 to .34 (Wolraich et al., 2002; Wolraich et al., 2013). Rather than indicating psychometric deficiency, this empirical divergence captures situational variability. A child may experience severe attentional collapse within the rigid, sedentary demands of a classroom while maintaining adequate behavioral control in a one-on-one domestic setting, or vice versa. Thus, the low correlation reinforces the clinical necessity of gathering data across both micro-environments.

9. Factor Analysis

Extensive latent variable modeling, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have been executed across both referred clinical populations and large-scale community-based epidemiological cohorts to elucidate the latent structure of the Vanderbilt Assessment Scales.

Exploratory Factor Structure

Initial exploratory factor analytic investigations conducted by Wolraich et al. (2003) utilizing principal axis factoring and oblique (Promax) rotations cleanly isolated four primary latent dimensions accounting for over 60% of the total behavioral variance. The extracted dimensions demonstrated robust factor loadings (typically > .55) on their primary targets, with negligible cross-loadings:

• Factor 1: Inattention: High loadings from items 1 through 9 (loadings ranging from .58 to .82).
• Factor 2: Hyperactivity / Impulsivity: High loadings from items 10 through 18 (loadings ranging from .61 to .85).
• Factor 3: Disruptive Behavior (ODD / CD): High loadings from items 19 through 26, extending into the mild physical aggression items of conduct disorder (loadings .52 to .79).
• Factor 4: Internalizing Symptoms: High loadings from items 41 through 47 (loadings .49 to .76).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit Indices

Subsequent structural modeling conducted on community populations by Bard et al. (2013) and Wolraich et al. (2013) evaluated competing theoretical models, including unidimensional models, two-factor models (ADHD vs. Comorbid), and multi-factor structures. The empirically preferred architecture proved to be an oblique multi-factor structure, which exhibited superior fit indices across both parent and teacher instruments:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values consistently exceeded .93 to .96, denoting an excellent fit to observed data.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Estimates ranged between .92 and .95.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Maintained desirable thresholds between .042 and .058, with 90% confidence intervals remaining below the standard .06 ceiling for adequate model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Demonstrated values < .05 across cohorts.

Measurement Invariance

Rigorous multi-group CFA testing has evaluated measurement invariance across gender, racial/ethnic demographics, and socioeconomic strata. Studies confirm metric and scalar invariance across boys and girls, indicating that while boys consistently manifest higher baseline latent mean scores for hyperactivity, the underlying factor structure and item-latent construct relationships remain invariant. Similarly, studies evaluating African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian cohorts confirm that the VAS measures the identical constructs across these cultural and linguistic groups with minimal item bias (Wolraich et al., 2002; Bard et al., 2013).

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Vanderbilt Assessment Scales (VAS) / NICHQ Vanderbilt Assessment Scales
• Test Type: Multi-informant pediatric behavioral rating scale and functional impairment screening tool
• Respondent Informants: Parents/Caregivers (Parent Informant Form) and Teachers/School Personnel (Teacher Informant Form)
• Target Population: School-aged children and adolescents (typically ages 6 through 12, frequently extended up to age 18)
• Total Item Count:
  • Parent Form: 55 items total (47 symptom items + 8 functional performance items)
  • Teacher Form: 43 items total (35 symptom items + 8 functional performance items)
• Authentic Response Formats:
  • Symptom items (Items 1–47): 4-point Likert scale: 0 = Never, 1 = Occasionally, 2 = Often, 3 = Very Often
  • Performance items (Items 48–55): 5-point scale: 1 = Excellent, 2 = Above Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Somewhat of a Problem, 5 = Problematic
• Subscale Breakdown & Diagnostic Symptom Scoring Rules:
  • Symptom Presence Threshold: On symptom items 1 through 47, only behaviors rated 2 (“Often”) or 3 (“Very Often”) are classified as meeting clinical criteria for symptom presence.
  • ADHD Predominantly Inattentive Subtype: Items 1 to 9. Requires a minimum of 6 positive symptoms (scored 2 or 3) AND at least one functional performance score of 4 or 5.
  • ADHD Predominantly Hyperactive/Impulsive Subtype: Items 10 to 18. Requires a minimum of 6 positive symptoms (scored 2 or 3) AND at least one functional performance score of 4 or 5.
  • ADHD Combined Subtype: Requires meeting clinical criteria (6 or more positive symptoms) on both the Inattentive AND Hyperactive/Impulsive subscales, alongside functional impairment.
  • Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD): Items 19 to 26. Requires a minimum of 4 positive symptoms (scored 2 or 3) AND functional impairment.
  • Conduct Disorder (CD): Items 27 to 40. Requires a minimum of 3 positive symptoms (scored 2 or 3) AND functional impairment.
  • Anxiety / Depression: Items 41 to 47. Requires a minimum of 3 positive symptoms (scored 2 or 3) AND functional impairment.
  • Academic and Behavioral Performance Impairment: Items 48 to 55. A rating of 4 (“Somewhat of a Problem”) or 5 (“Problematic”) indicates clinically significant impairment. At least one performance item must score 4 or 5 to satisfy the diagnostic criteria for functional impairment.
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes for parent or teacher completion; 3 to 5 minutes for clinician scoring.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Initial Release: 2002 (with subsequent toolkit iterations and DSM-5 operational updates distributed through 2017).
• Copyright Holders & Sponsoring Bodies: Developed jointly by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality (NICHQ).
• Licensing, Permissions, and Fees: The NICHQ Vanderbilt Assessment Scales are intentionally maintained in the public domain for non-profit clinical and research use. They are distributed royalty-free as open-access resources to eliminate financial barriers to pediatric mental health screening. Primary care physicians, mental health clinicians, school psychologists, and academic researchers may freely download, reproduce, photocopy, and integrate the instruments into clinical record workflows or electronic health record (EHR) systems without purchasing proprietary testing kits or paying licensing fees.
• Distribution Portal: Available through the official NICHQ ADHD Learning Collaborative resource platform: https://www.nichq.org/resource/nichq-vanderbilt-assessment-scales.

12. References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

Austerman, J. (2015). ADHD and behavioral disorders: Assessment, management, and an update from DSM-5. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 82(11 Suppl 1), S2–S7. https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.82.s1.01

Bard, D. E., Wolraich, M. L., Neas, B., Doffing, M., & Beck, L. (2013). The psychometric properties of the Vanderbilt attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnostic parent rating scale in a community population. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 34(2), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e31827a3a0e

Becker, S. P., Langberg, J. M., Vaughn, A. J., & Epstein, J. N. (2012). Clinical utility of the Vanderbilt ADHD diagnostic parent rating scale comorbidity screening scales. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 33(3), 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e3182475510

Collett, B. R., Ohan, J. L., & Myers, K. M. (2003). Ten-year review of rating scales. V: Scales assessing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(9), 1015–1037. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CHI.0000070246.40229.8B

Fields, S. A., & Hale, L. R. (2011). Psychoeducational groups for youth attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A family medicine pilot project. Mental Health in Family Medicine, 8(3), 157–165. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3314283/

Kratochvil, C. J., Vaughan, B. S., Barker, A. M., Corr, L., Wheeler, A., & Madaan, V. (2009). Review of pediatric attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder for the general psychiatrist. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 32(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2008.10.001

Langberg, J. M., Vaughn, A. J., Brinkman, W. B., Froehlich, T., & Epstein, J. N. (2010). Clinical utility of the Vanderbilt ADHD rating scale for identifying children with ADHD in community pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 126(6), e1452–e1460. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-0935

Molina Healthcare. (2017). Behavioral health provider toolkit. Molina Healthcare Provider Resources. http://www.molinahealthcare.com/providers/common/PDF/Behavioral-Health-Toolkit-for-Specialists.pdf

National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality. (2017). NICHQ Vanderbilt assessment scales. NICHQ Resource Platform. https://www.nichq.org/resource/nichq-vanderbilt-assessment-scales

Wolraich, M. L., Bard, D. E., Neas, B., Doffing, M., & Beck, L. (2013). The psychometric properties of the Vanderbilt attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnostic teacher rating scale in a community population. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 34(2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e31827d55c3

Wolraich, M. L., Feurer, I. D., Hannah, J. N., Baumgaertel, A., & Pinnock, T. Y. (1998). Child behavior checklist and teacher report form comparisons of ADHD subtypes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022649603099

Wolraich, M. L., Lambert, W., Doffing, M. A., Bickman, L., Simmons, T., & Worley, K. (2003). Psychometric properties of the Vanderbilt ADHD diagnostic parent rating scale in a referred population. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28(8), 559–568. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsg046

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)