Multimodal treatment of ADHD in the MTA: an alternative outcome analysis.

OBJECTIVE To conduct a post hoc investigation of the utility of a single composite measure of treatment outcome for the NIMH Collaborative Multisite Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (MTA) at 14 months postbaseline. BACKGROUND Examination of multiple measures one at a time in the main MTA intent-to-treat outcome analyses failed to detect a statistically significant advantage of combined treatment (Comb) over medication management (MedMgt). A measure that increases power and precision using a single outcome score may be a useful alternative to multiple outcome measures. METHOD Factor analysis of baseline scores yielded two "source factors" (parent and teacher) and one "instrument factor" (parent-child interactions). A composite score was created from the average of standardized parent and teacher measures. RESULTS The composite was internally consistent (alpha = .83), reliable (test-retest over 3 months = 0.86), and correlated 0.61 with clinician global judgments. In an intent-to-treat analysis, Comb was statistically significantly better than all other treatments, with effect sizes ranging from small (0.28) versus MedMgt, to moderately large (0.70) versus a community comparison group. CONCLUSIONS A composite of ADHD variables may be an important tool in future treatment trials with ADHD and may avoid some of the statistical limitations of multiple measures.

[1]  Elizabeth B. Owens,et al.  Clinical relevance of the primary findings of the MTA: success rates based on severity of ADHD and ODD symptoms at the end of treatment. , 2001, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

[2]  J. Swanson,et al.  Psychosocial Treatment Strategies in the MTA Study: Rationale, Methods, and Critical Issues in Design and Implementation , 2000, Journal of abnormal child psychology.

[3]  Stephen P. Hinshaw,et al.  A 14-month randomized clinical trial of treatment strategies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The MTA Cooperative Group. Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD. , 1999, Archives of general psychiatry.

[4]  A. Zweben,et al.  Development of a composite measure for assessing alcohol treatment outcome: operationalization and validation. , 1999, Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research.

[5]  D. Torgerson,et al.  What outcomes should be measured? , 1998, BMJ.

[6]  N. Simonian,et al.  “Summary measure” statistic for assessing the outcome of treatment trials in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis , 1998, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[7]  M. Salzer,et al.  Clinical outcome, consumer satisfaction, and ad hoc ratings of improvement in children's mental health. , 1998, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[8]  J. Swanson,et al.  NIMH collaborative multimodal treatment study of children with ADHD (MTA): Design, methodology, and protocol evolution , 1997 .

[9]  H. Kraemer,et al.  National Institute of Mental Health Collaborative Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD (the MTA). Design challenges and choices. , 1997, Archives of general psychiatry.

[10]  J. Swanson,et al.  Comprehensive assessment of childhood Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in the context of a multisite, multimodal clinical trial , 1997 .

[11]  J. Swanson,et al.  Medication treatment strategies in the MTA Study: relevance to clinicians and researchers. , 1996, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

[12]  D. Brailer,et al.  Comorbidity-adjusted complication risk: a new outcome quality measure. , 1996, Medical care.

[13]  J. Swanson,et al.  NIMH collaborative multisite multimodal treatment study of children with ADHD: I. Background and rationale. , 1995, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

[14]  D. Beidel,et al.  A composite measure to determine improvement following treatment for social phobia: the Index of Social Phobia Improvement. , 1994, Behaviour research and therapy.

[15]  H. Kraemer.  Reporting the size of effects in research studies to facilitate assessment of practical or clinical significance , 1992, Psychoneuroendocrinology.

[16]  W. Weaver,et al.  A method of assigning scores to the components of a composite outcome: an example from the MITI trial. , 1992, Controlled clinical trials.

[17]  S. Waltzman,et al.  Use of principal components analysis to develop a composite score as a primary outcome variable in a clinical trial. The VA Cooperative Study Group on Cochlear Implantation. , 1990, Controlled clinical trials.

[18]  H. Kraemer,et al.  A strategy to use soft data effectively in randomized controlled clinical trials. , 1989, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[19]  C. Meinert.  Clinical Trials: Design, Conduct, and Analysis , 1986 .

[20]  H. Abikoff,et al.  Hyperactive children treated with stimulants. Is cognitive training a useful adjunct? , 1985, Archives of general psychiatry.

[21]  T. Louis,et al.  Clinical trials : issues and approaches , 1984 .

[22]  S. Pocock,et al.  Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach , 1984 .

[23]  D. Cantwell,et al.  Multimodality treatment. A one-year follow-up of 84 hyperactive boys. , 1979, Archives of General Psychiatry.

[24]  L. Lasagna.  Problems in publlcatlon of clinical trial methodology , 1979, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[25]  W. Klopfer,et al.  Congruence between self-concept and public image. , 1971, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[26]  T. Achenbach,et al.  Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. , 1987, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  Robert P. Abelson,et al.  A Variance Explanation Paradox: When a Little is a Lot , 1985 .

[28]  G. Peckham,et al.  Overall prognosis as the primary criterion of outcome in a clinical trial. , 1983, Controlled clinical trials.