The University of California, Irvine ADD Center recently conducted a synthesis of the literature on the use ofstimulants with children with attention deficit disorder (ADD), using a unique "review ofreviews" methodology. In this article, we compare three reviews from each of three review types (traditional, meta-analytic, general audience) and illustrate how coding variables can highlight sources of divergence. In general, divergent conclusions stemmed from variations in goal rather thanfrom variations in the sources selected to review. Across quantitative reviews, the average effect size for symptomatic improvement (.83) was twice that for benefits on IQ and achievement measures (.35). A summary ofwhat should and should not be expected ofthe use ofstimulants with ADD children, derived from the literature synthesis, is provided. 157ABOUT THE AUTHORS

No abstract

No abstract