A Three‐year Follow‐up of Hyperactive Preschoolers Into Elementary School

Abstract

HYPERACTIVITY in childhood has received a good deal of research and clinical attention in recent years (see Campbell, 1976;Sroufe, 1975;Wender, 1971). Research has focused on the comparison of school-age hyperactive and normal samples using cognitive, attentional, and psychophysiological measures and on the effects of stimulant medication on hyperactive symptomatology (Campbell, Douglas and Morgenstern, 1971;Cohen, Douglas and Morgenstern, 1971). However, the early antecedents and course of hyperactivity remain a subject of speculation. What few longitudinal studies exist have followed school-age samples into adolescence (Weiss, Minde, Werry, Douglas and Nemeth, 1971), while information about hyperactivity in infancy and early childhood is scant. Descriptions have been based largely on clinical impression (Wender, 1971) or on extrapolation from studies using either normal samples (Halverson and Waldrop, 1976) or somewhat differently defined clinical samples (Thomas, Chess and Birch, 1968).A recent study (Schleifer, Weiss, Cohen, Elman, Cvejic and Kruger, 1975) attempted to fill this gap by recruiting a sample of preschool hyperactive children from pediatricians in private practice and studying them in a research nursery. Behavioural observations of hyperactive and normal control subjects indicated that hyperactives got out of their seats and left the table more frequently during structured, teacher-directed activities than controls. They were also more aggressive toward peers. However, "blind" ratings by the nursery school teachers indicated that only one-third of the hyperactive sample was perceived as more than moderately active. Based on these teacher ratings, Schleifer et al. (1975) dubbed the moderately active children as "situational" hyperactives since their high activity was apparently situation-specific, that is observed only at home. The very active children were seen as "true" hyperactives since their high activity was crosssituational. "True" hyperactives differed from both "situationals" and controls on observational and cognitive style measures. They tended to be more aggressive and to leave the table more often than "situational" hyperactives and controls. Furthermore, they seemed more typical of the children who usually appear at a clinic when they reach school age because teachers complain of their inattentive and disruptive behaviour in the classroom.In our work at the Montreal Children's Hospital, our definition of hyperactivity has included behavioural problems both at home and school. However, because many of the preschool subjects were not yet in any formal school setting, this •Requests for reprints to Dr. S. B. Campbell, who is now at The

Hyperactivity: Nature of the syndrome and its natural history

“…The clinic children were designated as "hyperactive" or not exclusively on the basis of the Hyperactivity scale scores. In fact, although that scale is usually taken heavily into account, most researchers also rely upon extreme scores on the Inattention factor (as well as other, external criteria) to determine the presence of hyperactivity (see Campbell et al, 1977). This is, of course, in keeping with the more recent view of hyperactivity as a disorder of attention rather than one of physical overactivity.…”

“…Finally, a number of studies (Borland & Heckman, 1976;Campbell, et al, 1977;Hechtman, Weiss, Finklestein, Werner, & Benn, 1976;Minde, Lewin, Weiss, Lavigueur, Douglas, & Sykes, 1971;Minde et al, 1972;Riddle & Rapoport, 1976;Weiss et al, 1971;Weiss, Hechtman, & Perlman, 1978) have compared adolescents and young adults, who were initially identified for hyperactivity, with matched controls. As compared with the controls, the index groups were perceived as engaging in more irrelevant classroom behavior, having difficulty concentrating, and being more restless.…”

“…The reason for their popularity was their particular sensitivity to drug treatment in these children. One notable aspect of these scales (especially the teacher scale) was that the Inattention factor was often as sensitive as the so-called Hyperactivity factor in discriminating hyperactive children (Campbell, Endman, & Bernfeld, 1977;Werry & Aman, in press) and for evaluating drug treatment (Werry, Aman, & Lampen, 1975).…”

The discriminant validity of the stroop color and word test: Toward a cost-effective strategy to distinguish subgroups of disruptive preadolescents

“…To advance knowledge on the screening potential of the SCWT, Barkley et al (1992) proposed to focus on the types of errors made by children. Several studies support the evidence that children with attention deficit commit more errors when they have a shorter response latency (Campbell, Douglas, & Morgenstern, 1971; Campbell, Endman, & Bernfield, 1977). Following these propositions, the present study compared the SCWT performance of disruptive boys with significant (one standard deviation above the mean) attention problems (AD) to disruptive boys without attention problems (DIS) and noninattentive and nondisruptive controls (CO) using the SCWT.…”

The Effect of a Multi-Component Consultation Intervention on the Pragmatic Language Skills of Students with Symptoms of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

“…Parents of hyperactive children tend to be more intrusive, less responsive, and less positive when interacting with their children (Whalen & Henker, 1985). In classroom settings, overall rates of negative teacher-child interactions involving typical children were higher in classrooms containing a hyperactive child (Campbell, Endman, & Bernfeld, 1977). Teachers in classrooms containing a hyperactive child were also reported to be more intense and controlling, suggesting that the presence of a child with ADHD has a negative effect on the classroom environment as a whole (Whalen & Henker, 1985).…”