The Chinese Version of the Compensatory ADHD Behaviors Scale (CABS): A Study on Reliability, Validity, and Clinical Utility.

aimei Li,^1,2 Mengjie Zhao,^1,2 Min Dong,^1,2 Feifei Si,^1,2 Lu Liu,^1,2 Yufeng Wang,^1,2 Qiujin Qian^1,21Peking University Sixth Hospital/ Institute of Mental Health, Beijing, 100191, People's Republic of China; ²NHC Key Laboratory of Mental Health (Peking University), National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders (Peking University Sixth Hospital), Beijing, 100191, People's Republic of China Correspondence: Qiujin Qian, Peking University Sixth Hospital/ Institute of Mental Health, No. 51 Hua Yuan Bei Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, People's Republic of China, Email [email protected] Purpose: With the further development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) research, more and more assessment tools related to ADHD have been used. However, there is still no measurement instrument to evaluate the compensatory behavior of ADHD in China. This study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of the Compensatory ADHD Behaviors Scale (CABS) adapted in Chinese and explore ecological characteristics in adults with ADHD using the CABS. Patients and Methods: Data were collected from a sample of 306 adults (M_age = 26.43 years, SD = 5.32; 46.08% male). The original version CABS was translated into Chinese using the forward and backward translation procedures. Participants completed the CABS and questionnaires assessing ADHD symptoms and executive function. We utilized content validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and criterion validity to test the validity. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were employed to test the reliability. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to compare ADHD subgroups based on gender, ADHD subtype, comorbidities, and medication status, while controlling for demographic variables as covariates. Results: CABS exhibited good construct validity (two factors: present-oriented and future-oriented), content validity (content validity index: 0.98), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.85 to 0.87) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.59 to 0.88). The results of CFA showed acceptable fitness for each subscale. CABS demonstrated significant associations with inattention symptoms and plan/organizational abilities. Medicated ADHD individuals scored higher on future-oriented effectiveness subscale of CABS than non-medicated (F = 6.106, p = 0.014). Conclusion: The results indicate that the Chinese CABS exhibited good validity and reliability. It can be considered a valid tool for assessing compensatory behaviors in Chinese adults with ADHD. Further research is needed to explore the connection between medication and compensatory behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]