Conners Questionnaire numbers/results

[neverputasockinatoaster]

Hi, my ds 6 (7 in October) is being assessed for possible ASD/ ADHD. We have today completed a conners form and OH, being nosy, sneaked a peak at the numbers by devious peering. (I hasten to add that he didn't open the form, just did peeking!)
I was wondering what the numbers might mean......
Hyperactivity 12 which translates to risk of ADHD 74
Cognitive/ attention 17 '''''' 79
Oppositional 10 68

And ADHD Index is 29 which translates to 75.

Does anyone know what this translates to? I know I really need to wait until we see the Paed again in November/October but with OH doing sneakiy peeking I am now curious.
We also had a Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ)...........

Don't know. DD1 had scores high-off the scale in all 4 areas, but her paed has written a letter which includes 'ADHD not supported at this time'. We will see him in October.

The first number is the raw score which means nothing comparatively in itself. It's used to calculate the second score which is, I think, a t-score. An average t-score is 50. 60 is the top of the average range. Scores of 70+ are very high. Your ds's scores give strong indication of hyperactivity, cognitive attention problems and ADHD. His oppositional score, while below 70, is not significantly different from the other scores so likely also to be a problem.

See, this confuses me. I did the quick peek thing on DD1's papers. Her teacher score for 'Oppositional', for example, had a raw score of 5. On the back was the grid for t-scores, and a raw score of 4 gave a t-score of 95, 5 wasn't even on the chart for her age.

Other t-scores were all between 75-80 and 'off the scale' on both the teacher and parent sheets.

I wonder, then, why I have a letter saying that ADHD isn't indicated, when the whole letter focuses on the ADHD traits that the Paed observed during the consultation, and to the untrained eye, her t-scores were vastly elevated across the board?

I am asuming the raw score is a simple 'count the scores in the column' affair, and there is no 'converting' involved?

DD1 was 5.6 on the day the forms were done, btw.

Oh...and attends Special School, has a known brain malformation, and has been seeing the same paed for 3 years.

Seems odd Lougie!
I have filled in many of these as a teacher but never as a parent! We think DS is ASD..... probably aspbergers........ but the form seems to show some ADHD traits. ( I think DS is ASD because of family history and because of the reading and research I did while teaching a child with ASD with no support)
Ah well, will now have to broaden my research to include ADHD....... I know I should wait but if I can help DS now then I will.

It is all very odd

Lougle, were scores given in the report? If not, you could ask for the scores and an explanation of how the decision is reached. Sometimes a specific diagnosis of ADHD won't be given if the attention skills are in line with general development. But then you wouldn't give a conners' either.

Thanks for responding, backpassage. We haven't had a report, it is just a standard clinic letter. I do wonder if her overall presentation is the sticking point. She does function well below her chronological age in areas. But, as you say, that would lead to the question of why a Conners' was given in the first place.

The whole point of doing the Conners' was that the Paed said that if both the home and school papers were significant, he would consider a medication trial. I thought from my untrained eye, that they both would be significant. T-scores were very elevated in all areas (Oppositional, Cognitive, Hyperactivity, ADHD index) on both papers (home and school).

Even if children have more global learning difficulties, some clinicians will have a trial of medication because if it has a good effect, it can boost learning by increasing attention.
It may be worth pursuing. A medication trial is exactly that. If it helps, carry on. If it doesn't, don't. A diagnosis of ADHD is not essential.

Lougle, just wondering if paed saying "adhd not supported at this time" could be interpreted as dd not receiving support for her adhd traits as yet rather than paed not supporting the adhd diagnosis? Is it clear from the context? Otherwise it does seem very strange and frustrating that the reports you and never received are so ambiguous.

No, the letter said 'Conners' forms were given....these were received...Adhd (sic.) not supported at this stage'