Gender differences in ADHD: A meta-analysis and critical review
Gender differences in ADHD: A meta-analysis and critical review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00004583-199708000-00011
复制
发表时间：
1997-08-01
影响因子：
13.3
通讯作者：
Carlson, CL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gaub, M;Carlson, CL
目的：定量回顾和批判性评估研究注意力缺陷多动障碍（ADHD）性别差异的文献。方法：对符合纳入标准的18项研究进行相关研究的荟萃分析。评估的领域包括主要症状、智力和学术功能、共病行为问题、社会行为和家庭变量。结果：在冲动、学习成绩、社会功能、精细运动技能、父母教育或父母抑郁方面没有发现性别差异。然而，与多动症男孩相比，多动症女孩表现出更大的智力障碍、更低的多动程度以及其他外化行为的发生率；无法评估转介偏差对这些发现的影响程度。一些性别差异显然是由推荐来源的影响所调节的；在非转诊人群中发现的 ADHD 儿童中，与 ADHD 男孩相比，ADHD 女孩表现出较低的注意力不集中、内化行为和同伴攻击性水平，而从临床转介样本中发现的 ADHD 女孩和男孩在这些变量上表现出相似的损害程度。结论：强烈表明未来研究需要检查 ADHD 的性别差异，并注意当前文献的方法学局限性，包括转诊偏倚、合并症、发育模式、诊断程序和评估者来源的潜在混杂影响。
Objective: To quantitatively review and critically evaluate literature examining gender differences in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Method: A meta-analysis of relevant research based on 18 studies meeting inclusion criteria was performed. Domains evaluated included primary symptomatology, intellectual and academic functioning, comorbid behavior problems, social behavior, and family variables. Results: Gender differences were not found in impulsivity, academic performance, social functioning, fine motor skills, parental education, or parental depression. However, compared with ADHD boys, ADHD girls displayed greater intellectual impairment, lower levels of hyperactivity, and tower rates of other externalizing behaviors; it was not possible to evaluate the extent to which referral bias affected these findings. Some gender differences were clearly mediated by the effects of referral source; among children with ADHD identified from nonreferred populations, girls with ADHD displayed lower levels of inattention, internalizing behavior, and peer aggression than boys with ADHD, while girls and boys with ADHD identified from clinic-referred samples displayed similar levels of impairment on these variables. Conclusions: The need for future research examining gender differences in ADHD is strongly indicated, with attention to methodological limitations of the current literature, including the potential confounding effects of referral bias, comorbidity, developmental patterns, diagnostic procedures, and rater source.