Stroop test fit diagnose ADHD?

The effect-size numbers come from Lansbergen and colleagues' review. The main method point na say interference formulas wey people commonly use dey change depending on the result measure and how dem correct am with baseline. Group comparison no turn to diagnostic classifier just because e get statistical significance. Lansbergen et al., 2007

Wetin the review of diagnosis for children find?

Homack and Riccio review check sensitivity and specificity for children and teenagers. E conclude say Stroop test no too useful to separate ADHD from other clinical groups. This matter for diagnosis: one task fit show difference from average for healthy controls without telling which condition explain one person's result. Homack, 2004

The kind of people dem test matter too. Test wey use paper and pencil for pikin, verbal task for adult, and online game wey you press button no get one shared set of norms or one threshold. Clinical review of Stroop show say versions and scoring dey vary plenty. Scarpina et al., 2017

Why the task no dey specific to ADHD

Stroop interference na experiment effect wey dey happen for ordinary readers. The first experiments and later review explain how word and colour information wey conflict dey change how people respond, even without any diagnosis. So, to experience interference no be evidence of disorder by itself. Stroop, 1935 MacLeod, 1991

Why score wey look normal no rule out ADHD

Group averages overlap, and diagnosis question dey look at the person's wider history and how dem dey function, no be only one task result. The child meta-analysis find say the test no dey separate groups well, and the other review show say scoring method dey affect result plenty. Both reasons show say make nobody use one score alone as answer. Result no confirm or rule out ADHD by itself. Homack, 2004 Lansbergen et al., 2007

Reliability add another limit. Strong experiment effects fit still come with individual difference scores wey dey noisy. Research about reliability paradox matter anytime dem use short thinking task to make important claim about one person. Hedge et al., 2017

Online measurement add more uncertainty

Equipment and browser timing dey affect exact response time, while task instructions and baseline dey affect difference score. Consumer game no automatically get the validation of one named clinical test just because both use colour words wey conflict. Anwyl-Irvine et al., 2020 Scarpina et al., 2017

International test-use guidance talk say test need evidence for the meaning people give am and the right setting. For claim to mean something clinically, dem need validate the test for that use and that population, no be just because chart fine or the task name familiar. International Test Commission, 2001

Wetin be sensible way to use the test?

Use am to explore interference and compare speed and accuracy for the same task under similar conditions. If you dey worry about attention for everyday life, no let game score decide whether the concern deserve professional assessment. This page explain limits of measurement; e no give self-diagnosis rule or treatment advice. Homack, 2004 International Test Commission, 2001

No paper wey we cite prove say practising this browser game dey treat ADHD, prevent am, or make people generally smarter. Wetin the evidence support na how person do for one particular task wey get conflict. MacLeod, 1991 Scarpina et al., 2017