There were no differences in the creative ability of the ADHD and NC groups, F (3,88) = 39.04, p < 0.001.
In relation to ADHD symptoms, 12 (40%) of the 30 creative children (9 male, 3 female) were rated by their parents as displaying significant levels of ADHD symptomatology (i.e. T-scores of 65 or above on the DSM-IV inattentive, DSM IV hyperactive-impulsive, and/or DSM IV total subscales). Teacher ratings of their ADHD symptomatology, on the other hand, were not in the significant range. These lower teacher ratings could be due to the unique school environments (small classes, enriched and stimulating environments) many of the creative children were being taught in (Bussing, Gray, Leon, Wilson-Garvan, & Reid, 2002). Overall, there was a large effect-size (by Cohen’s convention) between both parent and teacher ratings of the CA and CNA groups (see Table 1). These 12 children were placed in the CA group and the other 18 placed in the CNA group.
The K-SADS-PL interview determined that 11 of the CA children had mainly inattentive symptoms and one had symptoms of both impulsivity/hyperactivity and inattention. On average, they displayed 3.5 of the 9 inattentive symptoms ( SD = 1.51) and 0.67 of the 9 hyperactive/impulsive ( SD = 1.23) symptoms of ADHD. None of the children met full criteria for a diagnosis of ADHD as they were not meeting the criteria of having six of the nine symptoms of ADHD. Further, even with those symptoms the children displayed, many parents indicated that the symptoms were not impairing them across multiple set-tings. On the Inattentive subscale of the CPRS-R, the CA group had higher scores than the CNA and NC groups, F (3,88) = 116.68, p < 0.001. On the Hyperactive, F (3,88) =
132.11, p < 0.001, and DSM IV-total, F (3,88) = 227.483, p < 0.001, subscales the ADHD
group scored higher than the CA group who in turn scored higher than the CNA and NC
group. For the CTRS-R, the ADHD and CA groups did not differ and scored higher than the CNA and NC groups on the Inattentive subscale, F (3,88) = 12.91, p < 0.001. The ADHD group scored higher than the other three groups on the Hyperactive subscale, F (3,88) = 10.01, p < 0.001, and on the DSM-IV total subscale, F (3,88) = 13.29, p < 0.001, the ADHD group scored higher than the CNA and NC groups.
Covariates
All of the univariate analyses reported in this study were rerun separately controlling for Estimated Full Scale IQ and SES as both of these dependent variables were
t
C
C
C
C
C
C
a
C
NA,N
NA,N
C
rs’ Paren
<CA,CNA
C
>CNA,N
>CNA,N
>CNA,N
>CNA,N
trasts
C
n
A
A
nne
o
NC<CA,CNA
C
C
C
>CNA,N
Co
DHD<CA,
DHD<N
DHD,
DHD,
DHD>CA
DHD>CA
DHD,
DHD>CA,
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
ADHD
l, CPRS-R =
8),8
tro
(3 F
18
43***
36***
79***
14***
83***
.0
017***
8
0
6
1
4
910***
007***
286***
rmal con
1
3.
2.
0.
3.
Lambda
1
11.
39.
1
1
1
116.
132.
227.
= no
NC
Wilk’s
9
5
6
3
7
9
8
1
53
37
)
.8
.9
.5
.9
.9
.8
.7
.1
SD
0
9
3.
3.
5
4
4
3
3
3
1
2
inking.
= 30
h
0
5
0
7
2
0
2
3
7
2
D symptomatology,
NC (n
.1
.2
.1
.9
.3
.8
.3
.2
.2
.3
1
1
7
5
7
7
7
5
4
4
Mean
1
6
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
eative T
0
1
ithout ADH
)
.8
58
9
85
46
07
68
14
12
99
8
SD
0
8.
3.
5.
6.
5.
3.
5.
3.
Tests of Cr
1
11.
creative w
rrance o
NA (n =
n
10
89
C
A =
= T
Mea
11.
70.58
27.78
94.
47.18
48.29
47.47
45.28
46.33
45.17
1
NC CT T
4
0
0
3
1
4
1
0
1
5
logy,
)
.9
.2
.6
.2
.4
.6
.8
.0
.0
.6
SD
0
5
3
3
8
2
0
5
7
1
13
1
(n = 12
ale-Revised, T
tions.
A
0
C
ean
.11
D symptomato
evia
M
1
66.33
94.58
70.75
63.75
67.58
53.08
48.00
51.00
127.50
ting Sc
Ra
dard Dn
5
with ADH
)
8
9
eacher
2
SD
0.
8.53
8.29
6.19
12.99
15.53
30.48
10.18
13.56
12.46
ative
and Sta
s’ T
(n =
cre
ans
D
44
ADH
ean
1.
8.64
5.43
2.07
1.07
7.10
7.25
7.95
= Conner
M
1
4
37.83
7
8
8
5
5
5
106.03
R
istics: Me
SS)
< .05, CA = p
acter
CTRS-d,e
Char
s HSD,
res)
res)
.1
led Scores (
IQ
Revis
a
S
00
ample
c
centiles)
e
-sco
e
S
F
v
T
v
Tukey’
0.
I S
d
(T-sco
total
(
total
a :
Scale-
<
-R
ntive
-IV
-R