Manual

CAARS 2 Manual

Appendix K: Impact of COVID-19 on Normative Scores, Tables

<- back to section | print section tables
Click to expand
Click to expand

Table K.2. Measurement Invariance (2019 vs. 2022): CAARS 2 Self-Report

Scale Invariance Model χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR Satorra-Bentler χ2 df ΔCFI
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction Configural 1467.92*** 810 .057 .975 .973 .054 —
Weak 1495.29*** 840 .056 .975 .974 .054 24.41 30 .000
Strong 1507.07*** 869 .054 .976 .976 .054 34.74 29 .001
Strict 1517.01*** 897 .053 .977 .977 .054 39.58 28 .001
Hyperactivity Configural 485.30*** 130 .105 .955 .946 .071 —
Weak 508.50*** 143 .102 .954 .950 .071 17.04 13 -.001
Strong 510.52*** 155 .096 .955 .955 .071 16.62 12 .001
Strict 512.44*** 167 .091 .956 .959 .072 23.86 12 .001
Impulsivity Configural 285.40*** 130 .069 .974 .968 .055 —
Weak 298.48*** 143 .066 .974 .971 .055 8.76 13 .000
Strong 295.08*** 155 .060 .976 .976 .056 9.79 12 .003
Strict 315.98*** 167 .060 .975 .977 .057 24.76 12 -.001
Emotional Dysregulation Configural 204.23*** 54 .106 .980 .973 .051 —
Weak 219.07*** 63 .100 .979 .976 .051 8.17 9 -.001
Strong 216.78*** 71 .091 .980 .980 .051 5.96 8 .001
Strict 210.81*** 79 .082 .982 .984 .051 7.21 8 .002
Negative Self-Concept Configural 88.83*** 28 .094 .990 .985 .033 —
Weak 100.51*** 35 .087 .989 .987 .033 9.16 7 -.001
Strong 106.35*** 41 .080 .989 .989 .034 10.03 6 .000
Strict 111.82*** 47 .075 .989 .990 .034 10.93 6 .000
Note. N = 249 for the 2022 sample; N = 249 for the 2022 sample. RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; ∆CFI = change in CFI. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Exploration of partial invariance models for the Inattention/Executive Dysfunction revealed that one intercept had to be released for the strict invariance hypothesis to hold.
Click to expand

Table K.3. Measurement Invariance (2019 vs. 2022): CAARS 2 Observer

Scale Invariance Model χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR Satorra-Bentler χ2 df ΔCFI
Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction Configural 1275.40*** 810 .050 .984 .983 .050 —
Weak 1312.35*** 840 .049 .984 .984 .050 46.70 30 .000
Strong 1323.18*** 869 .047 .985 .985 .050 24.92 29 .001
Strict 1340.83*** 898 .046 .985 .986 .050 39.01 29 .000
Hyperactivity Configural 510.52*** 130 .112 .959 .951 .087 —
Weak 537.87*** 143 .109 .958 .954 .087 20.05 13 -.001
Strong 542.49*** 155 .104 .959 .958 .087 13.41 12 .001
Strict 509.77*** 167 .094 .963 .966 .088 6.93 12 .005
Impulsivity Configural 249.98*** 130 .063 .984 .981 .049 —
Weak 269.72*** 143 .062 .984 .982 .049 19.87 13 .000
Strong 281.34*** 155 .059 .984 .984 .049 16.55 12 .000
Strict 271.00*** 167 .052 .987 .987 .049 7.36 12 .003
Emotional Dysregulation Configural 247.54*** 54 .124 .980 .973 .048 —
Weak 268.58*** 62 .120 .978 .975 .048 17.79 8 .000
Strong 263.43*** 70 .109 .980 .979 .049 8.00 8 .002
Strict 250.82*** 78 .098 .982 .983 .049 9.28 8 .002
Negative Self-Concept Configural 57.49*** 28 .067 .992 .988 .038 —
Weak 67.09*** 35 .063 .991 .989 .038 8.06 7 -.001
Strong 61.33*** 41 .046 .994 .994 .038 2.17 6 .003
Strict 66.00*** 47 .042 .995 .995 .040 7.21 6 .001
Note. N = 234 for the 2022 sample; N = 234 for the 2019 sample. RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; ∆CFI = change in CFI. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Exploration of partial invariance models for the Emotional Dysregulation Scale revealed that one threshold had to be released for the weak invariance hypothesis to hold.
Click to expand

Table K.4. Differential Test Functioning Effect Sizes (2019 vs. 2022)

Scale Self-Report Observer
Inattention/Executive Dysfunction .01 .01
Hyperactivity .00 .00
Impulsivity .08 .00
Emotional Dysregulation .00 .00
Negative Self-Concept .00 .00
Note. Guidelines for interpretation: small effect size ≥ |0.20|; medium effect size ≥ |0.50|; large effect size ≥ |0.80|. Positive ETSSD values indicate that individuals with equal amounts of the constructs being measured in the 2022 sample scored higher than individuals in the 2019 sample.
Click to expand

Table K.5. Mean Differences (2019 vs. 2022): CAARS 2 Self-Report

Scale 2019 Sample 2022 Sample Independent t-tests
M SD M SD Cohen’s d t (496) p
Content Scales Inattention/Executive Dysfunction 49.5 9.2 50.6 11.1 0.11 1.21 .226
Hyperactivity 50.1 10.1 51.4 11.8 0.12 1.30 .195
Impulsivity 49.3 9.8 51.7 12.2 0.22 2.40 .017
Emotional Dysregulation 49.7 10.2 51.0 11.1 0.13 1.43 .154
Negative Self-Concept 50.2 10.2 50.4 10.0 0.02 0.23 .815
DSM Symptom Scales ADHD Inattentive Symptoms 49.6 9.4 50.5 11.0 0.08 0.95 .345
ADHD Hyperactive/Impulsive Symptoms 49.9 9.6 51.2 12.0 0.12 1.37 .172
Total ADHD Symptoms 49.7 9.5 50.9 11.8 0.11 1.18 .239
Note. N = 249 for the 2019 sample, and 249 for the 2022 sample. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates higher scores for the 2022 sample vs. the 2019 sample.
Click to expand

Table K.6. Mean Differences (2019 vs. 2022): CAARS 2 Observer

Scale 2019 Sample 2022 Sample Independent t-tests
M SD M SD Cohen’s d t (466) p
Content Scales Inattention/​Executive Dysfunction 49.2 9.9 50.3 11.7 0.10 1.09 .227
Hyperactivity 49.4 10.0 51.0 12.3 0.14 1.55 .121
Impulsivity 49.9 10.3 50.6 11.7 0.06 0.68 .498
Emotional Dysregulation 49.6 9.9 50.6 11.7 0.09 0.95 .344
Negative Self-Concept 48.8 9.3 49.8 10.1 0.10 1.09 .277
DSM Symptom Scales ADHD Inattentive Symptoms 49.3 9.9 50.7 11.7 0.13 1.43 .155
ADHD Hyperactive/Impulsive Symptoms 49.4 10.1 51.0 12.0 0.14 1.51 .132
Total ADHD Symptoms 49.3 10.2 50.8 12.3 0.14 1.50 .134
Note. N = 234 for the 2019 sample, and 234 for the 2022 sample. Guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s |d|: negligible effect size < 0.20; small effect size = 0.20 to 0.49; medium effect size = 0.50 to 0.79; large effect size ≥ 0.80. A positive Cohen’s d value indicates higher scores for the 2022 sample vs. the 2019 sample.
Click to expand

Table K.7. Proportion of Associated Clinical Concern and Impairment & Functional Outcome Items Endorsed/Elevated for the 2019 and 2022 Samples

Item Set Item Stem Self-Report Observer
2019 Sample % 2022 Sample % χ2 p 2019 Sample % 2022 Sample % χ2 p
Associated Clinical Concern Items Anxiety/worry 32.9 29.7 0.60 .440 9.4 20.1 10.62 .001
Sadness/emptiness* 25.3 23.7 0.17 .677 8.1 12.4 2.32 .128
Suicidal thoughts/attempts 35.3 32.5 0.44 .508 12.4 18.4 3.22 .073
Self-Injury 15.7 22.1 3.36 .067 5.6 15.0 11.24 .001
Impairment & Functional Outcome Items Bothered by things endorsed on the CAARS 2 14.9 21.3 3.47 .062 9.0 17.9 8.09 .004
Things endorsed on the CAARS 2 interfere with life 18.5 16.2 0.45 .503 13.2 18.4 2.31 .128
Problems in romantic/marital relationship(s) 27.3 31.7 1.17 .280 27.4 27.4 0.00 1.000
Problems in relationships with family members 18.5 24.3 2.50 .114 16.2 21.8 2.34 .126
Problems in relationships with friends, coworkers, or neighbors 14.5 20.6 3.21 .073 10.3 18.4 6.29 .012
Problems at work and/or school 19.3 29.3 6.82 .009 18.0 21.4 0.82 .364
Finds things harder than other people 12.0 16.5 1.99 .159 6.4 11.5 3.77 .052
Underachiever 14.9 17.4 0.00 .000 11.1 12.8 0.32 .569
Sleep problems 19.7 20.5 0.05 .823 23.9 27.4 0.72 .397
Problems managing money 15.3 22.9 4.70 .030 17.1 24.4 3.76 .053
Neglects family/household responsibilities 12.9 13.7 0.08 .778 10.3 16.7 4.13 .042
Risky driving 14.9 25.3 8.46 .004 10.7 17.5 4.52 .034
Problems due to time spent online 14.5 20.1 2.75 .097 17.1 22.6 2.27 .132
Note. * The item stem for this Screening item is Sadness/emptiness for Self-Report and Sadness for Observer.