Conners 4 Manual Chapter 7: Description of Normative Samples

Description of Normative Samples

view all chapter tables | print this section

• Age & Gender
• Race/Ethnicity
• Region
• Parental Education Level
• Clinical Status
• Demographic Characteristics of the Normative Sample Raters

Of all the Conners 4 ratings that were collected, a total of 3,120 youth were included in the Normative Samples (N = 1,560 for Parent; N = 1,560 for Teacher; and N = 1,100 for Self-Report). These samples were used to generate norms for the Conners 4. The Conners 4 Parent and Teacher Normative Samples each comprise 1,416 raters from the U.S. and 144 raters from Canada. The Self-Report Normative Sample comprises 960 raters from the U.S. and 140 raters from Canada. The size of the U.S. sample relative to the Canadian sample reflects the ratio of the total U.S. population to the total Canadian population (10:1). Normative Samples were collected to match the demographic characteristics of each respective country. The demographic characteristics of the U.S. portion of the Normative Samples were based on the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS; United States Census Bureau, 2019) and the demographic characteristics of the Canadian portion of the Normative Samples were based on the 2016 National Census Profile (Statistics Canada, 2017). The target demographic variables of gender, age, race/ethnicity, geographic region, and parental education level (PEL; PEL was not collected on the Teacher forms as teachers were not expected to know the education level of the parents of the student being rated) were collected using a stratified sampling plan to ensure that both the U.S. and Canadian portions of the Normative Samples represented the broader, national populations from which they were drawn.

In addition to these stratification variables, descriptive demographic characteristics such as school type, urbanicity, and language(s) spoken were collected in order to profile the Normative Samples. Youth in the Normative Samples came from various school types (approximately 90.0% were enrolled in public schools, and the remaining students were enrolled in private schools or those labelled“other school type”), urbanicities (a large portion of the youth attended school in an urbanized area with a population of 50,000 people or more—50.2% Parent, 46.5% Teacher, 83.5% Self-Report; the remaining youth lived in urban clusters or rural areas), and the majority of the youth spoke only English (82.8% Parent, 76.2% Teacher, 85.1% Self-Report) while the remaining students were bilingual.

The following sections provide a description of each of the target demographic variables in the Conners 4 Normative Samples. For the Conners 4 Parent and Teacher Normative Samples, the demographic characteristics of the raters are also described, along with information characterizing the relationship between the raters and the youth being rated (see Demographic Characteristics of the Raters in this chapter).

Age and Gender

The Conners 4 Parent and Teacher Normative Samples include ratings of youth who were 6 to 18 years of age. The Conners 4 Self-Report includes ratings provided by youth who were 8 to 18 years of age.

The Parent and Self-Report asked raters to report the sex to which the youth being rated was assigned at birth, as well as to report the gender with which the rated youth currently identifies (with response options of “Male,” “Female,” and“Other [Please Specify]”). Gender (rather than sex at birth) was used as the stratification variable. The Normative Samples include a balanced number of ratings between male and female youth within each age group. The Combined Gender Normative Samples include ratings of youth whose gender identity was indicated as “Other” (e.g., transgender, non-binary; N = 5 in the Parent Combined Gender Normative Sample, N = 1 in the Teacher Combined Gender Normative Sample, and N = 0 in the Self-Report Combined Gender Normative Sample). The Parent and Self-Report also include ratings of youth who reported that they identify with a gender that was different from the sex to which they were assigned at birth (N = 13 for Parent and N = 4 for Self-Report). The distribution of gender by age group for the Combined Gender Normative Samples is found in Tables 7.1 to 7.3. Combined Gender norms are the default scoring option for the Conners 4; however, separate Gender Specific norms are also available (see chapter 3, Scoring and Reports, for details). The distribution of gender by age group for the Gender Specific Normative Samples is found in Tables 7.4 to 7.6.

Race/Ethnicity

For the Parent, Teacher, and Self-Report, raters living in the U.S. were asked to identify the race of the youth being rated from the following categories: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian Indian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Other Asian, White, Multiracial, or Other. Raters were also asked to specify if the youth being rated was of Hispanic, Spanish, or Latinx origin. Those who responded“yes”were asked to specify the ethnicity with which the youth being rated best identified. The Hispanic, Spanish, or Latinx subset of the Normative Samples comprised youth who identified as (a) Mexican, Mexican American, or Chicano (60.9% Parent, 61.7% Teacher, 62.1% Self-Report); (b) Puerto Rican (20.0% Parent, 14.5% Teacher, 17.9% Self-Report); (c) Cuban (4.0% Parent, 4.1% Teacher, 6.7% Self-Report); or (d) of another Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin (e.g., Argentinian, Columbian, Dominican; 15.1% Parent, 9.9% Teacher, 13.3% Self-Report). Note that 9.9% of Teachers who specified that the student being rated was of Hispanic, Spanish, or Latinx origin indicated that they did not know which ethnicity the student best identified with. For the purposes of census matching and for ease of presentation, the following racial/ethnic group labels will be used to characterize the U.S. portion of the Normative Samples: Hispanic (includes all who answered “yes” to the Hispanic, Spanish, Latinx origin question), Asian (includes Asian Indian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Other Asian), Black (includes Black or African American), White, and Other (which includes more than one race, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Other). Youth from Canada were classified as Visible Minority (which is defined by the Government of Canada as including persons other than Indigenous people who are non-Caucasian in race or non-White in color) and Not Visible Minority (which consists of persons who are White or Indigenous people).

The distribution of race/ethnicity by age group within each country for the Combined Gender Normative Samples can be found in Tables 7.7 to 7.9. The portion of rated youth belonging to each racial/ethnic group closely approximated the U.S. population (within 0.9%) and Canadian population (within 2.3%). The distribution of race/ethnicity by age group within each country for the Gender Specific Normative Samples can be found in Tables 7.10 to 7.12.

Region

For each of the Conners 4 forms, raters were asked to provide the state or province of residence of the youth being rated, which was then categorized by U.S. census geographical region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West) and by Canadian census geographical regions (East, Central, West).

The distribution of region within each country by age group in the Combined Gender Normative Samples is found in Tables 7.13 to 7.15. The portion of rated youth living in each region closely matched the U.S. population (within 2.3%) and Canadian population (within 3.6%). The distribution of region within each country by age group in the Gender Specific Normative Samples is found in Tables 7.16 to 7.18.

Parental Education Level

For the Conners 4 Parent and Self-Report forms, information about the highest level of education attained by the primary parent or guardian of the youth being rated was collected (that is, the person primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of the child, or if that responsibility was equally shared, the parent/guardian completing the assessment was described). Raters living in the U.S. were asked to use the following categories to describe the highest level of education achieved by the primary parent of the youth being rated: No high school diploma; High school graduate/GED; Some college, no degree; Associate’s degree; Bachelor’s degree; Graduate or professional degree. Raters living in Canada were asked to select which of the following described the highest level of education achieved by the primary parent of the youth being rated: No high school certificate, diploma, or degree; Secondary (high) school diploma or equivalency certificate; apprenticeship or trades certificate or diploma; College, CEGEP, or other non-university certificate or diploma; University certificate or diploma below bachelor level; Bachelor’s degree; Graduate or professional degree. For ease of interpretation, the U.S. and Canadian levels of education were condensed into five broader classifications: Parental Education Level 1 (PEL1; includes no high school diploma), Parental Education Level 2 (PEL 2; includes high school diploma or equivalent), Parental Education Level 3 (PEL 3; includes some college, university diploma or certificates below bachelor’s level, or associates degree), Parental Education Level 4 (PEL 4; Bachelor’s degree), and Parental Education Level 5 (PEL 5; graduate or professional degree).

The distribution of PEL within country by age group for the Combined Gender Normative Samples is found in Tables 7.19 and 7.20. The portion of youth being rated at each PEL closely matched the U.S. population (within 1.2%) and the Canadian population (within 8.0%). The distribution of PEL within country by age group for the Gender Specific Normative Samples is found in Tables 7.21 and 7.22. Note that while the relative disparities between the Canadian sample and the Canadian census appear larger than those between the U.S. sample and the U.S. census, this discrepancy was a result of the modest number of youth within each stratified level of the Canadian sample. These low numbers meant that subtle deviations from the census became magnified when reported as a percentage.

Clinical Status

The Conners 4 Normative Samples also include ratings of 131 Parent, 151 Teacher, and 126 Self-Report youth with a clinical diagnosis, representing 8.3% of the Parent Combined Gender Normative Sample, 9.6% of the Teacher Combined Gender Normative Sample, and 11.4% of the Self-Report Combined Gender Normative Sample. Detailed diagnostic information was provided by clinicians and parents for youth with a clinical diagnosis. Youth were diagnosed with one or more of the following disorders: ADHD, Specific Learning Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, or an Emotional Disturbance. Note that Emotional Disturbance comprises depressive disorders (e.g., Major Depressive Disorder) and anxiety disorders (e.g., Generalized Anxiety Disorder). Tables 7.23 to 7.25 show the distribution of the clinical diagnoses within each Normative Sample. Note that the percent of the Normative Samples with a clinical diagnosis for each disorder closely matches the prevalence rates for youth listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders¹ (DSM) and/or those reported by the National Center for Education Statistics (Snyder et al., 2019). Clinical cases were balanced across all ages, and these youth were included in the Normative Samples to approximate actual general populations, which encompass youth both with and without clinical conditions.

Demographic Characteristics of the Normative Sample Raters

Table 7.28 contains a summary of the demographic characteristics that describe the parent/guardians who rated their child using the Conners 4 Parent, and Table 7.29 contains a summary of the demographic characteristics of the teachers who rated their student using the Conners 4 Teacher.

In examining the Combined Gender Normative Samples, the majority of the parent raters were female (69.1%) and over half were White (55.0% in the U.S.) or not a visible minority (72.7% in Canada). There were a variety of relationships between the parent/guardian rater and the child being rated (with biological mother as the most common relationship at 63.7%, followed by biological father at 28.7%). Parent raters who indicated that they were an “Other relative,” a “Non-relative,” or an“Other guardian” (3.4%) were asked to specify how they were related to the child being rated. The most frequent responses were grandparent, aunt or uncle, and step-parent.

Teacher raters were predominantly female (76.9%) and White (79.7% in the U.S.) or not a visible minority (82.5% in Canada). Half of the teachers reported that they taught at the elementary school level (50.1%), followed by District K–12 schools (24.0%), and middle school/junior high schools (23.2%). Teachers were asked to report the class(es) taught to the student being rated. A qualitative analysis revealed that all core subject areas from Kindergarten to Grade 12 were represented, including, but not limited to, social science, English and language arts, foreign languages, mathematics, science and technology, arts, and health and physical education. Most of the teachers indicated that they interacted with the student being rated on a daily or almost daily basis (84.4%) and reported having known the student for six months or longer (82.8%) prior to rating them. Teachers reported that they either knew the student being rated very well (55.8%) or moderately well (44.2%).

< Back

Next >