Objective: To assess attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in the classroom, most often teacher rating scales are used. However, clinical interviews and observations are recommended as gold standard assessment. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the validity of teacher rating scales. Method: Twenty-two studies (N = 3,947 children) assessing ADHD symptoms using teacher rating scale and either semi-structured clinical interview or structured classroom observation were meta-analyzed. Results: Results showed convergent validity for rating scale scores, with the strongest correlations (r = .55-.64) for validation against interviews, and for hyperactive-impulsive behavior. Divergent validity was confirmed for teacher ratings validated against interviews, whereas validated against observations this was confirmed for inattention only. Conclusion: Teacher rating scales appear a valid and time-efficient measure to assess classroom ADHD; although validated against semi-structured clinical interviews, there were only a few studies available. Low correlations between ratings and structured observations of inattention suggest that observations could add information above rating scales.

中文翻译：

---

教师评定量表在课堂上评估 ADHD 症状的有效性：系统评价和元分析。

目标：为了评估课堂上的注意力缺陷/多动障碍 (ADHD) 症状，最常用的是教师评分量表。但是，建议将临床访谈和观察作为金标准评估。本系统回顾和荟萃分析评估了教师评分量表的有效性。方法：对使用教师评分量表和半结构化临床访谈或结构化课堂观察评估 ADHD 症状的 22 项研究（N = 3,947 名儿童）进行荟萃分析。结果：结果显示评分量表分数的收敛效度，对于面试验证和多动冲动行为具有最强的相关性 (r = .55-.64)。经面试验证的教师评分的发散效度得到确认，虽然根据观察进行了验证，但这只是由于疏忽而被证实的。结论：教师评定量表似乎是评估课堂多动症的有效且省时的措施；尽管针对半结构化临床访谈进行了验证，但只有少数研究可用。评级与结构化的注意力不集中观察之间的低相关性表明，观察可以添加高于评级量表的信息。