Measures and constructs
Primary instrument
The LBL Adult ADHD Symptom Inventory, version 2.0 (LBL-ADHD v2.0) — a 20-item LBL-original self-reflection inventory measuring three research-supported domains of adult ADHD. The instrument is authored by LifeByLogic and is not a clinically validated screening instrument. It uses a 7-point frequency response scale anchored to behavioral frequencies and includes adult-context examples for each item to reduce interpretation variance. Two items (A8 and B3) are reverse-keyed to detect inattentive or automatic responding.
Construct definition
The inventory organizes adult-ADHD self-report into three domains, each rated on a 7-point frequency scale (Never, Very Rarely, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Very Often, Almost Always) referenced to the past 6 months:
- Attention & Executive Function (8 items) — sustained attention plus the executive-function machinery beneath it: task initiation, working memory, organization and planning, time estimation, distractibility, and follow-through. Maps to the DSM-5 inattention dimension, but framed around the executive-function constructs that contemporary reviews treat as the substrate of adult ADHD (Barkley's model).
- Hyperactivity & Impulsivity (6 items) — the classic hyperactive-impulsive dimension as it presents in adults: physical and internal restlessness, verbal impulsivity, acting before the pause, and difficulty waiting. Maps to the DSM-5 hyperactivity-impulsivity dimension, written to capture both the overt and the internalized ("can't settle") forms.
- Emotional Self-Regulation (6 items) — emotional intensity and flooding, low frustration tolerance, slow recovery, mood lability, rejection sensitivity, and negative urgency. This domain is not in the DSM-5 core criteria (the DSM lists emotional dysregulation only as an associated feature); it is included as a clearly-labeled, research-supported dimension because contemporary research treats it as central to the adult presentation (Barkley 2015; Soler-Gutiérrez et al. 2023; Beheshti et al. 2020).
The construct foundation draws from the DSM-5 ADHD criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), the World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement (Faraone et al., 2021), and the emotion-dysregulation literature (Barkley 2015; Soler-Gutiérrez et al. 2023; Beheshti et al. 2020). The inventory does not address the additional DSM-5 criteria for diagnosis (childhood onset before age 12, presence in multiple settings, functional impairment, and exclusion of a better explanation by another disorder) — those require clinical evaluation.
Why an LBL-original inventory rather than reproducing a validated screener
Several validated clinical instruments exist for adult ADHD assessment — the WHO ASRS (Kessler et al., 2005), the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS), the Brown ADD Scales, and the Wender Utah Rating Scale among them. LBL chose to author an original inventory rather than reproduce items from any specific validated instrument, for three reasons:
- Licensing and copyright. The ASRS is copyrighted by the World Health Organization; the CAARS and Brown ADD Scales are proprietary and not available for free consumer use. Reproducing their items in a consumer setting requires licensing. An LBL-original inventory avoids these constraints, can be released under CC BY-NC 4.0, and allows iteration based on user feedback. The LBL items were written from the experiential angle and verified not to reproduce the wording of any specific instrument.
- The three-domain structure. No widely-used brief adult-ADHD self-report measures emotional self-regulation as a distinct scored domain. Because the emotion dimension is central to how this inventory is designed, reproducing a two-dimension instrument would not have served the goal. Building original allowed the three-domain structure with equal experiential weighting.
- Adult-context phrasing and response granularity. LBL items are written in adult-context language with concrete scenario examples, and use a 7-point frequency scale with explicit behavioral anchors — finer-grained than the 5-point scale used by the original ASRS, particularly at the high-frequency end relevant to ADHD-positive presentations.
This is a self-reflection instrument, not a clinical screener. For clinical screening, validated instruments administered by a clinician are appropriate.
Instrument structure
The 20 LBL inventory items are organized into three domains. Each item is rated 0–6 on a 7-point frequency scale (Never, Very Rarely, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Very Often, Almost Always) over the past 6 months. Two items (A8 and B3) are reverse-keyed to detect inattentive or automatic responding; reverse-keyed responses are scored as (6 − response) before being added to the domain sum. Each item also displays a concrete adult-context example to anchor interpretation (e.g., for task initiation: opening the tax folder, starting a report you've been dreading, making a call you've been putting off). Item IDs use the prefix A (Attention & Executive Function), B (Hyperactivity & Impulsivity), and C (Emotional Self-Regulation).
| # | Item | Domain | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | How often does your focus slide off a task that isn't naturally engaging — long before you've actually finished it? | Attention & EF | — |
| A2 | When you know you need to start something important but unexciting, how often do you find yourself unable to begin — stuck, even though nothing is physically stopping you? | Attention & EF | — |
| A3 | How often do you get a task almost done, then leave the final closing step undone? | Attention & EF | — |
| A4 | How often does something you needed to remember evaporate before you act on it — even when you genuinely meant to do it? | Attention & EF | — |
| A5 | When something has many moving parts, how often do you struggle to lay out the order of steps and end up overwhelmed before you start? | Attention & EF | — |
| A6 | How often are you genuinely surprised by how much time has passed — losing track, misjudging how long something will take, or being caught off guard by a deadline you knew about? | Attention & EF | — |
| A7 | How often does your attention get yanked toward something in your environment — or a stray thought — when you're trying to stay on one thing? | Attention & EF | — |
| A8 | When a task demands sustained hard thinking, how often are you able to stay with it — without postponing, switching away, or needing to get up? | Attention & EF | ↺ reverse-keyed |
| B1 | How often do you find your body in motion when you're meant to be still — without quite deciding to? | Hyperactivity | — |
| B2 | How often do you feel a restless inner energy — a sense that you can't fully settle, even when you're trying to relax? | Hyperactivity | — |
| B3 | When you have unstructured free time, how often can you settle into something slow and quiet and genuinely stay with it? | Hyperactivity | ↺ reverse-keyed |
| B4 | In conversation, how often do you jump in before someone's finished, finish their sentences, or realize you've been talking much longer than the moment called for? | Hyperactivity | — |
| B5 | How often do you say or do something and realize, moments later, that you wish you'd paused first? | Hyperactivity | — |
| B6 | How often does waiting feel disproportionately hard for you — restless, irritating, almost physically uncomfortable — even when the wait is short? | Hyperactivity | — |
| C1 | How often does an emotion hit you harder or faster than the situation seems to warrant — flooding in before you can moderate it? | Emotion Reg. | — |
| C2 | How often do minor frustrations get to you more than they “should” — a small obstacle producing an outsized surge of irritation? | Emotion Reg. | — |
| C3 | After something upsets or irritates you, how often does it take you a long time to settle back down — the feeling lingering well past the moment? | Emotion Reg. | — |
| C4 | How often does your mood shift quickly and noticeably — moving between states faster than the people around you seem to? | Emotion Reg. | — |
| C5 | How often does a hint of criticism, rejection, or disapproval land much harder than you'd like — a small cue triggering a strong emotional response? | Emotion Reg. | — |
| C6 | When a strong feeling takes hold, how often do you act on it in a way you later reconsider — the emotion driving the decision in the moment? | Emotion Reg. | — |
Domain (subscale) definitions
Attention & Executive Function — items A1–A8 (n=8), one reverse-keyed (A8). Sustained attention plus executive function (task initiation, working memory, organization, time estimation, distractibility, follow-through). Raw range 0–48, normalized to 0–100.
Hyperactivity & Impulsivity — items B1–B6 (n=6), one reverse-keyed (B3). Physical and internal restlessness, verbal and decision impulsivity, impatience. Raw range 0–36, normalized to 0–100.
Emotional Self-Regulation — items C1–C6 (n=6), none reverse-keyed. Emotional flooding, frustration tolerance, recovery, mood lability, rejection sensitivity, negative urgency. Research-supported, DSM-omitted. Raw range 0–36, normalized to 0–100.
Total score — the sum of the three normalized domain scores, itself normalized to 0–100, with reverse-keyed items (A8, B3) inverted before summation.
Reverse-keyed items — A8 (the ability to stay with a task that demands sustained hard thinking) and B3 (the ability to settle into something slow and quiet in unstructured free time). Both describe the absence of a symptom, so for these items the scored value = (6 − raw response) before being added to the domain sum. This converts a high frequency of the positive framing (good regulation) into a low contribution to the symptom domain. Reverse items also help detect inattentive or automatic ("straight-line") responding.
Scoring algorithm — full pseudocode
The complete scoring logic, mirroring the tool's JavaScript. Three computations are produced from the 20 item responses: domain raw scores (Attention & EF, Hyperactivity, Emotion), normalized 0-100 scores (each domain + total), and severity-band classification. The archetype is then matched from the domain band combination using a first-match-wins decision rule.
Step 1 — Apply reverse-keying, then compute domain raw sums
Step 2 — Normalize each domain to 0-100, then derive the total
Each domain's raw score is normalized to 0-100 (percentage-of-maximum) so the three domains are directly comparable despite having different item counts. The total is the mean of the three normalized domain scores — equivalently, the normalized sum across all three — so every domain contributes equally regardless of its item count.
Step 3 — Map each normalized score to a severity band
Bands are anchored proportionally to Kessler et al. (2007) 4-stratum classification of the ASRS Part A. The same cutoffs apply identically to the total score and to each domain score. Each band carries a numeric rank (0–3) used by archetype routing.
Step 4 — Determine which domains are "elevated"
A domain is treated as elevated when its band rank is 2 or higher (Moderate-high or High, i.e. a normalized score of 56 or more). Archetype routing reads these three booleans plus the raw normalized scores (used only to break ties between two emotion-inclusive patterns).
Step 5 — Match to archetype (first match wins)
Rule-order rationale
The decision tree tests the most-specific rules first. The Grounded (low total and no elevated domain) is tested first as an unambiguous low-symptom profile. The Tempest (all three domains elevated) is next because it is the most severe and most specific multi-domain pattern. The Kinetic Mind (attention + hyperactivity, emotion not) follows, mirroring DSM-5 Combined Presentation. The single-domain archetypes — The Drifter (attention), The Dynamo (hyperactivity), and The Stormrider (emotion) — are matched when exactly one domain is elevated. When emotion is elevated alongside exactly one other domain, the higher of the two normalized scores decides whether the result leads with the emotion profile (Stormrider) or the other domain. The Searching profile falls through last: symptoms are present but no single domain dominates, the pattern where alternative or comorbid explanations (sleep loss, depression, anxiety, hormonal change, chronic stress) are statistically more likely than primary ADHD.
Validation strategy
Important: validation status of the LBL inventory
The LBL Adult ADHD Symptom Inventory v2.0 has not yet been independently psychometrically validated. The construct foundation (DSM-5 ADHD criteria; Faraone et al. 2021; the emotion-dysregulation literature, Barkley 2015 and Soler-Gutiérrez et al. 2023) is well-established, but the specific LBL items, response scale, severity bands, three-domain factor structure, and archetype routing have not yet been tested for reliability or diagnostic accuracy in a research sample. This section describes the planned validation work and the reference psychometric properties of the closest validated analog (the ASRS) for context.
Planned validation roadmap
LBL plans a phased validation study of the inventory. The proposed phases are:
- Phase 1 (n ≈ 200): Initial pilot. Establish internal consistency (Cronbach's α for total and each of the three domains), preliminary three-factor structure (exploratory factor analysis), and item-total correlations. Identify items that may need refinement. A specific aim is to test whether the Emotional Self-Regulation items load as a distinct factor from inattention and hyperactivity, as the three-domain design predicts.
- Phase 2 (n ≈ 500): Confirmatory factor analysis of the three-factor structure. Test-retest reliability over a 2–4 week interval. Convergent validity against validated reference instruments — an established adult-ADHD scale for the attention and hyperactivity domains, and a measure such as the DERS (Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale) for the emotion domain, where licensing permits.
- Phase 3 (n ≈ 1500): Population norm establishment by age, sex, and other demographics. Calibration of severity-band cutoffs against an external reference standard.
- Phase 4 (n ≈ 3000+): Diagnostic-utility study against blinded clinical evaluation in a stratified sample. Target outputs include sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and area under the ROC curve at each severity-band threshold.
Until these studies are completed, the LBL inventory is best understood as a self-reflection instrument rather than a validated clinical screener. Results should be interpreted as a structured way to organize self-observation about ADHD-related patterns, not as a diagnostic estimate.
Reference psychometric properties of the ASRS-v1.1 (for context only)
The ASRS-v1.1 is the most widely-validated brief adult ADHD instrument and is the closest published analog to the LBL inventory in length, response scale, and DSM-criterion mapping. The properties below describe the ASRS, not the LBL inventory:
- Internal consistency. Cronbach's α for the full 18-item ASRS has been reported in the 0.84–0.93 range across multiple samples (Kessler 2005 development sample; Adler 2006 clinical replication; de Vries 2014 Dutch validation). Subscale α values typically range 0.78–0.88 for Inattention and 0.81–0.90 for Hyperactivity-Impulsivity.
- Diagnostic accuracy. The 6-item ASRS screener subset (the brief detection form Kessler 2005 identified) shows sensitivity 68.7% and specificity 99.5% in the NCS-R general-population sample (n=966). The full 18-item ASRS shows sensitivity 56.3% and specificity 98.3% in the same sample (Kessler 2005). Performance varies substantially by sample composition: in psychiatric outpatients (Adler 2006, n=60), the 6-item screener sensitivity rises to ~88% while specificity drops to ~69%, reflecting the higher ADHD base rate in clinical populations.
- Test-retest reliability. Test-retest correlation for the ASRS has been reported in the 0.85–0.88 range over 1–4 week intervals (Adler 2006).
- Convergent validity. The ASRS correlates moderately-to-strongly with longer ADHD instruments — the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (r ≈ 0.66–0.78), the Brown ADD Scales (r ≈ 0.60–0.72), and the WHO-DAS-II disability metric (r ≈ 0.40–0.55).
- Cross-cultural replication. The ASRS has been translated into 35+ languages. Validation studies generally replicate the 2-factor structure (Inattention + Hyperactivity-Impulsivity) with acceptable internal consistency.
These ASRS properties are presented as research-context to clarify what kind of validation work the LBL inventory will undergo, not as transferred validation evidence. The LBL inventory is a different instrument with different items, a different response scale, and different severity-band definitions; its psychometric properties must be established independently.
Score-band derivation
Unlike instruments such as the GAD-7 (anxiety) or PHQ-9 (depression) that have published clinical-consensus severity bands, the LBL inventory's reference instrument family (the ASRS) does not. The four LBL severity bands (Low, Moderate-low, Moderate-high, High) are an explicitly-disclosed author choice on the LBL 0-100 normalized scale, anchored proportionally to the 4-stratum classification published by Kessler et al. (2007) for the ASRS Part A. They are presented as a pedagogical aid for "where am I on a structured symptom-load gradient," not as clinically-validated diagnostic thresholds for the LBL inventory.
The bands
| Band | Score (0-100 normalized) | Anchored to |
|---|---|---|
| Low | 0–40 | Kessler 2007 stratum 1 (low likelihood of clinically significant ADHD profile on the ASRS Part A) |
| Moderate-low | 41–55 | Kessler 2007 stratum 2 (slight elevation above the low-likelihood range) |
| Moderate-high | 56–75 | Kessler 2007 stratum 3 (moderate elevation; in the ASRS literature this stratum is consistent with adults who often go on to receive ADHD diagnoses in clinical evaluation) |
| High | 76–100 | Kessler 2007 stratum 4 (high elevation; the symptom level Kessler 2007 found highly likely to indicate a clinically significant ADHD profile on the ASRS) |
Anchoring rationale for cutpoints
40/41 boundary (Low ↔ Moderate-low): Corresponds proportionally to Kessler 2007's stratum 1 ↔ stratum 2 boundary on the ASRS Part A 4-stratum classification. Mapped to the LBL 0-100 normalized scale at the 40/41 cutpoint.
55/56 boundary (Moderate-low ↔ Moderate-high): Corresponds proportionally to Kessler 2007's stratum 2 ↔ stratum 3 boundary. Mapped to the LBL 0-100 scale at 55/56.
75/76 boundary (Moderate-high ↔ High): Corresponds proportionally to Kessler 2007's stratum 3 ↔ stratum 4 boundary, which Kessler 2007 found is highly likely to indicate a clinically significant ADHD profile on the ASRS. Mapped to the LBL 0-100 scale at 75/76.
The boundaries are LBL-defined cutpoints on the LBL inventory's 0-100 scale, anchored to Kessler 2007's stratum-classification framework rather than to specific raw-score values. They have not been independently validated for the LBL inventory.
What these bands are NOT
These cutpoints are not clinical thresholds in the sense that the GAD-7 ≥10 or PHQ-9 ≥10 boundaries function. They do not imply diagnostic certainty at any level. We use them to organize the score interpretation pedagogically. The bands derived from validated screening instruments (such as the ASRS 6-item screener positive/negative cutpoint, or the GAD-7/PHQ-9 clinical thresholds) are anchored to specific validation studies; the LBL inventory bands are not, until pilot validation completes.
Diagnostic probability per band
This section is intentionally empty in v2.0
Diagnostic probability tables (e.g., "X% of people scoring in band Y are confirmed ADHD on clinical evaluation") require a validation study with blinded clinical diagnoses against the same screening instrument. The LBL inventory has not yet completed such a study; therefore, no diagnostic-probability table can honestly be presented for the LBL inventory v2.0.
Diagnostic-utility statistics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, area under the ROC curve at each band threshold) for the LBL inventory will be published when Phase 4 of the planned validation roadmap (see Section 4) completes. Until then, the appropriate interpretation of an LBL inventory score is "this is where I land on a structured symptom-load gradient," not "I have an X% chance of having ADHD."
For published diagnostic-probability data on validated adult ADHD screeners, see Kessler 2005, Kessler 2007, and Adler 2006 — these report the probability of a confirmed ADHD diagnosis at different ASRS thresholds, with the caveat that ASRS data does not transfer to the LBL inventory without independent validation.
Reference norms from validated ASRS samples
These norms describe the ASRS-v1.1, not the LBL inventory
The numbers below are population statistics for the validated ASRS-v1.1 instrument (a different instrument with different items, a different 5-point response scale, and a 0-72 raw range). They are reproduced here as research context to illustrate the kind of sample-derived norms that will be established for the LBL inventory once pilot validation completes. They cannot be used to interpret an LBL inventory score: a user's LBL inventory score (on the 0-100 normalized scale) is not directly comparable to an ASRS raw score (on the 0-72 scale), and the two instruments have different items measuring the same construct in different ways.
Population norms anchor a score to the distribution of scores in a defined sample. For the ASRS-v1.1, two anchoring samples are widely cited: the general-population subsample of the US National Comorbidity Survey Replication (Kessler 2005, n=966 adults not selected for ADHD), and the clinical sample of adults with confirmed ADHD diagnoses from the same study (n=154). Additional replication samples exist in Dutch and other populations.
| Population | Instrument | Sample | Mean (raw 0-72) | SD | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US adult general population (NCS-R subsample) | 18-item ASRS | n = 966 | 16.7 | 9.0 | Kessler 2005 |
| US adults with confirmed ADHD diagnosis | 18-item ASRS | n = 154 | 36.4 | 13.7 | Kessler 2005 |
| Dutch general population | 18-item ASRS | n = 1,003 | 14.9 | 9.6 | de Vries 2014 |
| Female (US adults, NCS-R subsample) | 18-item ASRS | ≈ 500 | 16.0 | 9.0 | Kessler 2005 |
| Male (US adults, NCS-R subsample) | 18-item ASRS | ≈ 466 | 17.4 | 9.0 | Kessler 2005 |
| Adult psychiatric outpatients | 18-item ASRS | n = 60 | 32.1 | 14.2 | Adler 2006 |
All means and SDs in the table above are on the 18-item ASRS raw scale (0-72) from the cited validation samples. They are not directly comparable to LBL inventory scores on the 0-100 normalized scale.
Sex-stratified interpretation (in ASRS samples)
In the validated ASRS samples cited above, sex differences in total scores are small (~0.7–1.5 points on the ASRS 0–72 raw scale, slightly higher in males). Subscale-level patterns are more meaningful: men typically score slightly higher on Hyperactivity-Impulsivity, women slightly higher on Inattention. These patterns are consistent across ASRS replication samples and align with the broader epidemiological pattern that adult ADHD in women predominantly presents as inattentive (Quinn & Madhoo 2014). Whether the same sex-stratified pattern will appear in LBL inventory data is an empirical question that the planned validation work will address.
Age-related considerations
Hyperactive-impulsive symptoms attenuate with age in adults with ADHD (Biederman 2000), while inattention typically persists across the lifespan. In ASRS samples, scores in older adults (60+) tend to be lower on the hyperactivity dimension than in younger adults with the same underlying clinical severity. Neither the ASRS nor the LBL inventory adjusts for age in scoring; clinical interpretation should account for age regardless of the instrument used.
Limitations
Self-report
Like all self-report instruments, the ASRS is subject to insight limitations, social desirability bias, and recall bias. Adults with ADHD sometimes under-report inattention (because attention difficulties are familiar and feel "normal") and sometimes over-report (when seeking diagnosis to access treatment). Informant ratings (partner, family) and clinician observation provide complementary perspectives that this self-screen cannot.
Past-6-months reference period
The instrument asks about symptoms over the past 6 months. This captures current functioning but not the developmental trajectory required for DSM-5 diagnosis (childhood-onset before age 12, persistence across settings). A high score on this screen with no childhood symptom history points to alternative explanations rather than ADHD specifically.
No comorbidity screening
The ASRS screens only for ADHD-symptom domains. Depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, substance use, and trauma can all produce ADHD-like cognitive symptoms in adulthood. The cross-tool referral system in the tool's results panel addresses this for the most common comorbidities (Sleep, Anxiety, Depression) but does not replace a comprehensive clinical evaluation.
Archetype routing uses subscale bands, not DSM-5 symptom counts
The DSM-5 adult ADHD threshold is 5+ of 9 symptoms persisting for 6+ months. The LBL inventory does not implement this clinical symptom-count rule directly. Instead, archetype routing reads each domain's severity band (Low / Moderate-low / Moderate-high / High on the 0-100 normalized scale) and matches the combination of elevated domains to one of the 7 archetypes. This is a pragmatic surrogate for the clinical symptom-count threshold; it captures the broad pattern (which domains dominate) but it is not equivalent to a clinical interview. Some users with genuine ADHD may have a domain pattern that the LBL routing classifies as Searching or Grounded when clinical judgment would classify them differently. The archetype is a self-reflection signal, not a diagnostic estimate.
The 4 severity bands are author-choice anchored to Kessler 2007 strata
As noted in Section V, the bands (Low / Moderate-low / Moderate-high / High on the 0-100 normalized scale) are not clinical thresholds for the LBL inventory. They are anchored proportionally to Kessler 2007's 4-stratum classification of the ASRS Part A — a different instrument with different items. The boundaries have not been independently calibrated to LBL inventory data; that calibration will occur during the planned validation work (see Section IV). The bands are pedagogical, not diagnostic, and may shift in future LBL versions as validation data accrues.
Functional impairment is not assessed
DSM-5 requires that ADHD symptoms cause significant functional impairment in two or more settings. The LBL inventory does not include functional-impairment items (unlike the PHQ-9, which has a 10th functional-impairment question). A high LBL inventory score without significant functional impairment may not warrant clinical diagnosis. Users should weight their results against their actual functional level — work performance, relationship satisfaction, daily-life management, and quality of life.
Childhood-onset is not assessed
The DSM-5 childhood-onset requirement (symptoms before age 12) is the single biggest gap in adult self-screening. Adult-onset attention problems are not ADHD by current clinical convention; they are typically explained by depression, anxiety, sleep loss, hormonal changes, head injury, or chronic stress. The Wender Utah Rating Scale (a childhood-retrospective instrument) can complement adult ADHD self-screening tools, but it is not currently implemented in the LBL inventory. Future LBL versions may add a brief childhood-symptom recall section.
The 7 archetypes are interpretive
The Grounded / Drifter / Dynamo / Stormrider / Kinetic Mind / Tempest / Searching framework partly mirrors DSM-5 presentation specifiers (Predominantly Inattentive → Drifter, Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive → Dynamo, Combined → Kinetic Mind) but adds categories with no DSM equivalent: The Stormrider (emotion-regulation dominant), The Tempest (all three domains elevated), The Grounded (low symptoms across all domains), and The Searching (symptoms present without a dominant domain, often suggestive of alternative explanations such as sleep loss, depression, anxiety, hormonal changes, or chronic stress). It is not a published clinical typology. The pathway recommendations within each archetype draw on evidence-based interventions, but the archetype-assignment logic itself is an LBL tool design choice rather than a validated clinical decision rule.
Cannot replace clinical evaluation
The single most important limitation: this is a screen, not a diagnostic tool. A high score is a useful signal, not a clinical conclusion.
Independent review
The original v0.9 methodology and tool implementation (published 2026-05-06, using the ASRS-v1.1) was reviewed by Eskezeia Y. Dessie, PhD — clinical reviewer for LifeByLogic — with particular attention to:
- 4-band severity threshold logic, given the absence of clinical-consensus bands for the ASRS
- The archetype matching rule and dominance threshold
- Cross-tool referral copy in the no-dominant-pattern archetype results (then named The Tired, now The Searching), particularly the framing of alternative explanations vs primary ADHD
- The comorbidity callout in the results panel and the comorbidity-table figures
- The childhood-onset DSM-5 caveat and how it appears in tool results, methodology, and FAQ
- High-band recommendation language (whether it should require clinical evaluation, whether it should also recommend comorbidity screens)
- Sex-difference framing — particularly the Drifter archetype implications for women's adult ADHD presentation
- Whether any DSM-5 framing might be misread by users with bipolar I/II (where attention symptoms can also occur)
Eskezeia Y. Dessie, PhD and Armin Allahverdy, PhD serve as standing reviewers for the tool. The v2.0 rebuild (2026-05-30) introduced changes beyond the scope of the original review: the addition of the Emotional Self-Regulation domain as a third scored dimension, expansion to 20 LBL-original items across three domains, expansion of the archetype set from five to seven (adding The Stormrider and The Tempest, renaming The Tired to The Searching and The Focused to The Grounded), and revised archetype routing that reads three domain bands instead of two. A v2.0 clinical review of the new emotion-domain items and the expanded archetype framing is planned and will be noted in the version log when complete. Any subsequent revisions go through the same review pipeline before deploy.
Version log
v2.0 — 2026-05-30 (current)
Three-domain rebuild. The inventory was expanded from two domains (18 items) to three domains (20 items) by adding Emotional Self-Regulation (6 items, C1–C6) as a distinct scored domain, reflecting contemporary research treating emotional dysregulation as central to adult ADHD (Barkley 2015; Soler-Gutiérrez et al. 2023; Beheshti et al. 2020). The Attention & Executive Function domain (8 items, A1–A8) and Hyperactivity & Impulsivity domain (6 items, B1–B6) were re-authored from the experiential angle. Reverse-keyed items are now A8 and B3. Each domain is normalized to 0–100 independently and the total is the mean of the three, so each domain contributes equally regardless of item count. The archetype set expanded from five to seven: added The Stormrider (emotion-dominant) and The Tempest (all three domains elevated); renamed The Tired to The Searching and The Focused to The Grounded. Archetype routing rewritten to read three domain bands with a first-match-wins rule where a domain counts as elevated at rank ≥ 2 (score ≥ 56). The tool's items now use a slider interface; the citation author was set to the corporate author "LifeByLogic." Methodology document fully revised to this three-domain specification. A v2.0 clinical review is planned.
v1.0 — 2026-05-10 (deprecated)
LBL Adult ADHD Symptom Inventory v1.0 publication. The instrument was rebuilt as 18 LBL-original items operationalizing DSM-5 ADHD diagnostic criteria with adult-context phrasing and concrete examples. Response scale changed from 5-point (0-4) to 7-point (0-6) with explicit behavioral anchors (Never, Very Rarely, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Very Often, Almost Always). Two items (I6 and H4) added as reverse-keyed inattentive-responding checks. Subscale and total scores normalized to a 0-100 scale. Severity bands renamed to Low / Moderate-low / Moderate-high / High and re-anchored proportionally to Kessler 2007's 4-stratum classification (cutoffs 40/55/75 on the 0-100 normalized scale). Archetype routing rewritten from DSM-5 item-count surrogate to subscale-band combination. The 6-item ASRS screener result is no longer computed (LBL items are not the ASRS). Deprecated 2026-05-30 in favor of the v2.0 three-domain instrument.
v0.9 — 2026-05-06 (deprecated)
Original publication. Implemented the full 18-item ASRS-v1.1 (Kessler 2005) on a 5-point response scale with raw 0-72 total range. 4 severity bands at 0-17 / 18-35 / 36-53 / 54-72 cutpoints anchored to Kessler 2005 normative distribution (US adult mean 16.7, diagnosed-ADHD mean 36.4). 6-item ASRS screener positive/negative result computed alongside the dimensional profile. 5 archetypes routed via DSM-5 5-items-at-Often-or-higher symptom-count surrogate. Reviewed by Eskezeia Y. Dessie, PhD prior to deploy. Deprecated 2026-05-10 in favor of v1.0 LBL-original instrument; the v0.9 implementation is no longer served.
Versioning policy
Major version bumps (v2.0, v3.0) will be triggered by changes to: the instrument used, the severity-band cutpoints, the archetype matching algorithm, or the structure of the scoring formulas. A deprecation notice will be displayed on the tool page during the transition.
Minor version bumps (v1.1, v1.2) will track: language translations, additional FAQ entries, clarifications to existing copy, citation updates, and methodology document refinements that do not change the scoring outputs.
Patch version (no number bump) covers: typo corrections, broken-link fixes, accessibility improvements that do not change the rendered substance.
Key terms
Definitions and links to the LifeByLogic glossary entries for the constructs and instruments referenced in this methodology.
- Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) — a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by persistent inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that began in childhood and continues to cause functional impairment in adult life.
- ASRS Screener — the 18-item Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale, version 1.1 (and its embedded 6-item subset), developed by Kessler and colleagues in 2005 in collaboration with the World Health Organization. The ASRS is a separate validated instrument referenced in this methodology for comparison and as a source of the Kessler 2007 stratum-classification framework. The LBL Adult ADHD Symptom Inventory does not use ASRS items.
- Inattention — the DSM-5 ADHD criterion-A1 symptom dimension, comprising 9 specific symptoms covering attention, organization, memory, listening, follow-through, and avoidance of mental effort.
- Hyperactivity-Impulsivity — the DSM-5 ADHD criterion-A2 symptom dimension, comprising 9 specific symptoms covering physical restlessness, talking, interrupting, and difficulty waiting.
- Emotional Self-Regulation (deficient emotional self-regulation / DESR) — the capacity to modulate emotional responses to fit the situation. Deficits include emotional intensity and flooding, low frustration tolerance, slow recovery, mood lability, rejection sensitivity, and negative urgency. The DSM-5 lists emotional dysregulation only as an associated feature of ADHD, not a core diagnostic criterion; contemporary research (Barkley 2015; Soler-Gutiérrez et al. 2023; Beheshti et al. 2020) treats it as central to the adult presentation. It is the third domain measured by the LBL inventory, clearly labeled as research-supported and DSM-omitted.
- Presentation specifier — DSM-5 introduced three ADHD presentation labels (Predominantly Inattentive, Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive, Combined) replacing the DSM-IV "subtype" terminology. Reflects the recognition that the same disorder can present differently across individuals and within an individual across time.
- Comorbidity — the co-occurrence of two or more clinical conditions in the same individual. Adult ADHD has high comorbidity with depression (~19%), anxiety (~24%), sleep disorders (~25%), and substance use (~15%) per Kessler 2006.
- Effect size — standardized measure of the magnitude of a relationship or difference. In ASRS validation samples, the 6-item ASRS screener achieves Cohen's d ≈ 1.5–2.0 in distinguishing diagnosed ADHD from non-ADHD samples; LBL inventory effect sizes will be established during the planned validation work.
- Validated instrument — a measurement tool with established psychometric properties (reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity) demonstrated across multiple peer-reviewed studies.
Methodology FAQ
Is the LBL severity band system clinically validated?
No — and this is documented explicitly. The four LBL bands (0–40 Low, 41–55 Moderate-low, 56–75 Moderate-high, 76–100 High on the 0-100 normalized scale) are an explicitly-disclosed author choice anchored proportionally to Kessler 2007's 4-stratum classification of the ASRS Part A. The boundaries themselves are LBL design choices on the LBL inventory's normalized score; they have not been independently validated against clinical outcomes for the LBL inventory. They are presented as a pedagogical aid for "where am I on a structured symptom-load gradient," not as diagnostic thresholds. The same band cutpoints apply to the total score and to each of the three domain subscales. Calibration of the bands against an external reference standard is part of the planned validation roadmap (Section 4).
Why does the inventory measure three domains instead of the DSM-5's two?
The DSM-5 defines ADHD by two symptom dimensions: inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity. The LBL inventory measures those two and adds a third — Emotional Self-Regulation — which the DSM-5 lists only as an associated feature, not a core criterion. Contemporary research treats emotional dysregulation as central to the adult presentation: it is present in up to roughly 70% of adults with ADHD and, in meta-analysis, predicts quality-of-life impairment more strongly than inattention or hyperactivity alone (Barkley 2015; Soler-Gutiérrez et al. 2023; Beheshti et al. 2020). The third domain is clearly labeled as research-supported and DSM-omitted, and is not treated as a diagnostic criterion on its own. Archetype routing reads each domain's severity band: a domain at rank ≥ 2 (Moderate-high or High, score ≥ 56) counts as "elevated," and the combination of elevated domains determines the archetype via the first-match-wins rule in Section III.
Why doesn't the LBL inventory include a brief screener subset like the ASRS does?
The 6-item ASRS screener subset (Kessler 2005) is a clinically validated brief detection tool — it has documented sensitivity and specificity in published samples. The LBL inventory does not include an analogous brief subset because (a) the LBL items are different from ASRS items, so the ASRS screener selection logic does not transfer, and (b) the LBL inventory has not yet been validated, so we cannot statistically derive a reliable brief-subset that meets the same screening criteria. If brief screening is the primary use case, a clinically validated instrument administered by a clinician is more appropriate than the LBL inventory; the LBL inventory is designed for self-reflection and structured self-observation rather than rapid clinical screening. Future LBL versions may add a validated brief subset once the full inventory has been validated.
How were the seven archetypes derived?
Three archetypes mirror the DSM-5 presentation specifiers: The Drifter (attention/executive dominant), The Dynamo (hyperactivity-impulsivity dominant), and The Kinetic Mind (attention and hyperactivity both elevated — combined). Two are introduced by the third domain and have no DSM equivalent: The Stormrider (emotional self-regulation is the leading dimension) and The Tempest (all three domains elevated). The Grounded reflects low symptoms across all domains, and The Searching captures present-but-undifferentiated symptoms with no dominant domain — the pattern where alternative explanations are statistically more likely than primary ADHD. Routing reads each domain's band on the 0-100 normalized scale; the rule is first-match-wins with the most-specific rules tested first. Full pseudocode and rule-order rationale are in Section III.
What evidence supports the cross-tool referrals from the Searching archetype?
The Searching archetype and the comorbidity block link to the LBL Sleep-Cognition Optimizer, Anxiety Test, and Depression Test because comorbidity epidemiology (Kessler 2006) shows adults with ADHD have substantial concurrent rates of sleep disorders, anxiety, and depression — and several of these conditions produce ADHD-like symptoms on their own. When symptoms appear without a dominant domain pattern, alternative explanations are statistically more likely than primary ADHD. Chronic sleep deprivation in particular produces a near-perfect mimic of inattentive ADHD. The cross-referrals are evidence-driven, not aesthetic.
Why no Spanish or other language translations yet?
v2.0 ships English-only. Translation requires careful work to preserve the construct and adult-context phrasing across cultures, ideally with bilingual back-translation and cognitive-interviewing pilots — especially for the emotional self-regulation items, where idiom matters most. LBL plans to add Spanish in a future version. No other languages are scheduled yet.
How is this methodology versioned?
This methodology is v2.0, dated 2026-05-30, documenting the three-domain, 20-item inventory. Revisions are tracked in the Version log section above. Major changes (adding a domain or archetype, changing severity band cutpoints, restructuring the scoring algorithm) trigger a major version bump and a deprecation notice for the prior version. Minor changes (typo fixes, citation updates, clarifications) are tracked but don't trigger a version bump.
How to cite this methodology
If you reference this methodology document, the implementation, or the LBL-ADHD archetype framework in academic writing, public communication, or clinical materials, please cite the LBL methodology directly. The construct foundation (DSM-5 ADHD criteria + Faraone 2021 Consensus Statement) and the band-anchoring framework (Kessler 2007) should be cited where directly relevant.
Last reviewed: 2026-05-10. Methodology version 1.0. Next scheduled review: 2027-05-10.