Roach-Conners 3 Report-Comparative

By C. Keith Conners, Ph.D.
Conners 3
Comparative Report
Parent Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Self-Report

Child's Name/ID: Juliette Roach Juliette Roach Juliette Roach Juliette Roach
Administration Nov 15, 2022 Nov 17, 2022 Nov 28, 2022 Nov 11, 2022
Date:
Age: 17 years 17 years 17 years 17 years
Grade:
Rater Name/ID: Michele Roach Caroline Paterson A Hedley
Assessor Name: Dr Bill Young Dr Bill Young Dr Bill Young Dr Bill Young
Data Entered By: Cat Wale Cat Wale Cat Wale Cat Wale
This Comparative Report is intended for use by qualified assessors only, and is not to be shown or
presented to the respondent or any other unqualified individuals.
Copyright © 2008, 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.
P.O. Box 950, North Tonawanda, NY 14120-0950
3770 Victoria Park Ave., Toronto, ON M2H 3M6 ver. 1.2
Conners 3 Comparative Report for Juliette Roach
Summary of Results
Response Style Analysis
Scores on the Validity scales do not indicate a positive, negative, or inconsistent response style for 4 raters
(Parent, Teacher 1, Teacher 2, Self-Report).
Summary of Elevated Scores

The following section summarizes areas of concern for Juliette Roach based on ratings on the Conners 3.
Note that areas that are not a concern are not reported in this summary.
Conners 3 Content Scales

· Inattention: The T-scores were very elevated for 3 raters (Parent = 72, Teacher 1 = 76, Self-Report =
90). The T-score was elevated for 1 rater (Teacher 2 = 66).
· Hyperactivity/Impulsivity: The T-scores were very elevated for 3 raters (Parent = 79, Teacher 1 = 90,
Self-Report = 90). The T-score was elevated for 1 rater (Teacher 2 = 68).
· Learning Problems/Executive Functioning (Teacher form only): The T-score was very elevated for 1
rater (Teacher 1 = 79).
· Learning Problems: The T-scores were very elevated for 2 raters (Teacher 1 = 75, Self-Report = 83).
· Executive Functioning (Parent and Teacher form only): The T-scores were very elevated for 2 raters
(Parent = 72, Teacher 1 = 73).
· Defiance/Aggression: The T-score was elevated for 1 rater (Parent = 68).
DSM-5 Symptom Scales

· ADHD Predominantly Inattentive Presentation: The Symptom Counts were probably met for 3 raters
(Parent, Teacher 1, Self-Report). The T-scores were very elevated for 3 raters (Parent = 76, Teacher 1 =
83, Self-Report = 90).
· ADHD Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Presentation: The Symptom Count was probably met
for 1 rater (Self-Report). The T-scores were very elevated for 3 raters (Parent = 78, Teacher 1 = 89, Self-
Report = 85). The T-score was elevated for 1 rater (Teacher 2 = 65).
· Conduct Disorder: The Symptom Counts were probably met for 2 raters (Parent, Self-Report). The T-
scores were elevated for 2 raters (Parent = 65, Self-Report = 66).
· Oppositional Defiant Disorder: The Symptom Count was probably met for 1 rater (Self-Report). The T-
score was elevated for 1 rater (Self-Report = 68).
Impairment
Juliette Roach’s problems seriously affect her functioning in the Academic setting:
· often (rating = 2), according to 3 raters (Parent, Teacher 1, Teacher 2).
· very frequently (rating = 3), according to 1 rater (Self-Report).
Juliette Roach’s problems seriously affect her functioning in the Social setting:
· occasionally (rating = 1), according to 2 raters (Teacher 1, Teacher 2).
· often (rating = 2), according to 2 raters (Parent, Self-Report).
Juliette Roach’s problems seriously affect her functioning in the Home setting:
· often (rating = 2), according to 2 raters (Parent, Self-Report).
Page 2 ver. 1.2

Conners 3 Index Scores

According to ratings on the Conners 3 ADHD Index, a clinical classification of ADHD is:
· strongly indicated for 3 raters (Probability (%): Parent = 91, Teacher 1 = 91, Self-Report = 99)
According to ratings on the Conners 3 Global Index:

· Conners 3GI Restless-Impulsive: The T-scores were very elevated for 2 raters (Parent = 78, Teacher 1
= 90).The T-score was elevated for 1 rater (Teacher 2 = 65).
· Conners 3GI Emotional Lability: The T-scores were very elevated for 2 raters (Parent = 70, Teacher 1
= 79).
· Conners 3GI Total: The T-scores were very elevated for 2 raters (Parent = 78, Teacher 1 = 90).The T-
score was elevated for 1 rater (Teacher 2 = 65).
Screener Items
According to ratings on the Conners 3, further investigation was suggested/recommended for the following
issues:
· Anxiety for 4 raters (Parent, Teacher 1, Teacher 2, Self-Report).
· Depression for 4 raters (Parent, Teacher 1, Teacher 2, Self-Report).
Severe Conduct Critical Items

According to ratings on the Severe Conduct Critical Items, immediate attention is required for the following
issue:
· Fire setting for 1 rater (Self-Report = 1).
Conners 3 Results and IDEA

Scores suggest possible consideration of IDEA 2004 eligibility in the following areas:
· Emotional Disturbance for 4 raters (Parent, Teacher 1, Teacher 2, Self-Report).
· Other Health Impairment for 4 raters (Parent, Teacher 1, Teacher 2, Self-Report).
· Specific Learning Disability for 4 raters (Parent, Teacher 1, Teacher 2, Self-Report).
Cautionary Remark
This Summary of Results section only provides information about areas that are a concern. Please refer to
the remainder of the Comparative Report for further information regarding areas that are not elevated or
could not be scored due to omitted items.
Page 3 ver. 1.2

Introduction
The Conners 3rd Edition (Conners 3) is an assessment tool used to obtain observations about the youth’s
behavior from multiple perspectives. This instrument is designed to assess Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD) and its most common co-morbid problems in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years
old for the parent and teacher reports, and aged 8 to 18 years old for the self-report. When used in
combination with other information, results from the Conners 3 can provide valuable information to guide
assessment decisions. This report combines the results of up to five raters to provide an overview of the
child’s behavior from a multi-rater perspective, and highlights potentially important inter-rater differences in
scores. Please note that this Comparative report is intended to provide an overview of similarities and
differences in scores across raters. For detailed information about any given administration, please refer to
the Conners 3 Assessment reports.
This computerized report is an interpretive aid and should not be given to clients or used as the sole criterion
for clinical diagnosis or intervention. Administrators are cautioned against drawing unsupported
interpretations. Combining information from this report with information gathered from other psychometric
measures, as well as from interviews and discussions with the child, will give the assessor or service
provider a more comprehensive view of the child than might be obtained from any one source.
Note: For all tables and graphs, P = Parent, T = Teacher, S = Self-Report.
Response Style Analysis

The following table provides each rater’s scores (including the raw score and guideline) for the three Validity
scales.
Validity Scale Raw Score (Guideline)
P T1 T2 S
Positive 1 1 0 0
Impression (positive response (positive response (positive response (positive response
style not indicated) style not indicated) style not indicated) style not indicated)
Negative 1 1 0 1
Impression (negative response (negative response (negative response (negative response
Inconsistency 3 5 5 5
Index Differentials ≥ 2 = 0 Differentials ≥ 2 = 1 Differentials ≥ 2 = 0 Differentials ≥ 2 = 0
(inconsistent response (inconsistent response (inconsistent response (inconsistent response
T-score Guidelines
The guidelines in the following table apply to all T-scores presented in this report. See the Conners 3 Manual
for more information.
T-score Guideline
70+ Very Elevated Score (Many more concerns than are typically reported)
65-69 Elevated Score (More concerns than are typically reported)
60-64 High Average Score (Slightly more concerns than are typically reported)
40-59 Average Score (Typical levels of concern)
< 40 Low Score (Fewer concerns than are typically reported)
Page 4 ver. 1.2

Conners 3 Content Scale T-scores: Comparison across Raters

The following graphs display the T-score results for each of the Conners 3 Content scales.
Legend:
* No comparable scale
Page 5 ver. 1.2

Conners 3 Content Scale Detailed Scores: Comparison across

Raters
The following table summarizes the results for each scale, as well as any statistically significant (p < .10)
differences in T-scores between pairs of raters. If a pair of ratings is not noted in the "Statistically Significant
Differences" column, then the difference between those two raters did not reach statistical significance.
Scale T-score Statistically Significant

Guideline Differences
P T1 T2 S
Inattention 72 76 66 90 S > T1; S > P; S > T2; T1
Very Elevated Very Elevated Elevated Very Elevated > T2
Hyperactivity/ 79 90 68 90 T1 > P; T1 > T2; S > P; S
Impulsivity Very Elevated Very Elevated Elevated Very Elevated > T2; P > T2
Learning - 79 63 - T1 > T2
Problems/ Very Elevated High Average
Executive
Functioning
Learning 61 75 57 83 S > P; S > T2; T1 > P; T1
Problems¹ High Average Very Elevated Average Very Elevated > T2
Executive 72 73 63 - T1 > T2; P > T2
Functioning¹ Very Elevated Very Elevated High Average
Defiance/ 68 47 43 61 P > T1; P > T2; S > T1; S
Aggression Elevated Average Average High Average > T2
Peer Relations 62 52 47 - P > T2
High Average Average Average
Family Relations - - - 62 Comparison not possible
High Average
Note(s):
¹Subscale of Learning Problems/Executive Functioning on the Teacher form.
Page 6 ver. 1.2


This section provides a comparison of DSM-5 Symptom Scales across raters. The Conners 3 provides
information relevant to the DSM-5 diagnoses from two different perspectives: absolute (Symptom Count)
and relative (T-scores). Results of the DSM-5 Symptom Counts can contribute to consideration of whether a
particular DSM-5 diagnosis might be appropriate. A T-score for each DSM-5 diagnosis facilitates
comparison of this individual’s symptoms with his or her peers. At times there may be discrepancies
between Symptom Count and T-score for a given diagnosis. This is to be expected, given that they are
based on different metrics (i.e., absolute versus relative). See the Conners 3 Manual for information on
interpreting discrepancies.
T-scores: Comparison across Raters

The following graphs display the T-score results for the DSM-5 Symptom scales.
Page 7 ver. 1.2

Detailed Scores: Comparison across Raters

The following table summarizes the results for each DSM-5 Symptom scale, as well as any statistically
significant (p < .10) differences in T-scores between pairs of raters. If a pair of ratings is not noted in the
"Statistically Significant Differences" column, then the difference between those two raters did not reach
statistical significance.

P T1 T2 S
ADHD 76 83 62 90 S > P; S > T2; T1 > T2; P
Predominantly Very Elevated Very Elevated High Average Very Elevated > T2
Inattentive
Presentation
ADHD 78 89 65 85 T1 > P; T1 > T2; S > T2; P
Predominantly Very Elevated Very Elevated Elevated Very Elevated > T2
Hyperactive-
Impulsive
Presentation
Conduct 65 50 42 66 S > T1; S > T2; P > T1; P
Disorder Elevated Average Average Elevated > T2
Oppositional 63 49 44 68 S > T1; S > T2; P > T1; P
Defiant Disorder High Average Average Average Elevated > T2
Page 8 ver. 1.2

DSM-5 Total Symptom Counts: Comparison of Symptom Count Status

across Raters
The following table displays the Symptom Count status as indicated by the Conners 3 Total Symptom
Count. A checkmark indicates that the Symptom Count was probably met.
Symptom Count Probably Met

Scale DSM-5 Symptom Count Requirements
P T1 T2 S
ADHD Predominantly
Inattentive Presentation At least 5 out of 9 symptoms ü ü ü
(ADHD In)
ADHD Predominantly
Hyperactive-Impulsive
At least 5 out of 9 symptoms ü
Presentation (ADHD Hyp-
Imp)
ADHD Combined Criteria must be met for both ADHD In and ü
Presentation ADHD Hyp-Imp
Conduct Disorder‡,¥ At least 3 out of 15 symptoms ü ü
Oppositional Defiant
At least 4 out of 8 symptoms ü
Disorder
‡
The Teacher form does not assess Criterion A13 (staying out at night without permission) or Criterion A14 (running
away from home) as most teachers do not have the opportunity to observe these infractions.
¥
The Self-Report form does not assess Criterion A7 (forced sexual activity) due to the sensitive nature of this criterion.
DSM-5 Total Symptom Counts: Count Comparison across Raters

The following table displays the DSM-5 Symptom Counts as indicated by the Conners 3. Bolded text
indicates that the Symptom Count requirements were probably met.
Scale Symptom Count as indicated by Conners 3
P T1 T2 S
ADHD Predominantly 8 6 1 9
Inattentive
Presentation
ADHD Predominantly 4 4 1 8
Hyperactive-Impulsive
Presentation
ADHD Combined ADHD In: 8 ADHD In: 6 ADHD In: 1 ADHD In: 9
Presentation ADHD Hyp-Imp: 4 ADHD Hyp-Imp: 4 ADHD Hyp-Imp: 1 ADHD Hyp-Imp: 8
Conduct Disorder‡,¥ 3 0 0 5
Oppositional Defiant 3 1 0 7
Disorder
‡
¥
Page 9 ver. 1.2

DSM-5 Symptom Tables: Comparison across Raters

The following tables display the status of specific DSM-5 criteria as indicated by the Conners 3.
DSM-5 ADHD Predominantly Inattentive Presentation
DSM-5 Item Criterion Status
Symptoms: P T S P T1 T2 S
Criterion A
A1a. 47 37 31 or 39 Indicated Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
A1b. 95 111 63 Not Indicated Indicated Indicated Indicated
A1c. 35 69 42 Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
A1d. 68 and 79 73 and 57 61 and 17 Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
A1e. 84 103 21 Indicated Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
A1f. 28 60 51 Indicated May be Not Indicated May be
Indicated Indicated
A1g. 97 92 5 Indicated Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
A1h. 101 23 77 Indicated Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
A1i. 2 88 32 Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
DSM-5 ADHD Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Presentation

Criterion A
Hyperactivity
A2a. 98 4 60 Indicated Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
A2b. 93 1 64 Not Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated
A2c. 69 or 99 24 or 7 20 or 7 Indicated Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
A2d. 71 32 84 Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
A2e. 54 or 45 17 or 78 66 or 55 Indicated Indicated May be Indicated
Indicated
A2f. 3 50 34 Not Indicated Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
Impulsivity
A2g. 43 9 9 Not Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
A2h. 61 76 27 Not Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
A2i. 104 29 6 Not Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
DSM-5 ADHD Combined Presentation

An ADHD Combined Presentation diagnosis requires the examination of symptoms for ADHD
Predominantly Inattentive Presentation and for ADHD Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Presentation.
See the ADHD Predominantly Inattentive Presentation and ADHD Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive
Presentation symptom tables above. Please also see the DSM-5 or the Conners 3 Manual and DSM-5
Update for additional guidance.
Page 10 ver. 1.2

DSM-5 Conduct Disorder

Criterion A
Aggression to People and Animals

A1. 16 98 25 May be Not Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated
Indicated
A2. 30 105 38 Not Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated May be
Indicated
A3. 27 14 59 Not Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated
A4. 39 35 86 Not Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
A7. 11 33 - Not Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated -
Destruction of Property
Indicated
Deceitfulness or Theft
A12. 58 31 52 Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated
Serious Violations of Rules
A13. 91 - 91 Not Indicated - - Not Indicated
A14. 76 - 8 Not Indicated - - Not Indicated
A15. 6 54 33 May be Not Indicated Not Indicated May be
Indicated Indicated
DSM-5 Oppositional Defiant Disorder
Criterion A
Angry/Irritable Mood
Indicated
A2. 73 56 74 Indicated May be Not Indicated Indicated
Indicated
A3. 48 38 87 May be Not Indicated Not Indicated Indicated
Indicated
Argumentative/Defiant Behavior
A5. 94 71 1R Not Indicated Not Indicated Not Indicated May be
Indicated
Vindictiveness
A8. 57 51 94 May be Not Indicated Not Indicated May be
Indicated Indicated
R = This item is reverse scored for score calculations.
Page 11 ver. 1.2

Impairment
Each rater’s report of Juliette Roach’s level of impairment in academic, social, and home settings is
presented below.
Rating: 0 = Not true at all (Never, Seldom); 1 = Just a little true (Occasionally); 2 = Pretty much true (Often, Quite a bit);
3 = Very much true (Very often, Very frequently); ? = Omitted item.
Legend:
* No comparable item on the Teacher form.
Page 12 ver. 1.2

Conners 3 Index Scores

The following section describes the results for the two index scores on the Conners 3.
Conners 3 ADHD Index

The following section summarizes each rater’s ratings of Juliette Roach on the Conners 3 ADHD Index.
P T1 T2 S
Probability (%) 91 91 39 99
Guideline A classification of ADHD is A classification of ADHD is A classification of ADHD is A classification of ADHD is
strongly indicated strongly indicated unlikely strongly indicated
Page 13 ver. 1.2

Conners 3 Global Index

The following section summarizes each rater’s ratings of Juliette Roach on the Conners 3 Global Index.
High scores on the Conners 3GI may describe a youth who is moody and emotional, or restless, impulsive
or inattentive. The graph displays T-scores; the table displays T-scores and summarizes the results for the
Conners 3 Global Index, as well as any statistically significant (p < .10) differences in T-scores between
raters. If a pair of ratings is not noted in the "Statistically Significant Differences" column, then the difference
between those two raters did not reach statistical significance.
* No comparable scale

P T1 T2 S
Conners 3GI: 78 90 65 - T1 > P; T1 > T2; P > T2
Restless- Very Elevated Very Elevated Elevated
Impulsive
Conners 3GI: 70 79 56 - T1 > T2; P > T2
Emotional Very Elevated Very Elevated Average
Lability
Conners 3GI: 78 90 65 - T1 > P; T1 > T2; P > T2
Total Very Elevated Very Elevated Elevated
Page 14 ver. 1.2

Anxiety Screener Items

The following table displays the results from each rater’s ratings of Juliette Roach’s behavior with regards to
specific items that are related to generalized anxiety.
Guideline based on the ratings to these items:
Parent: Further investigation was suggested/recommended.

Teacher 1: Further investigation was suggested/recommended.
Self-Report: Further investigation was suggested/recommended.
Item Rating
Item Content
P T S P T1 T2 S
Worries 4 79 90 2 3 1 3
Trouble controlling worries 20 82 46 2 3 1 3
Nervous or jumpy 70 87 2 3 1 1 3
Irritable when anxious 100 58 29 2 1 ? 3
Depression Screener Items

The following table displays the results from each rater’s ratings of Juliette Roach’s behavior with regards to
specific items that are related to depression.
Guideline based on the ratings to these items:
Parent: Further investigation was suggested/recommended.

Self-Report: Further investigation was suggested/recommended.
Item Rating
Item Content
P T S P T1 T2 S
Worthlessness 17 95 36 1 2 1 2
Tired; low energy 66 67 80 1 2 1 1
Loss of interest or pleasure 82 53 44 1 1 0 3
Sad, gloomy, or irritable 103 49 68 0 3 0 2
Page 15 ver. 1.2


The following table displays each rater’s observations of Juliette Roach with regard to the Severe Conduct
Critical Items.
Item Rating
Item Content
P T S P T1 T2 S
Uses a weapon 27 14 59 0 0 0 0
Cruel to animals 41 21 47 0 0 0 0
Confrontational stealing 96 27 13 0 0 0 0
Forced sex 11 33 - 0 0 0 -
Fire setting 78 61 72 0 0 0 1*
Breaking and entering 89 90 78 0 0 0 0
Trouble with police - 68 22 - 0 0 0
*The response(s) suggest(s) the need for immediate follow-up.
Additional Questions
The following section displays the additional comments made by each rater about Juliette Roach.
Any concerns about child:

· Parent: Over sensitive (may easily be affected/triggered)Anxiety, dark thoughts, lonliess, managment of
future potential rejections.
· Teacher 1: Pressure is felt to achieve very hightly by Juliette. Doesn't want to let people down
· Teacher 2: This item was omitted.
· Self-Report: Dyslexia, anxiety
Strengths or skills about child:

· Parent: Imagination, creative, incredible memory, humour, forgiving, fair and kind, independent, strong
willed, spirited, enthusiastic, explorer, researcher.
· Teacher 1: Enthusiastic, funny, engaged in the lessions I teach. A small group where she is clearly
comfortable
· Teacher 2: Lots of skills and strengths. A really strong student who clearly enjoys the subject
· Self-Report: Good imagination, acting, singing
Page 16 ver. 1.2

Conners 3 Results and IDEA

Checkmarks under “Follow-up Recommended” in the following table denote areas of the Conners 3 that
were indicated or endorsed, suggesting possible consideration of IDEA 2004 eligibility in related areas.
Content Areas Follow-up Recommended Possible IDEA Eligibility Category
P T1 T2 S
Conners 3 Content Scales
Inattention ü ü ü ü ED, LD, OHI
Hyperactivity/Impulsivity ü ü ü ü ED, OHI
Learning Problems/Executive
- ü - LD, OHI
Functioning
Learning Problems¹ ü ü LD
Executive Functioning¹ ü ü - LD, OHI
Defiance/Aggression ü ED
Peer Relations - Autism, ED
Family Relations - - - ED
ADHD Predominantly Inattentive
ü ü ü ED, LD, OHI
Presentation
ADHD Predominantly Hyperactive-
ü ü ü ü ED, OHI
Impulsive Presentation
ADHD Combined Presentation ü ü ü ED, LD, OHI
Conduct Disorder ü ü ED
Oppositional Defiant Disorder ü ED
Screener Items
Anxiety ü ü ü ü ED
Depression ü ü ü ü ED
Severe Conduct ü ED
ED = Emotional Disturbance; LD = Specific Learning Disability; OHI = Other Health Impairment.
¹Subscale of Learning Problems/Executive Functioning on Teacher form.
Page 17 ver. 1.2

Item Responses
The following response values were entered for the items on the Conners 3.
Parent Items
Item Parent Item Parent Item Parent Item Parent Item Parent Item Parent
Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating
1. 2 19. 3 37. 3 55. 1 73. 3 91. 0
2. 2 20. 2 38. 2 56. 1 74. 1 92. 0
3. 1 21. 0 39. 0 57. 1 75. 1 93. 1
4. 2 22. 0 40. 2 58. 1 76. 0 94. 1
5. 1 23. 2 41. 0 59. 1 77. 2 95. 1
6. 1 24. 1 42. 2 60. 1 78. 0 96. 0
7. 1 25. 2 43. 1 61. 1 79. 2 97. 2
8. 2 26. 1 44. 1 62. 1 80. 2 98. 2
9. 3 27. 0 45. 2 63. 3 81. 1 99. 2
10. 1 28. 3 46. 0 64. 2 82. 1 100. 2
11. 0 29. 2 47. 2 65. 0 83. 0 101. 2
12. 3 30. 0 48. 1 66. 1 84. 2 102. 1
13. 0 31. 1 49. 2 67. 1 85. 1 103. 0
14. 1 32. 1 50. 1 68. 2 86. 1 104. 1
15. 1 33. 2 51. 2 69. 0 87. 1 105. 3
16. 1 34. 2 52. 2 70. 3 88. 1 106. 2
17. 1 35. 2 53. 1 71. 2 89. 0 107. 2
18. 1 36. 1 54. 2 72. 1 90. 3 108. 2
Page 18 ver. 1.2

Teacher Items
Teacher Rating Teacher Rating Teacher Rating
Item Item Item
T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2
1. 0 0 39. 2 1 77. 3 2
2. 3 0 40. 1 0 78. 2 1
3. 2 2 41. 1 0 79. 3 1
4. 2 1 42. 0 0 80. 1 0
5. 1 0 43. 0 0 81. 1 2
6. 1 2 44. 3 2 82. 3 1
7. 3 0 45. 3 0 83. 2 1
8. 0 0 46. 1 1 84. 1 0
9. 1 1 47. 0 0 85. 0 0
10. 0 0 48. 1 0 86. 1 2
11. 2 2 49. 3 0 87. 1 1
12. 2 1 50. 2 1 88. 1 1
13. 3 1 51. 0 0 89. 0 0
14. 0 0 52. 1 0 90. 0 0
15. 2 1 53. 1 0 91. 0 1
16. 3 1 54. 0 0 92. 2 1
17. 1 0 55. 3 1 93. 0 0
18. 2 2 56. 1 0 94. 2 1
19. 1 0 57. 2 1 95. 2 1
20. 3 1 58. 1 ? 96. 0 0
21. 0 0 59. 0 0 97. 3 1
22. 0 0 60. 2 1 98. 0 0
23. 3 1 61. 0 0 99. 3 1
24. 0 0 62. 0 0 100. 1 1
25. 1 1 63. 1 1 101. 0 0
26. 0 0 64. 0 0 102. 0 0
27. 0 0 65. 3 1 103. 3 1
28. ? 2 66. 0 1 104. 0 0
29. 1 1 67. 2 1 105. 0 0
30. 3 1 68. 0 0 106. 2 2
31. 0 0 69. 1 0 107. 3 2
32. 1 1 70. 0 0 108. 1 1
33. 0 0 71. 0 0 109. 1 1
34. 0 0 72. 0 ? 110. 0 1
35. 0 0 73. 0 0 111. 2 2
36. 2 1 74. 3 2 112. 2 2
37. 2 1 75. 1 0 113. 1 1
38. 0 0 76. 0 0
Page 19 ver. 1.2

Self-Report Items
Item Self-Report Item Self-Report Item Self-Report Item Self-Report Item Self-Report Item Self-Report
Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating
1. 1 18. 0 35. 2 52. 0 69. 1 86. 1
2. 3 19. 2 36. 2 53. 3 70. 3 87. 2
3. 0 20. 2 37. 1 54. 2 71. 3 88. 3
4. 3 21. 3 38. 1 55. 2 72. 1 89. 1
5. 3 22. 0 39. 3 56. 2 73. 1 90. 3
6. 3 23. 0 40. 2 57. 3 74. 2 91. 0
7. 2 24. 3 41. 2 58. 2 75. 0 92. 3
8. 0 25. 0 42. 3 59. 0 76. 3 93. 3
9. 2 26. 3 43. 3 60. 3 77. 3 94. 1
10. 3 27. 2 44. 3 61. 2 78. 0 95. 3
11. 3 28. 2 45. 2 62. 2 79. 3 96. 2
12. 3 29. 3 46. 3 63. 3 80. 1 97. 2
13. 0 30. 3 47. 0 64. 1 81. 3
14. 2 31. 2 48. 0 65. 2 82. 0
15. 3 32. 3 49. 3 66. 2 83. 2
16. 3 33. 1 50. 2 67. 2 84. 3
17. 3 34. 3 51. 2 68. 2 85. 1
Date printed: December 06, 2022

End of Report
Page 20 ver. 1.2

Roach-Conners 3 Report-Comparative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roach-Conners 3 Report-Comparative

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roach-Conners 3 Report-Comparative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

By C. Keith Conners, Ph.D.

Parent Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Self-Report

Summary of Elevated Scores

Conners 3 Content Scales

DSM-5 Symptom Scales

Copyright © 2008, 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 2 ver. 1.2

Conners 3 Index Scores

According to ratings on the Conners 3 Global Index:

Severe Conduct Critical Items

Conners 3 Results and IDEA

Copyright © 2008, 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 3 ver. 1.2

Note: For all tables and graphs, P = Parent, T = Teacher, S = Self-Report.

Response Style Analysis

Copyright © 2008, 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 4 ver. 1.2

Conners 3 Content Scale T-scores: Comparison across Raters

Copyright © 2008, 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 5 ver. 1.2

Conners 3 Content Scale Detailed Scores: Comparison across

Scale T-score Statistically Significant

Copyright © 2008, 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 6 ver. 1.2

DSM-5 Symptom Scales

T-scores: Comparison across Raters

Copyright © 2008, 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 7 ver. 1.2

Detailed Scores: Comparison across Raters

Scale T-score Statistically Significant

Copyright © 2008, 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 8 ver. 1.2

DSM-5 Total Symptom Counts: Comparison of Symptom Count Status

Symptom Count Probably Met

DSM-5 Total Symptom Counts: Count Comparison across Raters

Copyright © 2008, 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 9 ver. 1.2

DSM-5 Symptom Tables: Comparison across Raters

DSM-5 ADHD Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Presentation

DSM-5 ADHD Combined Presentation

Copyright © 2008, 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 10 ver. 1.2

DSM-5 Conduct Disorder

Aggression to People and Animals

Copyright © 2008, 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 11 ver. 1.2

Copyright © 2008, 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 12 ver. 1.2

Conners 3 Index Scores

Conners 3 ADHD Index

Copyright © 2008, 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 13 ver. 1.2

Conners 3 Global Index

Scale T-score Statistically Significant

Copyright © 2008, 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 14 ver. 1.2

Anxiety Screener Items

Guideline based on the ratings to these items:

Parent: Further investigation was suggested/recommended.

Depression Screener Items