There is no doubt some differences in people who experienced mental problems, and sought or were given a diagnosis, and the general population.
QbTest was retroactively designed specifically to target this subjectively diagnosed ADHD group. This may be evidence that an ADHD diagnosis does differentiate populations based on some criteria, but it says nothing to this differentiation being caused by a singular disorder/pathology
I'd like to see a study of this test done on other comorbidities. I found this for example which finds a weak relation in these tests https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38317541/ differentiating between ADHD and depression, anxiety, OCD.
Here is another study.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37800347/
>Conclusions: When used on their own, QbTest scores available to clinicians are not sufficiently accurate in discriminating between ADHD and non-ADHD clinical cases. Therefore, the QbTest should not be used as stand-alone screening or diagnostic tool, or as a triage system for accepting individuals on the waiting-list for clinical services. However, when used as an adjunct to support a full clinical assessment, QbTest can produce efficiencies in the assessment pathway and reduce the time to diagnosis.
I'll also point out few things:
1. Attention/focus is not a simple single metric one can measure and varies entirely on the task/situation at hand. That is a computerized test with no actual risk/reward to a person is not a predictor of attention/focus in general life. Focus/attention is driven largely by the feelings, rewards, risks, outcomes someone sees, those with diagnosed ADHD are already entering this study with an entirely different mental perception/attitude.
2. There is inherent bias present in ADHD patients in they may intentionally fudge their performance to meet their diagnosis. Unlike most disorders, people actually seek an ADHD diagnosis for access to stimulants, and its incredibly easy to understand how to mimic that behavior for these tests.
3. Other computerized tests have existed aiding in diagnosis, so this becomes circular.
I think if you look hard enough there will always be fuzzy boundaries and overlaps in all the forms of neurodivergence. And yet, stereotypes and categories exist for a reason. Just because diagnosis is not perfect, doesn't mean it isn't good enough to do more good than harm in the world.
To your point 1, that's true. When there's ample motivation/inspiration, which is fickle and as far as I can tell not really up for conscious mutation, hyperfocus can occur in people with ADHD.
2: The test was actually quite long. In my unmedicated graph my attention was pretty high at first, but then I apparently got slowly distracted or disengaged. During the test I didn't feel distracted or disengaged however, and yet it showed quite clearly. Might it be harder than you think for people to "fake" this in a convincing way?
Anyway I do look forward to a better understanding of ADHD rather than "not enough dopamine" which seems to be the leading explanation. And I'm curious how much of a bimodal distribution that spectrum of dopamine deficiency is for humanity, or whether it is even bimodal at all.
What I am trying to say is that the brain is a VERY complex machine, I do not believe there is a singular cause for why people fail to be motivated/alert in their daily lives.
I refuse to call it ADHD, as that implies some known pathology. It is imo a social construction. Categorization can be useful for assessment/treatment but it isnt science. Quite frankly I dont care if people were handed amphetamines simply because they wanted to see if it improved their lives.
I will just say, I am disgnosed and take stims and the best and most motivatrd I ever felt was when I was doing some sort of physical activity almost daily, had a challenging rewarding job and friends. I was completely sober and happy, and completely depressed, ADHD like all the years prior. If youre not exercising regularly I highly suggest you try it
QbTest was retroactively designed specifically to target this subjectively diagnosed ADHD group. This may be evidence that an ADHD diagnosis does differentiate populations based on some criteria, but it says nothing to this differentiation being caused by a singular disorder/pathology
I'd like to see a study of this test done on other comorbidities. I found this for example which finds a weak relation in these tests https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38317541/ differentiating between ADHD and depression, anxiety, OCD.
Here is another study. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37800347/ >Conclusions: When used on their own, QbTest scores available to clinicians are not sufficiently accurate in discriminating between ADHD and non-ADHD clinical cases. Therefore, the QbTest should not be used as stand-alone screening or diagnostic tool, or as a triage system for accepting individuals on the waiting-list for clinical services. However, when used as an adjunct to support a full clinical assessment, QbTest can produce efficiencies in the assessment pathway and reduce the time to diagnosis.
I'll also point out few things:
1. Attention/focus is not a simple single metric one can measure and varies entirely on the task/situation at hand. That is a computerized test with no actual risk/reward to a person is not a predictor of attention/focus in general life. Focus/attention is driven largely by the feelings, rewards, risks, outcomes someone sees, those with diagnosed ADHD are already entering this study with an entirely different mental perception/attitude.
2. There is inherent bias present in ADHD patients in they may intentionally fudge their performance to meet their diagnosis. Unlike most disorders, people actually seek an ADHD diagnosis for access to stimulants, and its incredibly easy to understand how to mimic that behavior for these tests.
3. Other computerized tests have existed aiding in diagnosis, so this becomes circular.