429791

djonsson et al.Journal of Attention Disorders

© 2012 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permission:

JAD17410.1177/1087054711429791Gu

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Article
Journal of Attention Disorders

The Relationship Between ADHD

17(4) 339­–346
© 2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:

Symptoms, Mood Instability, and sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1087054711429791
jad.sagepub.com
Self-Reported Offending

Gisli H. Gudjonsson1, Jon Fridrik Sigurdsson2,

Tomas F. Adalsteinsson3, and Susan Young1

Abstract
Objective: To investigate the relative importance of ADHD symptoms, mood instability, and antisocial personality disorder
traits in predicting self-reported offending. Method: A total of 295 Icelandic students completed two scales of offending
behavior and measures of ADHD symptoms, mood instability, and antisocial personality traits. Results: Self-reported
offending from the two independent scales correlated significantly with ADHD symptoms, mood instability, and antisocial
personality traits with medium to large effect size. Multiple regressions showed that ADHD symptoms contributed to
the two outcome measures beyond that of age and gender with a medium effect size. The ADHD effects were only partly
mediated by mood instability and antisocial personality traits for general offending but were almost completely mediated
by the more reactive measure of antisocial behavior. Conclusion: ADHD appears to be a potential risk factor for general
offending in its own right irrespective of the presence of comorbidity, whereas mood instability is more important with
regard to reactive behavior. (J. of Att. Dis. 2013; 17(4) 339-346)

Keywords
ADHD, mood instability, personality disorder traits, self-reported offending

ADHD is a childhood developmental disorder, but one or
more of the three core symptoms—inattention, hyperactiv-
ity, and impulsivity—sometimes persist into young adult-
hood (Faraone, 2005). Polanczyk, Silva de Lima, Horta,
Biederman, and Rohde (2007) estimated that the world-
wide-pooled prevalence rate of ADHD among persons
18 years or younger is 5.3%. Mental health problems,
delinquency, and antisocial personality disorder are com-
monly reported in people who have grown up with ADHD
(Barkley, Fischer, Smallish, & Fletcher, 2004; Barkley,
Murphy, & Fischer, 2008; Biederman, Newcorn, & Sprich,
1991; Brassett-Grundy & Butler, 2004; Mordre, Groholt,
Kjelsberg, Sandstad, & Myhre, 2011; Satterfield et al.,
2007; Sibley et al., 2011; Sourander et al., 2006; Unnever,
Cullen, & Pratt, 2003; Young, Gudjonsson, Ball, & Lam,
2003; Young, Wells, & Gudjonsson, 2011).
It is sometimes assumed that the relationship between
ADHD and offending is substantially mediated by low self-
control with relatively small direct effect (Unnever et al.,
2003), although there is some evidence that, regardless of
comorbidity, ADHD alone increases the risk of offending
(Sibley et al., 2011). Young (2007) argued that ADHD is
significantly related to early offending, which increases the
likelihood of persistent offending into adulthood, even after
taking into account comorbid conduct disorder problems in
childhood. She suggests that the offending of adults with
ADHD is likely to be unplanned and opportunistic and
driven by a high level of impulsivity, need for stimulation,
and mood instability. This is supported by the recent find-
ings of Retz and Rosler (2010) who argued that ADHD is
more strongly associated with reactive than proactive vio-
lent offending.
Young et al. (2010) found a younger onset of offending
and a significantly higher previous rate of offending
among ADHD prisoners compared with nonsymptomatic
controls. Their total number of previous convictions,
determined from official criminal records, showed that
ADHD and heroin addiction were better predictors of the
extent of their offending than antisocial personality
1
King’s College London, United Kingdom
2
University of Iceland/Landspitali—The National University Hospital of
Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
3
University of Iceland
Corresponding Author:
Gisli H. Gudjonsson, King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry, De
Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AF, England, United Kingdom.
Email: gisli.gudjonsson@kcl.ac.uk
340 Journal of Attention Disorders 17(4)
disorder. ADHD was a better predictor of violent offences,
even above prior drug use. Using the same data set, Young
et al. (2009) found that ADHD was a much better predictor
of the number of critical incidents within the prison than
antisocial personality disorder. Similar findings have been
reported among persons detained in forensic mental health
facilities (Young et al., 2003). Investigating predictors of
institutional disturbance, critical incidents with the institu-
tion, and previous offending in the community among ado-
lescent offenders, Young, Misch, Collins, and Gudjonsson
(2011) found that ADHD symptoms were more important
in predicting institutional behavioral disturbance than con-
duct disorder, whereas substance misuse and violent cog-
nitions were the best predictors of delinquency in the
community. The findings from these studies suggest that
ADHD is important in predicting behavioral disturbance
and critical incidents within an institution. Gudjonsson,
Sigurdsson, Young, Newton, and Peersen (2009) showed
that mood instability is an important comorbid problem
associated with ADHD, which may exacerbate existing
propensities for poor behavioral inhibition and result in
offending. In contrast, ADHD may be a less important pre-
dictor of offending in the community than antisocial per-
sonality disorder, but this has not been investigated in
community samples. The preceding review raises impor-
tant questions about the role of ADHD symptoms and
mood instability in offending and how the nature of the
offending (general offending versus more dynamic acting
out behavior) influences this relationship.
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the
relationship between self-reported offending, ADHD symp-
toms, mood instability, and antisocial personality disorder
traits in a community sample of college students. It was
anticipated that an antisocial personality disorder trait is the
best predictor of self-reported offending among a community
sample (Gudjonsson, Einarsson, Bragason, & Sigurdsson,
2006), but that ADHD symptoms and mood instability add a
unique variance beyond that of an antisocial personality trait
(Young, 2007). Self-reported offending behavior was mea-
sured by two different scales: The Mak Self-Reported
Delinquency Scale, Total Offending Score (Mak, 1993), and
the RATE-Antisocial Behavior Scale (Young & Ross, 2007).
The former is a direct measure of the extent of delinquent
acts during the previous 12 months and thus a measure of
general offending, whereas the latter is a more dynamic mea-
sure of acting out and reckless behavior (e.g., getting into a
fight, threatening behavior, causing damage to property,
reckless behavior, police contact) during the previous month.
Hypothesis 1 is that self-reported offending is correlated
with antisocial personality traits, ADHD symptoms, and
mood instability. Hypothesis 2 is that ADHD symptoms and
mood instability are better predictors than antisocial personality
traits of acting out behavior, but the reverse will be true of
general offending (Young et al., 2009, 2011).
Method
Participants
The participants were 295 students from four educational
establishments in Iceland. There were 136 (46.4%) males
and 157 (53.6%) females (two did not reveal their sex).
Most of the participants (80.1%) were 16 to 18 years. A
further 27 participants declined to take part in the study,
which represented 8.4% of the total sample approached.
Instruments
Self-Reported Delinquency Scale. This 34-item scale (Mak,
1993) records different kinds of delinquent acts and has been
shown to have good reliability and validity (Gudjonsson
et al., 2006). These range from minor antisocial acts (e.g.,
cheating at games or exams, truancy from school, drinking
alcohol under age in a public place, consuming soft drugs)
to more serious acts of delinquency (e.g., theft, using a
weapon in a fight, fire setting, physical assault, driving a
vehicle while intoxicated, and sexual assault). The partici-
pants indicate whether they had engaged in any of the delin-
quent acts in the past 12 months. In the current study, the
formula devised by Sankey and Huon (1999) was used to
determine the extent of delinquency in terms of the range
and seriousness of delinquent activities. The mean serious-
ness score for each item is multiplied by the participant’s
response to each item, giving a Mak Total Offending Score
ranging from 0 to 474.
RATE-S. This is a 32-item self-report questionnaire
(Young & Ross, 2007) of behaviors during the previous
month. It comprises four subscales: (a) RATE-ADHD
Symptoms (i.e., measuring attentional difficulties, impul-
siveness, and disorganization); (b) RATE-Emotional Con-
trol (i.e., items relate to emotional volatility and include
worries, anxieties, depressed mood, anger, loss of temper,
and poor self-esteem); (c) RATE-Antisocial Behavior (i.e.,
involvement in a range of delinquent behaviors such as
fighting, theft, damage to property, vandalism, reckless
behavior, verbal threats to others, and being arrested and
questioned by police); and (d) RATE-Social Functioning
(i.e., items focus on social participation and confidence in
social activities). Each item is rated on an 8-point Likert-
type scale, ranging from “not at all” to “most of the time.”
The possible score for each scale ranges between 8 and 64,
with the possible total score ranging between 32 and 256.
The RATE-S has been shown to have good reliability and
validity (Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Eyjolfsdottir, Smari, &
Gudjonsson et al. 341
Young, 2009; Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Gudmundsdottir, &
Sigurjonsdottir, 2010; Young & Gudjonsson, 2006).
Barkley Current Symptoms Scale to screen for ADHD
(BCS). This is an 18-item self-report questionnaire (Barkley,
1998) that corresponds with the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; American Psychi-
atric Association, 1994) criteria. In all, 9 items measure
problems with attention and 9 measure symptoms of
hyperactivity/impulsiveness. Each item was scored on a
4-point rating scale of frequency of symptoms from
“never” to “very often.” The participants completed the
questionnaire for symptoms they had experienced during
the previous 6 months. Scores ranged between 0 and 27 for
each of the two subscales (Inattention and Hyperactivity/
Impulsivity) and 0 to 54 for the Total scale. Magnusson et
al. (2006) reported the measure had good psychometric
properties and correlated well with informants’ ratings of
symptoms and interview-based diagnoses in childhood
and adulthood in an Icelandic sample. The same measure
has been used successfully in research into ADHD symp-
toms among Icelandic college students (Gudjonsson et
al., 2010; Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Eyjolfsdottir, et al.,
2009).
Gough Socialization Scale. This is a 54-item scale from the
California Personality Inventory, which measures the extent
to which individuals have internalized the values of society
(Megargee, 1972). The lower the score the more likely the
person is to possess antisocial personality traits (Gudjonsson
& Roberts, 1985). It is a good measure of proneness to anti-
social behavior (Blackburn, 1993), self-reported offending
(Gudjonsson et al., 2006), reoffending (Sigurdsson, Gud-
jonsson, & Peersen, 2001), and reconviction after being
released from prison (Peersen, Sigurdsson, Gudjonsson, &
Gretarsson, 2004). Young and Gudjonsson (2006) found
that the scale discriminated extremely well between patients
clinically diagnosed with ADHD and normal controls with
a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 2.6).
Procedure
The colleges selected were from three of the most heavily
populated areas of Iceland. The questionnaires were
administered to students in class in the presence of their
teacher and the researcher during the first semester of the
academic year. The researcher explained that the purpose
of the study was to investigate the relationship between
delinquency, ADHD, anxiety, and depression. It was fur-
ther explained that participation was voluntary and that
those who did not wish to take part were free to leave the
class at any time. Those who remained in class, which
comprised 91.6% of the total sample, completed the
unmarked questionnaires anonymously and placed them
into a sealed box held by the researcher. Ethical approval
for the study was granted by the National Bioethics
Committee in Iceland.
Results
Sex Effect
To test for possible sex differences on the psychological
tests, MANOVA was performed on the measures with sex
as the independent (fixed) variable. There was a significant
overall sex effect (Pillai’s Trace = .169; F = 4.8, p < .01;
partial η2 = .169).
The mean test scores on the Mak Total Offending Score,
RATE, BCS-ADHD, and Gough Socialization Scale were
calculated separately for males and females. Independent t
tests were conducted between males and females on the psy-
chological tests and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) obtained on the
three scales where significant difference emerged. The
findings showed that males scored significantly higher
on all three offending/socialization scales (Mak Total
Offending Score, RATE-Antisocial Behavior Scale, and
Gough Socialization Scale). The effect sizes were large for
the two offending outcome measures (Mak Total Offending
Score, RATE-Antisocial Behavior Scale; Cohen’s d = 0.58
and 0.61, respectively) and medium for the Gough
Socialization Scale (Cohen’s d = 0.43). Alpha reliability
coefficients showed acceptable reliability for all the scales
ranging between .73 and .91 (see Table 1).
Correlations
Table 2 shows the Pearson’s correlations between the self-
reported measures, antisocial personality traits, ADHD
symptoms, and mood instability. The correlations are given
separately for males and females. The correlations were
generally larger for the female than male sample. BCS-
ADHD symptoms, the Gough Socialization Scale, and the
RATE-Emotional Control Scale all correlated significantly
with the Mak Total Offending Score and the RATE-
Antisocial Behavior Scale with low to large effect sizes.
The BCS-ADHD total symptom score correlated signifi-
cantly with the Gough Socialization Scale (negative correla-
tions) and the RATE-Emotional Control Scale with medium
to large effect sizes. The table shows that the RATE-
Emotional Control Scale is more highly correlated with the
RATE-Antisocial Scale (large effect size) than with the Mak
Total Offending Score (low to medium effect size).
Multiple Regressions
With regard to the psychological variables, there was
no violation of linearity, but there was violation of nor-
mality regarding the Mak Total Offending Score and the
342 Journal of Attention Disorders 17(4)

Table 1. Sex Differences on the Psychological Measures.

Males Females

Measures M (SD) n M (SD) n t-value α

Mak Total Offending Score 72.7 (71.9) 135 38.5 (41.8) 157 5.04* .86
RATE Total Score 99.6 (26.1) 110 96.4 (28.1) 118 0.88 .87
  RATE-ADHD Symptoms Scale 30.1 (9.8) 127 28.4 (11.0) 140 1.32 .83
  RATE-Emotional Control Scale 24.3 (10.0) 130 26.9 (12.3) 141 −1.88 .88
  RATE-Antisocial Behavior Scale 18.4 (9.5) 130 13.3 (6.9) 148 5.18* .86
  RATE-Social Functioning Scale 27.0 (9.7) 125 28.3 (9.2) 140 −1.08 .73
BCS-ADHD Total Score 12.7 (9.6) 125 12.6 (9.3) 145 −0.14 .91
 BCS-Inattention 6.8 (5.1) 126 6.7 (4.9) 148 0.26 .84
 BCS-Hyperactivity/Impulsivity 6.0 (5.0) 128 6.0 (5.1) 151 0.00 .84
Gough Socialization Scale 32.2 (6.5) 110 34.9 (6.1) 121 −3.28* .75
Note: BCS = Barkley Current Symptoms Scale.
*p < .001.

Table 2. Intercorrelations Between the Psychological Scales for Males (Above the Diagonal) and Females (Below the Diagonal).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
  1. Mak Total Offending Score — .31*** .25** .20* .54*** −.08 .41*** .41*** .35*** −.45***
  2. RATE Total Score .50*** — .73*** .81*** .74*** .33*** .52*** .56*** .43*** −.55***
  3. RATE-ADHD .47*** .83*** — .58*** .42*** −.09 .53*** .59*** .41*** −.42***
  4. RATE-Emotional Control .42*** .91*** .73*** — .50*** .05 .47*** .49*** .41*** −.43***
  5. RATE-Antisocial Behavior .64*** .73*** .67*** .60*** — .04 .32*** .32*** .29*** −.43***
  6. RATE-Social Functioning −.01 .36*** −.01 .25** .00 — .10 .16 .03 −.17
  7. BCS-ADHD Total Score .48*** .69*** .70*** .62*** .61*** .12 — .93*** .94*** −.53***
  8. BCS-Inattention .46*** .72*** .71*** .66*** .60*** .15 .94*** — .76*** −.52***
  9. BCS-Hyperactivity .46*** .59*** .62*** .54*** .56*** .09 .95*** .78*** — −.48***
10. Gough Socialization Scale −.59*** −.60*** −.57*** −.58*** −.62*** −.15 −.59*** −.60*** −.53*** —
Note: BCS = Barkley Current Symptoms Scale.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

RATE-Antisocial Behavior Scale. Violation of normality is
not uncommon when large samples are used (Field, 2009).
The collinearity statistics were acceptable (i.e., no variable
had Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) greater than 1.0).
To investigate how much the BCS-ADHD total symp-
toms, the RATE-Emotional Control Scale, and the Gough
Socialization Scale (i.e., the predictor variables of ADHD
symptoms, mood instability, and antisocial personality
traits) contributed to the variance in past offending (Mak
Total Offending Score) and more current antisocial behavior
(RATE-Antisocial Behavior Scale), hierarchical multiple
regressions were carried out using a forced entry method.
Separate analyses were carried out for the two outcome
(dependent) variables, and the findings are summarized in
Tables 3 and 4. The predictor variables were entered in four
steps with gender (male = 1, female = 2) and age being
entered first to adjust for their possible effects, followed in
Step 2 by the BCS-ADHD symptoms, RATE-Emotional
Control Scale in Step 3, and the Gough Socialization Scale
in Step 4. This allowed us to investigate the effects of ADHD
symptoms on offending behavior and the extent to which the
effects were mediated by poor emotional control and antiso-
cial personality traits.
The predictor variables accounted for 34.2% and 42.1% in
“general” offending (Mak Total Offending Score) and antiso-
cial behavior (RATE-Antisocial Behavior Scale), respectively.
For “general” offending, poor emotional control made no sig-
nificant contribution to the outcome variable. The extent of
offending was predicted by a combination of being a young
male with antisocial personality traits and ADHD symptoms.
Antisocial personality traits (i.e., a low score on the Gough
Socialization Scale) were the single best predictor (β = −.408),
and these partly mediated the effects of ADHD symptoms.
Importantly, ADHD symptoms remained significant in the
final step (β = .206) and had a stronger effect than being a male
(β = .176) and of a younger age (β = −.137).
With regard to the RATE-Antisocial Behavior Scale
(Table 4), poor emotional control and antisocial personality
traits almost fully mediated the effect of ADHD symp-
toms (β value reduced from .418 to .075 and became
Gudjonsson et al. 343

Table 3. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis (Hierarchical) for Mak Total Offending Score.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

  β/t-value β/t-value β/t-value β/t-value

Gender .261/3.9*** .254/4.2*** .261/4.3*** .176/3.0**
Age −.104/−1.5 −.118/−1.9 −.132/−2.1* −.137/−2.37*
BCS-ADHD Total Score .416/6.8*** .373/5.1*** .206/2.8**
RATE-Emotional Control Scale .080/1.1 −.034/−0.5
Gough Socialization Scale −.408/−5.6***
F value (2, 203) = 9.0*** (3, 202) = 23.0*** (4, 201) = 17.5*** (5, 200) = 22.3***
Adjusted R2 .073 .243 .244 .342
Note: BCS = Barkley Current Symptoms Scale. Step 1: Δ R2 = .082, p < .001; Step 2: Δ R2 = .172, p < .001; Step 3: Δ R2 = .004, ns; Step 4: Δ R2 = .099,
p < .001.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis (Hierarchical) for the RATE-Antisocial Behavior Scale.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

  β/t-value β/t-value β/t-value β/t-value

Gender .270/3.9*** .275/4.4*** .310/5.5*** .253/4.5**
Age −.078/−1.1 −.096/−1.5 −.169/−3.0** −.177/−3.2*
BCS-ADHD Total Score .418/67*** .182/2.7** .075/1.1
RATE-Emotional Control Scale .446/6.6*** .374/5.5***
Gough Socialization Scale −.270/3.9***
F value (2, 196) = 8.6*** (3, 195) = 22.3*** (4, 194) = 31.1*** (5, 193) = 29.8***
Adjusted R2 .072 .244 .378 .421
Note: BCS = Barkley Current Symptoms Scale. Step 1:Δ R2 = .081, p < .001; Step 2:Δ R2 = .174, p < .001; Step 3:Δ R2 = .133, p < .001; Step 4:Δ R2 = .045,
p < .001.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

nonsignificant). Poor emotional control remained the single
best predictor (β = .374), followed by antisocial personality
traits on the Gough Socialization Scale (β = −.270) and
being a male (β = .253).
Discussion
Hypothesis 1 was supported by showing that self-reported
offending (with the Mak Total Offending Score and RATE-
Antisocial Behavior Scale) correlated significantly with
ADHD symptoms (BCS), mood instability (the RATE-
Emotional Control Scale), and antisocial personality traits
(the Gough Socialization Scale). The effect sizes were
mostly medium to large. The Mak Total Offending and the
RATE-Antisocial Behavior Scale were highly correlated
with large effect sizes (r = .54 and .64 for males and
females, respectively).
In spite of the considerable overlap between the two out-
come measures, multiple regression analyses showed that
Hypothesis 2 was also supported. ADHD symptoms
contributed to the two offending outcome measures beyond
that of age and gender with a medium effect size, but, impor-
tantly, ADHD symptoms and mood instability had differen-
tial effects on offending behavior depending on outcome
measure used. For “general” offending, antisocial personal-
ity traits proved to be the single most powerful predictor,
followed by ADHD symptoms. Entering mood instability
into the regression had no significant incremental effect, but
entering antisocial personality traits mediated almost half of
the effect of ADHD symptoms on offending. Therefore, for
“general” offending, ADHD symptoms still had some sig-
nificant direct effect on offending. This appears to support
the recent findings of Sibley et al. (2011) that ADHD is a
potential risk factor for offending in its own right, irrespec-
tive of the presence of comorbidity.
In contrast to “general” offending, the more dynamic
acting out and reckless antisocial behavior measured by
the RATE-Antisocial Behavior Scale was best predicted by
mood instability, followed by antisocial personality traits.
The marked and significant effects found for ADHD in
344 Journal of Attention Disorders 17(4)
Step 2 were largely mediated by mood instability. This
finding is robust and indicates that the role of mood insta-
bility in mediating the relationship between ADHD symp-
toms and offending is dependent on the dynamic nature of
the offending behavior. Therefore, in future research the
nature of the offending and whether it is proactive or reac-
tive need to be considered. These findings support the find-
ings of Retz and Rosler (2010) about differences between
reactive and proactive offending in their relationship with
ADHD. Reactive offending is more strongly associated
with ADHD than proactive offending, and the current find-
ings support this.
In addition to the reactive and proactive nature of the
offence, researchers have increasingly focused on the moti-
vation behind offending (Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, 2007).
Gudjonsson, Wells, and Young (2011) recently showed that
anxiety and mood instability as well as ADHD were related
to the motivation for offending among prisoners. They found
that drug dependence and ADHD symptoms were the most
powerful predictors of financial motivation, alcohol depen-
dence of provocation, and anxiety of compliance motivation.
The results highlight the importance of ADHD symptoms,
drug and alcohol dependence, and anxiety, in predicting the
motivation of offending among imprisoned offenders.
The two main limitations of the study are its reliance on
self-report and the cross sectional nature of the data. First,
self-reported screening measures of ADHD symptoms
lack diagnostic specificity (Barkley, Fischer, Smallish, &
Fletcher, 2002; Kooij et al., 2008; Young et al., 2011). In
addition, relying on a single reporter may inflate estimates
of associations among the variables, and it is likely that
lower estimates would have emerged if independent reports
(e.g., from parents) had been available. Second, longitudi-
nal studies are needed to investigate the pathways into
offending at different stages of the life cycle and its persis-
tence (Farrington, Ttofi, & Coid, 2009). Finally, it is recog-
nized that self-reported ADHD screens lack sensitivity and
specificity for a diagnosis of ADHD (Kooij et al., 2008). In
the present study, the participants were not asked if they had
been diagnosed with ADHD or were currently taking medi-
cation for ADHD. Such information has recently been found
to be important in relation to police questioning and false
confession (Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Sigfusdottir, & Young,
2011) and should be included in future studies in this area.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Barkley, R. A. (1998). Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A
handbook for diagnosis and treatment (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Barkley, R. A., Fischer, M., Smallish, L., & Fletcher, K. (2002).
The persistence of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
into young adulthood as a function of reporting source and
definition of disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111,
279-289.
Barkley, R. A., Fischer, M., Smallish, L., & Fletcher, K. (2004).
Young adult follow-up of hyperactive children: Antisocial
activities and drug use. Journal of Child Psychology and Psy-
chiatry, 45, 195-211.
Barkley, R. A., Murphy, K. R., & Fischer, M. (2008). ADHD in
adults: What the science says. New York, NY: Guilford.
Biederman, J., Newcorn, J., & Sprich, S. (1991). Comorbidity of
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with conduct, depres-
sive, anxiety and other disorders. American Journal of Psy-
chiatry, 148, 564-577.
Blackburn, R. (1993). The psychology of criminal conduct: The-
ory, research and practice. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Brassett-Grundy, A., & Butler, N. (2004). Prevalence and adult
outcomes of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Evi-
dence from a 30-year prospective longitudinal study (Bedford
Group for Life course & Statistical Studies Occasional Paper
No. 2). London, England: Institute of Education, University
of London.
Faraone, S. V. (2005). The scientific foundation for understanding
attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder as a valid psychiatric
disorder. European Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 14, 1-10.
Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M. M., & Coid, J. W. (2009). Develop-
ment of adolescence-limited, late-onset, and persistent offend-
ers from age 8 to age 48. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 150-163.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.).
London, England: Sage.
Gudjonsson, G. H., Einarsson, E., Bragason, O. O., & Sigurdsson, J. F.
(2006). Personality predictors of self-reported offending in Icelan-
dic students. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 383-393.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Roberts, J. C. (1985). Psychological
and physiological characteristics of personality-disordered
patients. In D. P. Farrington & J. Gunn (Eds.), Aggression
and dangerousness (pp. 81-101). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Sigurdsson, J. F. (2007). Motivation for
offending and personality. A study among young offenders
on probation. Personality and Individual Difference, 42,
1243-1253.
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Eyjolfsdottir, G. A., Smari,
J., & Young, S. (2009). The relationship between satisfac-
tion with life, ADHD symptoms and associated problems
among university students. Journal of Attention Disorders,
12, 507-515.
Gudjonsson et al. 345
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Gudmundsdottir, H. B., &
Sigurjonsdottir, S. (2010). The relationship between ADHD
symptoms in college students and core components of mal-
adaptive personality. Personality and Individual Differences,
48, 601-606.
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Sigfusdottir, I. D., &
Young, S. A. (2011). National epidemiological study of
offending and its relationship with ADHD symptoms and
associated risk factors. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Young, S., Newton, A. K.,
& Peersen, M. (2009). Attention deficit hyperactivity disor-
der (ADHD). How do ADHD symptoms relate to personality
among prisoners? Personality and Individual Differences, 47,
64-68.
Gudjonsson, G. H., Wells, J., & Young, S. (2011). Motivation for
offending among prisoners and the relationship with Axis I
and Axis II disorders and ADHD symptoms. Personality and
Individual Differences, 50, 64-68.
Kooij, J. J. S., Boonstra, A. M., Swinkels, S. H. N., Bekker, E. M.,
de Noord, I., & Buitelaar, J. K. (2008). Reliability, validity,
and utility of instruments for self-report and informant report
concerning symptoms of ADHD in adult patients. Journal of
Attention Disorders, 11, 445-458.
Magnusson, P., Smari, J., Sigurdardottir, D., Baldursson, G.,
Sigmundsson, J., Kristjansson, K., . . . Gudmundsson, O. G.
(2006). Validity of self-report and informant rating scales
of adult ADHD symptoms in comparison with a semistruc-
tured diagnostic interview. Journal of Attention Disorders,
9, 494-503.
Mak, A. S. (1993). A self-report delinquency scale for Australian
adolescents. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45, 75-79.
Megargee, E. I. (1972). The California psychological inventory
handbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mordre, M., Groholt, B., Kjelsberg, E., Sandstad, B., & Myhre,
A. M. (2011). The impact of ADHD and conduct disorder in
childhood on adult delinquency: A 30 years follow-up study
using official crime records. BMC Psychiatry, 11, 57.
Peersen, M., Sigurdsson, J. F., Gudjonsson, G. H., & Gretarsson, S. J.
(2004). Predicting re-offending: A five-year prospective study
of Icelandic prison inmates. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10,
197-204.
Polanczyk, G., Silva de Lima, M., Horta, B. H., Biederman, J.,
& Rohde, L. A. (2007). The worldwide prevalence of ADHD:
A systematic review and metaregression analysis. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 942-948.
Retz, W., & Rosler, M. (2010). Association of ADHD with reac-
tive and proactive violent behaviour in a forensic population.
ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, 2, 195-202.
Sankey, M., & Huon, G. F. (1999). Offence seriousness in adoles-
cent delinquent behavior. Legal and Criminological Psychol-
ogy, 4, 253-264.
Satterfield, J. H., Faller, K. J., Crinella, F. M., Schell, A. M.,
Swanson, J. M., & Homer, L. D. (2007). A 30-year prospective
follow-up study of hyperactive boys with conduct problems:
Adult criminality. Journal of the American Academy of Child
& Adolescence Psychiatry, 46, 601-610.
Sibley, M. H., Pelham, W. E., Molina, B. S., Gnagy, E. M.,
Waschbusch, D. A., Biswas, A., . . . Karch, K. M. (2011). The
delinquency outcomes of boys with ADHD with and with-
out comorbidity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39,
21-32.
Sigurdsson, J. F., Gudjonsson, G. H., & Peersen, M. (2001). Dif-
ferences in the cognitive ability and personality of desisters
and re-offenders: A prospective study. Psychology, Crime &
Law, 7, 33-43.
Sourander, A., Elonheimo, H., Niemelä, S., Nuutila, A.-M., Helenius, H.,
Sillanmäki, L., . . . Almquist, F. (2006). Childhood predictors
of male criminality: A prospective population-based follow-up
study from age 8 to late adolescence. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescence Psychiatry, 45, 578-586.
Unnever, J. D., Cullen, F. T., & Pratt, T. C. (2003). Parental man-
agement, ADHD, and delinquent involvement: Reassessing
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Justice Quarterly,
20, 471-500.
Young, S. (2007). Forensic aspects of ADHD. In M. Fitzgerald,
M. Bellgrove, & M. Gill (Eds.), Handbook of attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (pp. 91-108). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Young, S., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2006). ADHD symptomatol-
ogy and it relationship with emotional, social and delinquency
problems. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 463-471.
Young, S., Gudjonsson, G. H., Ball, S., & Lam, J. (2003). Atten-
tion deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in personal-
ity disordered offenders and the association with disruptive
behavioural problems. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psy-
chology, 14, 491-505.
Young, S., Gudjonsson, G. H., Wells, J., Asherson, P., Theobald, D.,
Oliver, B., . . . Mooney, A. (2009). Attention deficit hyperactiv-
ity disorder and critical incidents in a Scottish prison popula-
tion. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 265-269.
Young, S., Misch, P., Collins, P., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2011). Pre-
dictors of institutional behavioural disturbance and offending
in the community among young offenders. Journal of Foren-
sic Psychiatry & Psychology, 22, 72-86.
Young, S., & Ross, R. R. (2007). R & R 2 for ADHD youths and
adults: A prosocial competence training program. Ottawa,
Ontario: Cognitive Centre of Canada.
Young, S., Wells, J., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2011). Predictors
of offending among prisoners: The role of attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder and substance use. Journal of Psycho-
pharmacology, 25, 1524-1532.
Author Biographies
Gisli H. Gudjonsson, CBE, obtained a PhD from the University
of Surrey, England, in 1981. He is a professor of forensic psychol-
ogy at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College, London, and a
head of clinical and forensic psychology in the Lambeth Forensic
346 Journal of Attention Disorders 17(4)
Services at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation
Trust. His main research interests are in the areas of forensic psy-
chology, including police interrogation, false confessions, and
motivation for offending. In 2009, the British Psychological
Society granted him a Lifetime Achievement Award for his excep-
tional and sustained contribution to the practice of psychology. He
was appointed a Commander of the Order of the British Empire
(CBE) in the Queen’s Birthday 2011 Honours List for services to
clinical psychology.
Jon Fridrik Sigurdsson obtained a PhD in psychology from
King’s College, University of London, in 1998. He is a professor
at the University of Iceland and Reykjavik University and the
head of the Clinical Psychology Service at the Mental Health
Services, Landspitali—The National University Hospital of
Iceland in Reykjavik, Iceland. His main research interests are in
clinical and forensic psychology, including understanding the
behavioral problems of young people.
Thomas Frey Adalsteinsson obtained an MA in sport psychology
from John F. Kennedy University, California, in 2011 and a BA in
psychology from the University of Iceland in 2007. He works inde-
pendently as a sport psychology consultant in the San Francisco
Bay Area, coaches soccer and golf, and works with the sport
psychology program at John F. Kennedy University. His main
research interests are in sport and performance psychology, espe-
cially interventions to enhance performance and talent
development.
Susan Young obtained a doctorate in clinical psychology from
University College London in 1999 and a PhD in psychology
from King’s College, University of London, in 1999. She is a
senior lecturer in forensic clinical psychology at the Institute of
Psychiatry, King’s College, London, and Honorary Consultant
clinical and forensic psychologist at Broadmoor Hospital. Her
main research interests are in the areas of ADHD and forensic
psychology.