Response to commentary on the multimodal treatment study of ADHD (MTA)

Mining the meaning of the MTA

James M. Swanson, L. Eugene Arnold, Benedetto Vitiello, Howard B. Abikoff, Karen C. Wells, William E. Pelham, John S. March, Stephen P. Hinshaw, Betsy Hoza, Jeffery N. Epstein, Glen R. Elliott, Laurence L. Greenhill, Lily Hechtman, Peter S. Jensen, Helena C. Kraemer, Ronald Kotkin, Brooke Molina, Jeffrey H. Newcorn, Elizabeth B. Owens, Joanne Severe & 4 others Kimberly Hoagwood, Steven Simpson, Timothy Wigal, Tom Hanley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In the December 2000 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, we published a set of papers presenting secondary analyses of the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA), and R. A. Barkley (2000) provided a commentary. A critique of the design of the study (MTA Cooperative Group, 1999) was presented based on a theoretical perspective of a "behavioral inhibition" deficit that has been hypothesized as the core deficit of ADHD (R. A. Barkley, 1997). The commentary questioned the design and analysis of the MTA in terms of (1) the empirical criteria for selection of components of behavioral (Beh) intervention, (2) the effectiveness of the Beh intervention, (3) the methods for analyses at the group and individual level, (4) implications of the MTA findings for clinical practice, (5) the role of genetics in response to treatment, and (6) the lack of a nontreatment control group. In this response, we relate the content of the papers to the commentary, (1) by reviewing the selection criteria for the Beh treatment, as outlined by K. C. Wells, W. E. Pelham, et al. (2000), (2) by addressing the myth that the MTA Beh treatment was ineffective (Pelham, 1999), (3) by describing the use of analyses at the level of the individual participant, as presented by J. S. March et al. (2000) and W. E. Pelham et al. (2000) as well as elsewhere by J. M. Swanson et al. (2001) and C. K. Conners et al. (2001), (4) by relating some of the suggestions from the secondary analyses about clinically relevant factors such as comorbidity (as presented by J. S. March et al., 2000) and family and parental characteristics (as presented by B. Hoza et al., 2000, S. P. Hinshaw et al., 2000, and K. C. Wells, J. N. Epstein, et al., 2000), (5) by discussing the statistical concept of heritability and the lack of a significant difference in the presence of ADHD symptoms in parents of the MTA families compared to parents in the classmate-control families (as presented by J. N. Epstein, et al., 2000), and (6) by acknowledging that an ethically necessary weakness of the MTA design is that it did not include a no-treatment control group. We discuss the use of secondary analyses to suggest how, when, and for what subgroups effectiveness of the Beh treatment may have been manifested. Finally, we invite others to use the large and rich data set that will soon be available in the public domain, to perform secondary analyses to mine the meaning of the MTA and to evaluate theories of ADHD and response to treatments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)327-332
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Abnormal Child Psychology
Volume30
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Combined Modality Therapy
Patient Selection
Parents
Child Psychology
Therapeutics
Control Groups
Public Sector
Comorbidity

Keywords

  • ADHD
  • Behavioral treatment
  • Core deficit
  • MTA
  • Multimodal treatment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Cite this

Swanson, J. M., Arnold, L. E., Vitiello, B., Abikoff, H. B., Wells, K. C., Pelham, W. E., ... Hanley, T. (2002). Response to commentary on the multimodal treatment study of ADHD (MTA): Mining the meaning of the MTA. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(4), 327-332. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015709706388

Response to commentary on the multimodal treatment study of ADHD (MTA) : Mining the meaning of the MTA. / Swanson, James M.; Arnold, L. Eugene; Vitiello, Benedetto; Abikoff, Howard B.; Wells, Karen C.; Pelham, William E.; March, John S.; Hinshaw, Stephen P.; Hoza, Betsy; Epstein, Jeffery N.; Elliott, Glen R.; Greenhill, Laurence L.; Hechtman, Lily; Jensen, Peter S.; Kraemer, Helena C.; Kotkin, Ronald; Molina, Brooke; Newcorn, Jeffrey H.; Owens, Elizabeth B.; Severe, Joanne; Hoagwood, Kimberly; Simpson, Steven; Wigal, Timothy; Hanley, Tom.

In: Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 4, 08.2002, p. 327-332.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Swanson, JM, Arnold, LE, Vitiello, B, Abikoff, HB, Wells, KC, Pelham, WE, March, JS, Hinshaw, SP, Hoza, B, Epstein, JN, Elliott, GR, Greenhill, LL, Hechtman, L, Jensen, PS, Kraemer, HC, Kotkin, R, Molina, B, Newcorn, JH, Owens, EB, Severe, J, Hoagwood, K, Simpson, S, Wigal, T & Hanley, T 2002, 'Response to commentary on the multimodal treatment study of ADHD (MTA): Mining the meaning of the MTA', Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 327-332. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015709706388
Swanson, James M. ; Arnold, L. Eugene ; Vitiello, Benedetto ; Abikoff, Howard B. ; Wells, Karen C. ; Pelham, William E. ; March, John S. ; Hinshaw, Stephen P. ; Hoza, Betsy ; Epstein, Jeffery N. ; Elliott, Glen R. ; Greenhill, Laurence L. ; Hechtman, Lily ; Jensen, Peter S. ; Kraemer, Helena C. ; Kotkin, Ronald ; Molina, Brooke ; Newcorn, Jeffrey H. ; Owens, Elizabeth B. ; Severe, Joanne ; Hoagwood, Kimberly ; Simpson, Steven ; Wigal, Timothy ; Hanley, Tom. / Response to commentary on the multimodal treatment study of ADHD (MTA) : Mining the meaning of the MTA. In: Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2002 ; Vol. 30, No. 4. pp. 327-332.
@article{889a62639fe44175982fc4477082dbd9,
title = "Response to commentary on the multimodal treatment study of ADHD (MTA): Mining the meaning of the MTA",
abstract = "In the December 2000 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, we published a set of papers presenting secondary analyses of the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA), and R. A. Barkley (2000) provided a commentary. A critique of the design of the study (MTA Cooperative Group, 1999) was presented based on a theoretical perspective of a {"}behavioral inhibition{"} deficit that has been hypothesized as the core deficit of ADHD (R. A. Barkley, 1997). The commentary questioned the design and analysis of the MTA in terms of (1) the empirical criteria for selection of components of behavioral (Beh) intervention, (2) the effectiveness of the Beh intervention, (3) the methods for analyses at the group and individual level, (4) implications of the MTA findings for clinical practice, (5) the role of genetics in response to treatment, and (6) the lack of a nontreatment control group. In this response, we relate the content of the papers to the commentary, (1) by reviewing the selection criteria for the Beh treatment, as outlined by K. C. Wells, W. E. Pelham, et al. (2000), (2) by addressing the myth that the MTA Beh treatment was ineffective (Pelham, 1999), (3) by describing the use of analyses at the level of the individual participant, as presented by J. S. March et al. (2000) and W. E. Pelham et al. (2000) as well as elsewhere by J. M. Swanson et al. (2001) and C. K. Conners et al. (2001), (4) by relating some of the suggestions from the secondary analyses about clinically relevant factors such as comorbidity (as presented by J. S. March et al., 2000) and family and parental characteristics (as presented by B. Hoza et al., 2000, S. P. Hinshaw et al., 2000, and K. C. Wells, J. N. Epstein, et al., 2000), (5) by discussing the statistical concept of heritability and the lack of a significant difference in the presence of ADHD symptoms in parents of the MTA families compared to parents in the classmate-control families (as presented by J. N. Epstein, et al., 2000), and (6) by acknowledging that an ethically necessary weakness of the MTA design is that it did not include a no-treatment control group. We discuss the use of secondary analyses to suggest how, when, and for what subgroups effectiveness of the Beh treatment may have been manifested. Finally, we invite others to use the large and rich data set that will soon be available in the public domain, to perform secondary analyses to mine the meaning of the MTA and to evaluate theories of ADHD and response to treatments.",
keywords = "ADHD, Behavioral treatment, Core deficit, MTA, Multimodal treatment",
author = "Swanson, {James M.} and Arnold, {L. Eugene} and Benedetto Vitiello and Abikoff, {Howard B.} and Wells, {Karen C.} and Pelham, {William E.} and March, {John S.} and Hinshaw, {Stephen P.} and Betsy Hoza and Epstein, {Jeffery N.} and Elliott, {Glen R.} and Greenhill, {Laurence L.} and Lily Hechtman and Jensen, {Peter S.} and Kraemer, {Helena C.} and Ronald Kotkin and Brooke Molina and Newcorn, {Jeffrey H.} and Owens, {Elizabeth B.} and Joanne Severe and Kimberly Hoagwood and Steven Simpson and Timothy Wigal and Tom Hanley",
year = "2002",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1023/A:1015709706388",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "327--332",
journal = "Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology",
issn = "0091-0627",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response to commentary on the multimodal treatment study of ADHD (MTA)

T2 - Mining the meaning of the MTA

AU - Swanson, James M.

AU - Arnold, L. Eugene

AU - Vitiello, Benedetto

AU - Abikoff, Howard B.

AU - Wells, Karen C.

AU - Pelham, William E.

AU - March, John S.

AU - Hinshaw, Stephen P.

AU - Hoza, Betsy

AU - Epstein, Jeffery N.

AU - Elliott, Glen R.

AU - Greenhill, Laurence L.

AU - Hechtman, Lily

AU - Jensen, Peter S.

AU - Kraemer, Helena C.

AU - Kotkin, Ronald

AU - Molina, Brooke

AU - Newcorn, Jeffrey H.

AU - Owens, Elizabeth B.

AU - Severe, Joanne

AU - Hoagwood, Kimberly

AU - Simpson, Steven

AU - Wigal, Timothy

AU - Hanley, Tom

PY - 2002/8

Y1 - 2002/8

N2 - In the December 2000 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, we published a set of papers presenting secondary analyses of the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA), and R. A. Barkley (2000) provided a commentary. A critique of the design of the study (MTA Cooperative Group, 1999) was presented based on a theoretical perspective of a "behavioral inhibition" deficit that has been hypothesized as the core deficit of ADHD (R. A. Barkley, 1997). The commentary questioned the design and analysis of the MTA in terms of (1) the empirical criteria for selection of components of behavioral (Beh) intervention, (2) the effectiveness of the Beh intervention, (3) the methods for analyses at the group and individual level, (4) implications of the MTA findings for clinical practice, (5) the role of genetics in response to treatment, and (6) the lack of a nontreatment control group. In this response, we relate the content of the papers to the commentary, (1) by reviewing the selection criteria for the Beh treatment, as outlined by K. C. Wells, W. E. Pelham, et al. (2000), (2) by addressing the myth that the MTA Beh treatment was ineffective (Pelham, 1999), (3) by describing the use of analyses at the level of the individual participant, as presented by J. S. March et al. (2000) and W. E. Pelham et al. (2000) as well as elsewhere by J. M. Swanson et al. (2001) and C. K. Conners et al. (2001), (4) by relating some of the suggestions from the secondary analyses about clinically relevant factors such as comorbidity (as presented by J. S. March et al., 2000) and family and parental characteristics (as presented by B. Hoza et al., 2000, S. P. Hinshaw et al., 2000, and K. C. Wells, J. N. Epstein, et al., 2000), (5) by discussing the statistical concept of heritability and the lack of a significant difference in the presence of ADHD symptoms in parents of the MTA families compared to parents in the classmate-control families (as presented by J. N. Epstein, et al., 2000), and (6) by acknowledging that an ethically necessary weakness of the MTA design is that it did not include a no-treatment control group. We discuss the use of secondary analyses to suggest how, when, and for what subgroups effectiveness of the Beh treatment may have been manifested. Finally, we invite others to use the large and rich data set that will soon be available in the public domain, to perform secondary analyses to mine the meaning of the MTA and to evaluate theories of ADHD and response to treatments.

AB - In the December 2000 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, we published a set of papers presenting secondary analyses of the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA), and R. A. Barkley (2000) provided a commentary. A critique of the design of the study (MTA Cooperative Group, 1999) was presented based on a theoretical perspective of a "behavioral inhibition" deficit that has been hypothesized as the core deficit of ADHD (R. A. Barkley, 1997). The commentary questioned the design and analysis of the MTA in terms of (1) the empirical criteria for selection of components of behavioral (Beh) intervention, (2) the effectiveness of the Beh intervention, (3) the methods for analyses at the group and individual level, (4) implications of the MTA findings for clinical practice, (5) the role of genetics in response to treatment, and (6) the lack of a nontreatment control group. In this response, we relate the content of the papers to the commentary, (1) by reviewing the selection criteria for the Beh treatment, as outlined by K. C. Wells, W. E. Pelham, et al. (2000), (2) by addressing the myth that the MTA Beh treatment was ineffective (Pelham, 1999), (3) by describing the use of analyses at the level of the individual participant, as presented by J. S. March et al. (2000) and W. E. Pelham et al. (2000) as well as elsewhere by J. M. Swanson et al. (2001) and C. K. Conners et al. (2001), (4) by relating some of the suggestions from the secondary analyses about clinically relevant factors such as comorbidity (as presented by J. S. March et al., 2000) and family and parental characteristics (as presented by B. Hoza et al., 2000, S. P. Hinshaw et al., 2000, and K. C. Wells, J. N. Epstein, et al., 2000), (5) by discussing the statistical concept of heritability and the lack of a significant difference in the presence of ADHD symptoms in parents of the MTA families compared to parents in the classmate-control families (as presented by J. N. Epstein, et al., 2000), and (6) by acknowledging that an ethically necessary weakness of the MTA design is that it did not include a no-treatment control group. We discuss the use of secondary analyses to suggest how, when, and for what subgroups effectiveness of the Beh treatment may have been manifested. Finally, we invite others to use the large and rich data set that will soon be available in the public domain, to perform secondary analyses to mine the meaning of the MTA and to evaluate theories of ADHD and response to treatments.

KW - ADHD

KW - Behavioral treatment

KW - Core deficit

KW - MTA

KW - Multimodal treatment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=11144355640&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=11144355640&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1023/A:1015709706388

DO - 10.1023/A:1015709706388

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 327

EP - 332

JO - Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

JF - Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

SN - 0091-0627

IS - 4

ER -