Barber Sped Hub
ADHD Rating Scale Reference
Conners-4 · ADDES-5 vs Conners-4 · OHI Documentation
← Hub
OHI — ADHD

Conners-4 Reference

Score interpretation, composite and subscale profiles, T-score classification guide, rater form overview, and clinical guidance for OHI eligibility documentation.

About the Conners-4

What It Measures

The Conners, 4th Edition (Conners-4; Conners, 2023) is a multi-informant rating scale assessing ADHD and related concerns in individuals ages 6–18. It collects ratings from parents/caregivers, teachers, and the student (self-report, ages 8–18). Scores reflect the frequency of observed behaviors over the past month. The Conners-4 aligns with DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria and provides content validity indexes to support clinical decision-making.

Rater Forms
Parent/Caregiver (P) — Ages 6–18
Teacher (T) — Ages 6–18
Self-Report (SR) — Ages 8–18
FormItemsRespondentKey Considerations
Parent/Caregiver (P)
 110 Parent, guardian, or primary caregiver Captures home and community behavior. Most comprehensive form. Includes impairment items covering home, social, and academic settings.
Teacher (T)
 97 Classroom teacher or school staff Essential for school eligibility decisions. Captures academic setting behavior. Impairment items focus on classroom and peer functioning. Required for OHI documentation alongside parent data.
Self-Report (SR)
 99 Student, ages 8–18 Provides student perspective on inattention, hyperactivity, emotional dysregulation, and impairment. Useful for capturing internalized symptoms. Cross-informant discrepancies are clinically meaningful.
Score Types

How Scores Are Reported

All Conners-4 scores are reported as T-scores (mean = 50, SD = 10), normed by age and gender. Higher T-scores indicate more frequent or severe symptoms. The Conners-4 does not report standard scores (SS) or scaled scores — all interpretation is T-score based. Percentile ranks are also provided.

  • T ≥ 70 — Very Elevated (≥98th percentile) — clinically significant; strong support for concern
  • T 65–69 — Elevated (93rd–97th percentile) — clinically significant
  • T 60–64 — High Average (84th–92nd percentile) — borderline; monitor closely
  • T 40–59 — Average — within normal limits
  • T ≤ 39 — Low — below average symptom frequency

⚠️ Important: Rating Scales Alone Do Not Diagnose ADHD

The Conners-4 is one piece of a comprehensive evaluation. Elevated scores support the presence of ADHD-related concerns but must be interpreted alongside developmental history, medical history, classroom observations, academic performance, cognitive data, and rule-out of other explanations (anxiety, trauma, learning disability, sleep disorders, etc.).

ADHD Index & Content Scales
ScaleFormsWhat It MeasuresClinical Note
ADHD Index
Global severity indicator
 P T SR Overall ADHD symptom severity. Best single indicator of ADHD-consistent profile. Derived from items most discriminating of ADHD vs. non-ADHD populations. Primary score for OHI documentation. T ≥ 65 on two or more rater forms is strongly clinically significant.
Inattention/Executive Dysfunction
 P T SR Difficulty sustaining attention, organizing tasks, following through on instructions, losing materials, and forgetting daily tasks. Reflects both inattention and executive function deficits. Closely linked to academic impact. Elevated scores here, especially on teacher form, are critical for classroom impact documentation.
Hyperactivity
 P T SR Restlessness, fidgeting, difficulty staying seated, excessive motor activity, and acting as if "driven by a motor." Most observable in structured settings. Teacher ratings often lower than parent if the student has learned to manage behavior at school.
Impulsivity
 P T SR Acting without thinking, interrupting others, difficulty waiting, blurting out answers, emotional reactivity. Overlaps with emotional dysregulation. Elevated impulsivity with low hyperactivity may suggest predominantly inattentive presentation with poor inhibition.
Emotional Dysregulation
 P T SR Difficulty managing emotional responses — frustration intolerance, mood lability, overreaction to minor events, difficulty calming down. Not a DSM-5 ADHD criterion but highly associated with ADHD, especially combined presentation. Elevated scores here do not indicate Emotional Disturbance eligibility independently.
Depressed Mood
 P SR Sadness, hopelessness, low energy, social withdrawal, diminished interest. Not present on teacher form. Screen for co-occurring depression. Elevated scores warrant referral for mental health evaluation. Not sufficient for ED eligibility determination.
Anxious Thoughts
 P SR Worry, nervousness, fearfulness, tension, somatic complaints. Not present on teacher form. Important rule-out — anxiety can mimic inattention. If Anxious Thoughts is elevated and ADHD Index is borderline, consider anxiety as primary concern.
Schoolwork
 P T Academic impairment — difficulty completing assignments, poor academic performance, organization problems in school. Direct measure of educational impact. Essential for OHI eligibility documentation. Elevated scores here support "adversely affects educational performance" criterion.
Peer Interactions
 P T SR Social difficulties, conflict with peers, difficulty making or keeping friends, social immaturity. Supports functional impact documentation. Peer difficulties in ADHD are often related to impulsivity and emotional dysregulation rather than social skills deficits per se.
Family Life
 P SR Conflict and strain in the home environment related to the student's behavior. Contextual information for the FIE. Not directly used for eligibility criteria but supports the overall picture of functional impairment.
DSM-5-TR Symptom Scales

Symptom Count Scores

In addition to T-scores, the Conners-4 provides DSM-5-TR Symptom Scales that count the number of symptoms rated as "pretty much" or "very much" present. These map directly to DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria:

  • Inattention Symptoms — 9 items (threshold: ≥6 for ages 6–16; ≥5 for ages 17+)
  • Hyperactive-Impulsive Symptoms — 9 items (same thresholds)

Meeting symptom count thresholds on two or more rater forms, combined with age of onset, cross-setting impairment, and rule-out of other causes, supports the DSM-5-TR criteria for ADHD diagnosis. Symptom counts alone are not diagnostic.

Validity Indicators
IndicatorWhat It FlagsAction
Positive Impression
 Rater may be presenting the student in an unusually favorable light — underreporting concerns. Interpret scores with caution; consider motivation for underreporting (custody, denial). Cross-reference with other rater forms.
Negative Impression
 Rater may be over-reporting concerns — scores may reflect rater distress or exaggeration. Do not dismiss ratings outright; explore rater context. Compare with teacher and self-report. Note in FIE interpretation section.
Inconsistency Index
 Rater responded inconsistently to similar items — may indicate careless responding, confusion, or reading difficulty. If flagged, results may be invalid. Consider re-administration with clarification or use alternate informant data.
T-Score Classification
T ≥ 70
Very Elevated
≥ 98th percentile. Clinically significant. Strongly consistent with ADHD concern. Supports eligibility documentation.
T 65–69
Elevated
93rd–97th percentile. Clinically significant. Supports ADHD concern when present across raters.
T 60–64
High Average
84th–92nd percentile. Borderline elevated. Clinically meaningful when combined with history and other data.
T 40–59
Average
16th–84th percentile. Within normal limits. Does not support ADHD concern in isolation.
T ≤ 39
Low
≤ 15th percentile. Below average symptom frequency. Consider positive impression validity indicator.
FIE Report Language Examples
T-Score RangeSample FIE Language
T ≥ 70 On the Conners-4, [Student]'s parent rated the [Scale] scale in the Very Elevated range (T = XX, ≥98th percentile), indicating that symptoms of [inattention/hyperactivity/impulsivity] are occurring at a frequency that is highly atypical for [his/her/their] age and gender and significantly interferes with daily functioning.
T 65–69 The teacher-rated [Scale] scale fell in the Elevated range (T = XX), reflecting concerns about [student's] [inattention/behavior] that occur at a rate significantly above age expectations in the classroom setting.
T 60–64 The [Scale] scale was rated in the High Average range (T = XX), suggesting borderline elevated concerns that, in the context of the broader evaluation data, are clinically meaningful.
T 40–59 Ratings on the [Scale] scale fell in the Average range (T = XX), indicating that concerns in this area are within normal limits based on this rater's observations.
Cross-Informant Interpretation

Making Sense of Rater Discrepancies

Discrepancies across raters are common and clinically informative — they do not invalidate the data. Consider these patterns:

  • Parent elevated, teacher average: Symptoms may be more pronounced in unstructured home settings, or the student has learned compensatory strategies at school. Consider homework and transition demands.
  • Teacher elevated, parent average: Academic setting demands may be particularly challenging. Parent may not observe academic behavior. Consider whether home structure is masking symptoms.
  • Self-report lower than parent/teacher: Common — students often have limited insight into their own attention and behavior. Not a sign of deception.
  • Self-report higher than raters: May reflect internalized distress, anxiety, or depression co-occurring with ADHD. Clinically important.
  • All raters elevated: Strongest support for pervasive ADHD concern across settings — important for cross-setting impairment criterion.
OHI Eligibility — Texas IDEA Criteria

Texas OHI Eligibility Requires ALL of the Following

  • The student has a chronic or acute health problem — ADHD qualifies as a chronic health condition under OHI
  • The health problem results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment — including heightened alertness to environmental stimuli that results in limited alertness to the academic task
  • The limited alertness adversely affects educational performance
  • The student requires specially designed instruction as a result
  • The condition is not better explained by another disability category
Using Conners-4 Data for OHI Documentation

✅ What Supports the Eligibility

  • ADHD Index T ≥ 65 on two or more rater forms
  • Elevated Inattention/Executive Dysfunction on teacher form
  • Elevated Schoolwork scale (direct academic impact measure)
  • DSM-5-TR symptom counts at or above threshold on two rater forms
  • Cross-setting impairment (home and school both elevated)
  • Consistency with teacher observations and academic history
  • Medical diagnosis of ADHD from licensed physician or psychologist (not required by IDEA but supports documentation)

⚠️ What to Rule Out

  • Learning disability (SLD) as primary cause of academic difficulties — conduct cognitive and achievement testing
  • Anxiety — elevated Anxious Thoughts with borderline ADHD Index warrants further exploration
  • Depression — elevated Depressed Mood may better explain inattention
  • Trauma response — may present identically to ADHD on rating scales
  • Sleep disorders — chronic sleep deprivation mimics inattention symptoms
  • Vision/hearing concerns — rule out sensory causes of inattention
  • Language processing difficulties — can look like inattention in a classroom
ADHD Presentation Types (DSM-5-TR)
PresentationCriteriaConners-4 Profile Typically Shows
Predominantly Inattentive
ADHD-PH (314.00)
 ≥ 6 inattention symptoms (≥ 5 if age 17+); fewer than 6 hyperactive-impulsive symptoms Elevated Inattention/Executive Dysfunction; Average or mildly elevated Hyperactivity and Impulsivity; often elevated Schoolwork scale
Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive
ADHD-PHI (314.01)
 ≥ 6 hyperactive-impulsive symptoms (≥ 5 if age 17+); fewer than 6 inattention symptoms Elevated Hyperactivity and Impulsivity; Average or mildly elevated Inattention; often elevated Emotional Dysregulation
Combined Presentation
ADHD-C (314.01)
 ≥ 6 symptoms in both domains (≥ 5 if age 17+) Elevated across Inattention/Executive Dysfunction, Hyperactivity, and Impulsivity; often highest ADHD Index scores; frequently elevated Emotional Dysregulation
Diagnostician's Role — Important Scope Note

What the Diagnostician Documents vs. What the ARD Committee Decides

The diagnostician's role is to document the presence and educational impact of ADHD-related concerns through the FIE. The ARD committee — not the diagnostician — determines OHI eligibility and recommends accommodations or specially designed instruction. Do not recommend specific interventions or treatments in the FIE; frame findings in terms of educational impact and areas of need.

Common FIE Documentation Phrases

Connecting Conners-4 Scores to Educational Impact

  • "Rating scale data across settings indicate that [Student]'s inattentive symptoms occur at a frequency significantly above age expectations and are directly impacting [his/her/their] ability to sustain focus during independent work, complete multi-step assignments, and manage organizational demands in the classroom."
  • "The Schoolwork scale was rated in the Elevated range by [Student]'s teacher (T = XX), directly measuring the adverse impact of ADHD-related concerns on academic functioning."
  • "Cross-informant data on the Conners-4 indicate that ADHD-related concerns are pervasive across home and school settings, consistent with the DSM-5-TR requirement that symptoms be present in two or more settings."
  • "Validity indicators were within acceptable limits across all three rater forms, suggesting the data are a reliable representation of [Student]'s behavioral profile."
← Sped Hub |
⚡ ADDES-5 vs. Conners-4 — ADHD Rating Scale Comparison
ADDES-5 Conners-4 OHI Evaluation
⚡
ADDES-5 and Conners-4 — OHI Rating Scale Reference
Both the ADDES-5 (Attention Deficit Disorders Evaluation Scale, 5th Ed.) and the Conners-4 are normed, multi-informant behavior rating scales used in Texas OHI (Other Health Impairment) evaluations for ADHD. This page covers their structures, score interpretation, when to choose each, cross-informant analysis, and FIE documentation language. Neither scale is diagnostic on its own — results must be interpreted alongside cognitive data, academic performance, history, and classroom observation.
📌
Key distinction for your district: ADDES-5 is often the district's standard ADHD rating scale. Conners-4 is used when the evaluation requires greater subscale breadth — particularly emotional dysregulation, executive functioning detail, self-report (ages 8+), or when a cross-check against DSM-5 ADHD symptom count is needed. Confirm with your referring campus which scale is standard for that ARD team.
At a Glance
Feature ADDES-5 Conners-4
Full Name Attention Deficit Disorders Evaluation Scale, 5th Ed. Conners Rating Scales, 4th Ed.
Author / Publisher McCarney & House · Hawthorne Educational Services C. Keith Conners · Multi-Health Systems (MHS)
Age Range Home: 3–18 · School: 4–18 6–18 (Parent/Teacher) · 8–18 (Self-Report)
Informant Forms Home (parent/caregiver) · School (teacher) Parent · Teacher · Self-Report (SR)
Score Type T-scores (mean=50, SD=10) T-scores (mean=50, SD=10)
Subscales / Indices 2 subscales: Inattentive · Hyperactive-Impulsive 6 scales: ADHD Index, Inattention/ED, Hyperactivity, Impulsivity, Emotional Dysregulation, School Problems + DSM-5 symptom count
DSM-5 Alignment Items written to reflect DSM-5 criteria; no explicit symptom count output Explicit DSM-5 ADHD Symptom Count subscale (# of clinically significant symptoms endorsed per rater)
Self-Report Form No self-report version Yes — ages 8–18
Executive Function Detail Limited — captured within Inattentive subscale items Dedicated Inattention/Executive Dysfunction scale; items target organization, planning, follow-through
Emotional Dysregulation Not separately measured Dedicated Emotional Dysregulation scale (frustration tolerance, mood shifts, emotional control)
Administration Time ~10–15 min per form ~15–20 min per form
Typical District Use Often the district standard ADHD rating scale for most OHI evaluations Used when greater subscale depth or self-report is needed
Common Ground
What They Share
  • Both use T-scores (mean=50, SD=10) — scores interpret the same way across both scales
  • Both require multiple informants (parent + teacher minimum)
  • Both measure inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity as core domains
  • Both are nationally normed with separate age and gender norms
  • Neither scale is diagnostic — clinical judgment and multi-source data required
  • Both are appropriate for Texas OHI eligibility documentation
What Neither Measures
  • Cognitive processing, working memory, or processing speed directly
  • Academic achievement or skill levels
  • Functional impairment severity in a standardized way
  • Anxiety or depression (overlap symptoms require cross-check with MASC-2, CDI-2, or BASC-4)
  • Medical etiology — diagnosis of ADHD remains with the physician
ℹ️ Both scales use T-scores (mean=50, SD=10). The classification labels below are standard for both instruments. Higher T-scores = more concerns endorsed by the rater. Elevations ≥65 are clinically meaningful. Elevations ≥70 represent significant concern — more than 2 SD above the mean.
T-Score Classification Bands (Both Scales)
T-Score Range Classification Interpretation in FIE Context
≤44 Low / Not Elevated Rater endorsed fewer ADHD-related behaviors than same-age peers. Does not support OHI concerns from this informant.
45–54 Average Within normal range. Inconsistent with significant attention concerns from this informant.
55–59 Mildly Elevated Subclinical; note in narrative but generally insufficient alone to support eligibility.
60–64 Elevated Meaningful elevation — document cross-informant pattern and functional impact.
65–69 Significantly Elevated Consistent with clinically significant concerns; supports OHI when corroborated by history and performance data.
≥70 Very Elevated >2 SD above mean. Rater endorses substantially more symptoms than typical peers. Strong corroboration for OHI; document functional impact carefully.
Conners-4 DSM-5 Symptom Count
What It Is
The Conners-4 provides a raw count of how many DSM-5 ADHD symptoms were rated at a clinically significant threshold by each informant — separate from T-scores. DSM-5 requires: ≥6 symptoms of Inattention OR Hyperactivity-Impulsivity for children/adolescents (<17); ≥5 symptoms for ages 17+.
FIE Application
Report symptom counts per rater alongside T-scores. Example: "The teacher endorsed 8 of 9 DSM-5 inattention symptoms at a clinically significant level (T=74)." This grounds the T-score in observable symptom frequency and strengthens documentation for OHI. ADDES-5 does not provide this explicit count.
⚠️ Score ≠ Diagnosis. Elevated T-scores document that raters observe significantly more ADHD-related behaviors than same-age peers. They do not diagnose ADHD. The OHI eligibility determination requires medical documentation of the health impairment. Rating scale data supports the educational impact piece of the eligibility, not the medical diagnosis.
⚡ ADDES-5 — Subscales
Inattentive
Items targeting sustained attention, distractibility, task completion, following directions, organizational skills, and listening. Corresponds to DSM-5 Inattention presentation.
Hyperactive-Impulsive
Items targeting motor overactivity, fidgeting, difficulty waiting, impulsive responding, and interrupting. Corresponds to DSM-5 Hyperactive-Impulsive presentation.
Home Form
46 items rated by parent/caregiver on a 0–4 scale. Normed separately. Covers home, community, and routine contexts.
School Form
46 items rated by teacher on a 0–4 scale. Normed separately. Covers classroom, hallway, and structured academic settings.
🎯 Conners-4 — Scales
ADHD Index
Global composite — overall probability that the student's profile is consistent with ADHD. Useful for a single summary score across informants.
Inatt / Exec Dys
Inattention and Executive Dysfunction — captures difficulty with organization, planning, follow-through, and sustained attention beyond simple distractibility.
Hyperactivity
Physical restlessness, difficulty staying seated, motor excess. Mapped to DSM-5 hyperactivity symptoms.
Impulsivity
Acting before thinking, difficulty delaying responses, interrupting. Separate from hyperactivity — useful when impulsivity is the primary concern.
Emot. Dysregulation
Frustration tolerance, mood shifts, emotional overreactions. Clinically relevant for ADHD-ED co-occurrence and for ruling out mood disorder contribution.
School Problems
Academic difficulty, homework problems, classroom performance concerns. Links rating scale data directly to educational impact — helpful for FIE documentation.
Self-Report
Ages 8–18. Student's own perception of attention, hyperactivity, impulsivity, and emotional control. Cross-informant discrepancies are diagnostically meaningful.
What the Extra Conners-4 Scales Add
Emotional Dysregulation Scale
ADDES-5 does not measure this. Conners-4 ED scale helps differentiate whether emotional lability is part of the ADHD profile or may reflect a co-occurring mood or anxiety concern. Elevated ED + average anxiety measures = more likely ADHD-related. Elevated ED + elevated anxiety/depression measures = warrants SLP or psych referral.
School Problems Scale
Directly connects rater observations to academic functioning. Useful when you need to explicitly document educational impact in the FIE and the student's grades or STAAR data alone are ambiguous (e.g., student is passing but teacher reports significant accommodation reliance).
Self-Report (SR)
Self-awareness about attention difficulties varies widely. A student who rates themselves average while both parent and teacher rate severely elevated is a different profile than one who also endorses significant concerns. Discordant self-report may reflect limited insight, coping strategies, or anxiety about labeling.
Choose Based on Evaluation Needs
Use ADDES-5 Standard OHI re-evaluation or straightforward initial ADHD evaluation
The student has a clear history of inattention and/or hyperactivity with consistent parent and teacher reports. You need to document symptom severity across settings for eligibility. ADDES-5 provides clean Inattentive and Hyperactive-Impulsive T-scores — sufficient for most OHI evaluations and consistent with district practice — confirm standard scale with your campus ARD team.
Re-evaluation Straightforward OHI District standard No self-report needed
Use Conners-4 Executive function is a primary concern or referral question
The referral specifically names organization, planning, task initiation, or follow-through as the core concern — beyond simple distractibility. Conners-4's Inattention/Executive Dysfunction scale provides more granular data. Particularly useful when cognitive testing (e.g., WMI, PSI) shows processing differences and you need behavioral corroboration of executive demands.
Executive dysfunction Organization concerns Complex SLD+OHI profile
Use Conners-4 Self-report perspective is clinically important
The student is 8+ years old, and you need the student's own perspective as part of a multi-source assessment — particularly relevant in ED/OHI co-occurrence questions, secondary school evaluations, or when parent and teacher reports are highly discrepant and a third informant adds value.
Ages 8+ Cross-informant discrepancy ED/OHI co-occurrence question
Use Conners-4 Emotional dysregulation is part of the referral picture
The student shows significant frustration, emotional outbursts, or mood instability alongside attention concerns. Conners-4 ED scale helps clarify whether this is ADHD-related emotional impulsivity or a separate mood/anxiety concern — which affects which other assessments to add (MASC-2, CDI-2, BASC-4).
Emotional dysregulation OHI + possible ED referral question Mood/anxiety co-occurrence
Either Scale Acceptable AU evaluation requiring ADHD documentation as secondary concern
Attention difficulties are documented as part of the AU profile but OHI is not the primary eligibility question. School psych is leading the evaluation. Use whichever scale the team prefers — the Conners-4 may add value if executive functioning or emotional dysregulation are also targets, but ADDES-5 is sufficient if the goal is simply to quantify attention concerns for the ARD record.
AU primary OHI secondary or not pursued
What This Does Not Determine
📌 Scale selection does not change the OHI eligibility criteria. TAC §89.1040 requires: (1) a documented chronic or acute health problem, (2) that adversely affects educational performance, (3) requiring special education services. The rating scale supports documentation of #2 — it does not substitute for the physician's medical statement or the ARD team's eligibility determination.
Why Cross-Informant Comparison Matters
👥
ADHD must be pervasive across settings. A single elevated rater does not confirm cross-setting impairment. The comparison between parent (home) and teacher (school) ratings — and self-report on Conners-4 — is a core interpretive step, not just data to report. Patterns below guide how to interpret discrepancies in your FIE narrative.
Interpretation by Pattern
✅ Both Parent and Teacher Elevated
Interpretation: Cross-setting pervasiveness is supported. Consistent with ADHD presentation. Most compelling pattern for OHI eligibility.

FIE framing: "Rating scale results were consistent across informants, with both parent and teacher endorsing elevated concerns in [domain]. This cross-setting pattern is consistent with pervasive attention difficulties affecting both home and school functioning."
⚠️ Teacher Elevated · Parent Average
Interpretation: Concerns appear setting-specific. Consider: (1) academic demands at school exceed home demands significantly; (2) home environment is highly structured/supportive, masking presentation; (3) parent may have difficulty observing ADHD behaviors in unstructured home settings; (4) school-based stressors or learning difficulties may be driving the teacher's concerns.

FIE framing: "Teacher ratings reflected elevated attention concerns in the school setting, while parent ratings were within average limits at home. This pattern may reflect the increased cognitive and organizational demands of the academic environment, where sustained attention and task completion are explicitly required."
⚠️ Parent Elevated · Teacher Average
Interpretation: Home concerns not corroborated at school. Consider: (1) structured school environment with teacher support may be compensating; (2) parent-child relationship dynamics or home demands; (3) concerns may reflect anxiety, sleep disruption, or other home-based factors rather than ADHD. This pattern alone does not support OHI — document transparently and add context.

FIE framing: "Parent ratings reflected elevated concerns in the home setting; however, teacher ratings did not corroborate significant attention difficulties in the school setting. This discrepancy was explored through [observation / interview / health history]."
🔵 Conners-4 Only — Self-Report Discrepancy
Student rates Average · Adults rate Elevated: May reflect limited self-awareness, habituation to difficulties, or effort to present positively. Consider whether the student recognizes their own struggles. Common in students with ADHD who have always experienced inattention as their baseline.

Student rates Elevated · Adults rate Average: Student experiences internal distress not visible to observers. May reflect anxiety mimicking ADHD, or ADHD primarily affecting internal experience rather than observable behavior. Warrants further exploration.
Documenting the Pattern in the FIE
Narrative structure that works
Lead with the scale name and informant. State T-score and classification. Name the elevated scales. Connect to observed classroom behavior (tie to observation or teacher interview). State what the cross-informant pattern means functionally — pervasive vs. setting-specific. Do not list every subscale score; highlight what's clinically meaningful.

One-paragraph structure: [Scale + raters administered] → [Elevated findings with T-scores] → [Non-elevated findings if relevant] → [Cross-informant interpretation] → [Educational impact connection].
ADDES-5 — FIE Sample Language
ADDES-5 · Both Informants Elevated · Inattentive Presentation
The ADDES-5 Home Form was completed by [Student]'s parent/caregiver and the School Form was completed by [his/her/their] classroom teacher to assess attention-related behaviors across settings. On the Home Form, [Student]'s parent endorsed significantly elevated concerns on the Inattentive subscale (T=[##]), with ratings reflecting frequent difficulty sustaining attention, completing tasks independently, and following multi-step directions at home. Teacher ratings on the School Form were similarly elevated on the Inattentive subscale (T=[##]), with specific concerns noted around task completion, distractibility during independent work, and difficulty maintaining focus during instruction. Hyperactive-Impulsive subscale ratings were [within average limits / elevated at T=[##]] across both informants. The consistent pattern of elevated Inattentive concerns across home and school settings is educationally significant, as it reflects pervasive attention difficulties that affect [Student]'s ability to access and complete grade-level academic tasks.
Replace brackets with actual data. Remove or adjust the Hyperactive-Impulsive sentence as needed.
ADDES-5 · Setting-Specific Elevation (Teacher Only)
The ADDES-5 was administered with both Home and School forms. Teacher ratings on the School Form reflected elevated concerns on the Inattentive subscale (T=[##]), with specific difficulties noted in sustained attention, following classroom directions, and completing assignments within the allotted time. Parent ratings on the Home Form were within average limits across both subscales, which may reflect the greater organizational and attentional demands of the structured school setting compared to home routines. This setting-specific pattern was consistent with classroom observation data and teacher interview findings.
Add context from observation/interview to explain the discrepancy — don't leave it unaddressed.
Conners-4 — FIE Sample Language
Conners-4 · Parent + Teacher Elevated · Multiple Scales
The Conners-4 was administered to [Student]'s parent/caregiver and classroom teacher to document the presence and severity of attention-related behaviors across settings. Parent ratings reflected significant elevations on the ADHD Index (T=[##]), Inattention/Executive Dysfunction (T=[##]), and Emotional Dysregulation (T=[##]) scales, with [his/her/their] parent endorsing [#] of 9 DSM-5 inattention symptoms and [#] of 9 hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms at a clinically significant level. Teacher ratings similarly reflected elevated concerns on the ADHD Index (T=[##]) and Inattention/Executive Dysfunction (T=[##]) scales, with [#] DSM-5 inattention symptoms endorsed. Emotional Dysregulation ratings from the teacher were [within average limits at T=[##] / elevated at T=[##]], [suggesting that emotional self-regulation concerns are more prominent in the home setting / indicating pervasive emotional regulation difficulties across environments]. The consistent cross-informant pattern of significantly elevated inattention and executive dysfunction concerns is educationally significant, as these difficulties directly affect [Student]'s ability to initiate tasks, organize materials, follow through on multi-step assignments, and sustain focus during instruction.
Adjust which scales to highlight based on what's actually elevated. Always tie the final sentence to educational impact.
Conners-4 · With Self-Report Included
[Student] also completed the Conners-4 Self-Report form. [His/Her/Their] self-ratings reflected [average concerns on the ADHD Index (T=[##]), which contrasts with the significant elevations noted by both parent and teacher / elevated concerns consistent with parent and teacher ratings, with [Student] endorsing significant difficulty sustaining attention and managing impulsive responses]. This [discrepancy / consistency] between self and other-report ratings [suggests that [Student] may have limited awareness of the degree to which attention difficulties are impacting [his/her/their] performance, which is not uncommon in ADHD presentations / further corroborates the pervasiveness of attention-related difficulties across informants and settings].
Choose one of the bracketed options based on actual data; do not include both.
DNQ Language (When Scores Do Not Support OHI)
ADDES-5 or Conners-4 · No Significant Elevations
Results of the [ADDES-5 / Conners-4] did not reveal significant elevations across informants. Both parent and teacher ratings fell within average limits across all scales, which does not corroborate the presence of clinically significant attention difficulties across home and school settings at this time. These results are interpreted in the context of the full evaluation and are one of multiple data sources considered by the ARD committee in the eligibility determination.
Always note that rating scales are one data source — the ARD team determines eligibility, not the scale alone.
📌 Permanent hub rule: Never use "clinically" or "clinical" in FIE narrative language. Use "educationally significant," "educational impact," "consistent with," or "documented across settings." The hub AI generator enforces this rule — apply it to manual FIE writing as well.
🔄
BASC-3 → BASC-4 Transition (Expected Late Summer 2026): When the BASC-4 releases, it will replace BASC-3 in the neuro section of this hub. The BASC-4 is expected to update DSM-5-TR alignment, norming, and potentially restructure some clinical scales. Rating scale data in FIEs written before the transition using BASC-3 remains valid — document the version used. The Conners-4 and ADDES-5 are not affected by this transition.
Professional Judgment Required — Rating scale data are one component of a comprehensive evaluation. OHI/ADHD eligibility requires documentation of educational impact and is determined by the ARD committee in accordance with IDEA, TAC §89.1040, and district policy.
Reference Note: Scale descriptions, score interpretations, and clinical guidance on this page are summarized for professional reference. DSM-5-TR symptom count thresholds reflect published diagnostic criteria (APA, 2022) as described in the Conners-4 manual (Conners, 2023, MHS). Practitioners should consult official manuals for complete procedures. Eligibility determinations must be made by a qualified multidisciplinary ARD team. Barber Sped Hub is an independent diagnostic reference and is not affiliated with or endorsed by MHS, PAR, Pearson, or any other test publisher.