{{ row.short }}
{{ row.why }}
This primary chart keeps the February 28, 2024 24-point update on the official 0 to 24 scale while the classic 4+ shaded-response screen stays primary above.
{{ chartNote }}
Read the classic 4+ shaded-response rule first, then use the 24-point update as a secondary cue about how far this run sits from the current published threshold.
Keep the completed report in one pass: what this result suggests, what to do next, and which items are driving the screen.
{{ interpretationLead }}
{{ supportNote }}
Use the higher-signal items as the first talking points, then check which items stayed lower so the follow-up conversation does not overgeneralize from one or two prompts.
{{ row.why }}
No item rose above Rarely on this run.
{{ row.why }}
{{ lowerSignalFallback }}
Each row keeps the raw 0-4 response, the classic shaded-threshold call for that item, and the exact prompt wording used in scoring.
| # | Signal | Prompt | Response | Classic cue | Points | Copy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{ row.id }} | {{ row.short }} | {{ row.text }} | {{ row.responseLabel }} | {{ row.classicCueLabel }} | {{ row.score }}/4 |
The payload keeps the classic shaded-count screen and the 24-point update together.
The six-item Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale is meant to answer one practical question: does the recent symptom pattern look strong enough to justify a fuller ADHD evaluation? This page keeps that job narrow. It is a screening tool for adults over the past 6 months, not a diagnosis and not a substitute for a full clinical assessment.
The result is useful because it does two things at once. It preserves the original shaded-response logic from the classic six-question ASRS v1.1 screener, and it also shows the newer 0 to 24 point total lane that some current ASRS reporting uses. That lets you see the original quick screen and the more granular total without hiding either one.
The practical output is not just a number. The tool highlights which items crossed the original shaded threshold, which symptom cues were highest, what follow-up lane the run fits, and what brief record you may want to carry into a clinician visit or support conversation.
Each item uses the standard 0 to 4 frequency scale from Never to Very Often. The classic screen counts how many items fall inside the original darkly shaded boxes. Items 1 to 3 count once they reach Sometimes or higher. Items 4 to 6 count once they reach Often or higher. Four or more shaded responses is the familiar positive-screen rule.
This version also totals the six raw item scores on a 0 to 24 scale. It reads that secondary total through four bands built into the tool: Low negative at 0 to 9, High negative at 10 to 13, Low positive range at 14 to 17, and High positive range at 18 to 24. The gauge chart uses that 24-point lane, while the overview keeps the classic shaded-count rule prominent.
| Item cue | Domain | Counts toward the classic screen at |
|---|---|---|
| Final details | Follow-through | Sometimes or more often |
| Organization | Planning and order | Sometimes or more often |
| Appointments | Prospective memory | Sometimes or more often |
| Delay getting started | Initiation friction | Often or very often |
| Fidget or squirm | Motor restlessness | Often or very often |
| Driven by a motor | Over-activation | Often or very often |
Context and follow-up emphasis controls change only the guidance language. They help the output fit self-check use, visit preparation, or support conversations, but they do not alter the scored result.
Start with the functional question, not the label question. The ASRS is strongest when it helps you describe where attention, planning, memory, or restlessness are getting in the way in actual life. If the score is high but you cannot name any real friction in work, study, admin, driving, finances, or relationships, the next conversation needs more context. If the score is near cutoff and the daily examples are strong, the screen is still useful.
The item pattern matters as much as the total. A positive screen carried by the first three items often points to organization, follow-through, and obligation tracking. A run driven by items 4 to 6 can make initiation friction, motor restlessness, or over-activation harder to ignore. Either way, the best handoff is concrete.
If either official rule is positive, the most useful next step is a fuller evaluation rather than repeating the same screener over and over. A classic positive screen means 4 or more items crossed the original shaded threshold. A positive 24-point lane means the raw total reached 14 or more. When both are strongly positive, the tool marks the run as a higher-priority evaluation lane.
Near-cutoff runs deserve respect. Three shaded items or a 10 to 13 total is not a positive screen, but it is often enough to justify a specific conversation when daily function is clearly being affected. A lower result is only limited reassurance. People can still have meaningful ADHD-related impairment even when a short screen stays below both cutoffs.
A run with 4 shaded items and a 16 out of 24 total clearly belongs in the evaluation lane, especially if the highest cues match real examples from work, school, or daily admin.
A run with 3 shaded items and a 12 out of 24 total is not formally positive, but it still deserves discussion if forgotten obligations, stalled starts, or restless sitting are causing real friction.
A run below both cutoffs can still be worth bringing forward if the problem is persistent and the brief screen seems too narrow for the lived difficulties.
Because the classic shaded-response rule is still widely recognized, while the 24-point total adds finer gradation. Seeing both makes the screen easier to discuss.
Treat that as a prompt for fuller assessment, not as a reason to dismiss the screen. The tool already routes those mixed positives into the evaluation lane.
No. It means the pattern is strong enough to justify fuller clinical evaluation. Diagnosis still depends on a broader history, impairment review, and differential assessment.
No. Lower results can miss people whose difficulties still matter. Persistent impairment and concrete examples still belong in a qualified evaluation.