[jptman]

I think the article is trying to say that ADHD is an umbrella term used for a range of symptoms, rather than 1 disorder. I can imagine this being true for at least some of the cases, but it didn't provide much in the way of evidence. Although it does have a sensationalist headline, it's asking for a better look at ADHD rather than saying it should be ignored.

[skywhopper]

If you do any reading on ADHD, I think you'll find that everyone who knows anything about it would agree with this. ADHD is defined as a collection of related symptoms, with the full admission by everyone involved in the definition that the causes are varied, that most of the symptoms are exhibited by everyone to some degree, and that effective treatments likewise vary greatly.

In other words, ADHD is no different than any other mental disorder, except that the drugs have effects people like, even if nothing's wrong with them.

[MBCook]

But isn't that a problem? Shouldn't we try to split ADHD up into smaller more specific disorders so that we can better study/treat it?

If lumped all together, that seems to only help cause over-diagnosis (because the symptom list is so large) and makes it harder to study (because two very different conditions may be manifesting in very similar ways).

[spacedmountain]

Actually, it is split. There are three types of ADHD - predominantly hyperactive-impulsive (PH), predominantly inattentive (PI), and combined (C). There is also Sluggish Cognitive Tempo, which seems to be related to ADHD-PI, but there is less research on it.

Additionally, people who may seem to have ADHD may in fact have OCD, anxiety, depression, or other disorders. And vice versa. Or they may have a combination of one or more of these with ADHD.

[MBCook]

I was not aware of that.

As someone outside all of this (I've never had to deal with it, so I only have a passing familiarity) it sounds like the term ADHD needs to be removed from use as it's only causing more confusion. The various facets should have their own name.