Feasibility and Acceptability of Internet-based Interventions for ADHD in College Students and Adults

• Main Author: Shelton, Christopher R
• Format: Dissertation
• Language: English
• Published: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses 01-01-2018
• Subjects: Clinical psychology; Mental health
• ISBN: 0438339371; 9780438339378

Background: Internet-based interventions (IBIs) to treat psychological disorders are available but none exist to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in college students, nor are any currently available for adults. Objective: Across two studies, we examined: (a) the feasibility of a proposed IBI for ADHD and participant perceptions regarding treatment acceptability and credibility, outcome expectancy, and intention to initiate treatment; and (b) whether algorithmically tailoring proposed treatment content based on self-reported functional impairment increases positive perceptions of an IBI for ADHD. Method: Across both studies, participants were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and provided with a descriptive preview of a proposed IBI and explanatory outlines of treatment module content. Participants were randomly assigned to either a tailored (i.e., received module outlines tailored to their specific deficits), control (i.e., non-tailored; received all module outlines), or random condition (i.e., received a varying number of module outlines). Participants in Experiment 1 were emerging adult college students (N = 196; aged 18-25) with current ADHD symptomatology. Participation in Experiment 2 was not limited to students specifically; instead the sample consisted of adults (N = 235; aged 18-35) with a prior ADHD diagnosis as well as current ADHD symptomatology and related impairment. Results: Analyses demonstrated that participants in the tailored and control conditions had moderate IBI acceptability ratings. Treatment preference was inconsistent across experiments: students in Experiment 1 preferred face-to-face (F2F) treatment, adults in Experiment 2 preferred IBIs, and among a subsample of only students in Experiment 2 there was no difference in preference. Most individuals who preferred F2F treatment also considered an IBI to be an acceptable method of treatment. Across both experiments, most individuals who preferred an IBI also preferred a guided over unguided IBI. Further, students in 2 the tailored condition reported higher IBI acceptability than those in the control condition (Experiment 1). Although the remaining outcomes of interest did not significantly differ between the tailored and control condition, the data showed small effects for several of these outcomes (i.e., treatment credibility and relevance). Conclusion: This research was the first to examine (a) factors related to an IBI for ADHD in college students, and (b) the effect of algorithmically tailoring content within the populations of both experiments. Lack of significant mean differences between the tailored and control conditions on several of the main outcomes of interest suggest that implementation of either method of treatment could prove effective. However, estimates of effect size suggest that our samples may have been underpowered. Further results, implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed.