Exploring the Complex Landscape of ADHD Research

Hey Team!

This week we’re going to look at what is entailed in ADHD research—what it is, how it works, and what it all means for us.

Before we get going though I wanted to start with a brief explanation of what really drove my thinking about this topic—which now looks like is going to end up as a multi-part series.

So there’s an idea called the illusion of explanatory depth, which occurs when people believe they understand something but, when asked to explain it, realize that they don’t quite understand the underlying mechanism as well as they thought. Classic examples are things like how a computer works, how a bicycle stays upright, or how a toilet functions.

If I were to ask you how any of these things work I expect most people would say they could. But let’s take the toilet example—I know personally, I’d probably start with something about the flush adding water and maybe creating a difference in pressure and… okay maybe I don’t know how a toilet works. And that’s the point here: with the illusion of explanatory depth, we have some understanding of what’s going on, but when pressed for details, we often find those gaps in our knowledge.

And this was something that I was feeling about ADHD research and had me questioning what I really knew. That isn’t to say that I didn’t know anything but we hear all the time that new studies are coming out about ADHD, but what does that really mean? How is this research being conducted? Who’s funding the research? What are ADHD scientists actually studying? Who's doing this research? What kind of research are they even doing? And what even makes one research study better than another?

We all have some semblance of feeling like we know some of the answers to those questions, but this is also where the illusion of explanatory depth comes in because the answers to all of those questions is far more complex than our initial assessment would grant.

In this series, we’ll be examining these questions more closely. And in this particular episode we’ll be focusing on the different types of research, the methods used, and some the challenges that researchers face when studying ADHD.

I also want to emphasize that I will not be able to cover everything in this series, but that’s not the goal. What I’m hoping you get out of this is a better understanding of what goes into the making of the science of ADHD. Find the show notes at HackingYourADHD.com/196 This Episode's Top Tips 

1. ADHD research is comprised of three categories: basic research, clinical research, and behavioral research. Basic research seeks to better understand the underlying causes of ADHD through genetic and neuroscience studies. Clinical research tests different treatment options, such as proper medication levels and the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions. Behavioral research studies how ADHD impacts daily life through observational and longitudinal studies.
2. As a spectrum disorder, ADHD manifests differently for everyone, making it important to recognize that symptoms and challenges vary across individuals. Combined with the high levels of comorbid conditions with ADHD, means that researchers have to be cautious when determining what’s actually a factor in ADHD interventions.
3. Because there’s no definitive medical test for ADHD, diagnosis relies on behavioral assessments, which can be influenced by cultural and societal factors, leading to both over- and under-diagnosis in certain populations. This creates challenges in ADHD research as it limits who should be included in studies.