> And this problem being what exactly? The point is just establishing condition X exists doesn't establish that most people diagnosed with X actually have X (a

> And this problem being what exactly? The point is just establishing condition X exists doesn't establish that most people diagnosed with X actually have X (and those who don't, don't). The burden of proof on the psychiatric community is greater than to prove a condition exists in a biological sense. It is: 1. Prove condition exists. Identify if it is a specific illness or just an extreme on a range 2. Prove that they have a reliable and accurate way to diagnose it and that most physicians in the field agree on their diagnoses (i.e. interviewer intereliability > 90%). In so doing, prove this diagnoses is independent of self-image (e.g. a kid who's told they are distracting all the time may answer that they "can't focus" on a questionnaire because that's what adults tell them). 3. Prove that whatever solutions they are offering are statistically effective at helping the condition described in 2. Administer a post-test on each person receiving treatment to verify that they are indeed helped by whatever drug they are purchasing. -- The community doesn't meet this standard. And therefore we are right to be skeptical of it, it's half-assed with peoples mental health. I'm more rigorous with my software than they are with mental health. To answer your question - You'd do a research study on "Brain ADDness" based on size of brain structures. Then you'd give a traditional ADD test to these people. And you'd look at the correlation.