Readers interested in more detail can pursue other sources (Accardo, Blondis, Whitman, & Stein, 2001; Barkley, 2006, 2011a; Barkley, Murphy, & Fischer, 2008). William James (1890), in his Principles of Psychology, described a normal variant of character that he called the “explosive will” that resembles the difficulties experienced by those who today are called ADHD. The author’s theoretical model of executive functioning (Barkley, 2012) and its application to ADHD also will be presented, providing a more parsimonious accounting of the many cognitive and social deficits in the disorder which points to numerous promising directions for future research while rendering a deeper appreciation for the developmental significance and seriousness of ADHD. But, the first paper in the medical literature on disorders of attention such as ADHD is a short chapter on this topic in a medical textbook (initially published anonymously) by Melchior Adam Weikard in 1775 (Barkley & Peters, 2012).
By the 1950s-1970s, focus shifted away from etiology and toward the more specific behavior of hyperactivity and poor impulse control characterizing these children, reflected in labels such as “hyperkinetic impulse disorder” or “hyperactive child syndrome” (Burks, 1960; Chess, 1960).
The disorder was thought to arise from cortical overstimulation due to poor thalamic filtering of stimuli entering the brain (Knobel, Wolman, & Mason, 1959; Laufer, Denhoff, & Solomons, 1957).
Despite a continuing belief among clinicians and researchers of this era that the condition had some sort of neurological origin, the larger influence of psychoanalytic thought held sway.
And so, when the second edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II) appeared, all childhood disorders were described as “reactions,” and the hyperactive child syndrome became “hyperkinetic reaction of childhood” (American Psychiatric Association, 1968). Anxiety and depressive disorders in attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity: New Findings.
Yet, in hindsight, this bald assertion led to valuable research on the differences between these two supposed forms of ADD that otherwise would never have taken place.
That research may have been fortuitous, as it may be leading to the conclusion that a subset of those having ADD without hyperactivity may actually be exhibiting a separate, distinct, and qualitatively unique disorder rather than a subtype of ADHD; one tentatively named sluggish cognitive tempo (Barkley, 2012a, 2012b; Milich, Ballantine & Lynam, 2001). Douglas (1980, 1983) theorized that the disorder had four major deficits: (1) the investment, organization, and maintenance of attention and effort; (2) the ability to inhibit impulsive behavior; (3) the ability to modulate arousal levels to meet situational demands; and (4) an unusually strong inclination to seek immediate reinforcement. Douglas’s emphasis on attention along with the numerous studies of attention, impulsiveness, and other cognitive sequelae that followed (see Douglas, 1983; and Douglas & Peters, 1978, for reviews), eventually led to renaming the disorder as attention deficit disorder (ADD) in 1980 (DSM-III; American Psychiatric Association, 1980). Comorbidity in ADHD: Implications for research, practice, and DSM-V. Significant, historically, was the distinction in DSM-III between two types of ADD: those with hyperactivity and those without it. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 1065-1079. Little research existed at the time on the latter subtype that would have supported such a distinction being made in an official and increasingly prestigious diagnostic taxonomy. Also important here was the placement of the condition of ADD without hyperactivity, renamed undifferentiated attention-deficit disorder, in a separate section of the manual from ADHD with the specification that insufficient research existed to guide in the construction of diagnostic criteria for it at that time.