Adult patients with ADHD may go unrecognized. This can result in psychosocial and functional decline.

To investigate the use of objective testing, with an eye-tracker device in the diagnosis of adult patients with ADHD.

Case control study. Inclusion criteria were aged 18–65, minimum 5 years of education and literate in English. Exclusion criteria were visual impairment, amnesia and learning difficulties. ADHD was diagnosed with Conners’ adult ADHD diagnostic interview (group A, n = 15) and were matched for gender and age against normal controls (group B, n = 33). Participants completed four computer-based tasks while their eye movements were recorded. The tests included (i) Stroop effect test, (ii) Stroop effect test with visual aid, (iii) perceptual selectivity test and (iv) Saccadic interference. accuracy (%) and response time (msec) for tests (i–iii) measured while for test (iv), saccade count, average saccade amplitude and average fixation duration.

Stroop test accuracy showed a statistically significant difference between group A and group B (P = 0.004). Stroop response time also showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (t = 3.228, df: 46, P = 0.001). For test (ii), there was a significant difference for response time (t = 2.326, df: 46, P = 0.024) but not for accuracy. For test (iii), the results were statistically significant for accuracy; (t = 2.682, df: 46, P = 0.010) and for response time (t = 4.028, df: 46, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the saccadic interference test.

Adults with ADHD have a longer response time and perform less accurately than controls. Thus, these data demonstrate that there is a use for objective tests (tests i–iii) in the diagnosis of adult ADHD.

The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.