Talk:Russell Barkley

...But who is he? His theories etc...

This article seems to have only one purpose: to argue and establish that Barkley is reputable or is not a nobody. ...that he deserves intellectual gravitas. Yet it gives no reason why he should even be in Wiki. Certainly merely having authored some books and a list of awards for who-know-what is not a good reason.

Wiki should not be a place for posting resumes and/or QVs, which is what it seems we have here. Besides for the obvious reasons, because such documents (like soundsgood awards) have no meaning to the average reader.

He seems reputable enough, he's considered a world class scientists and by the way people review his books(fellow colleagues) he seems to be held in very high esteem. this page seems to want to trash him simply because he took money, his brother who had adhd died in a car accident and it's very clear he blames himself, can we show some respect please?

http://www.amazon.com/Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity-Disorder-Fourth-Diagnosis/dp/1462517722/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454837856&sr=1-4&keywords=russell+barkley

http://www.amazon.com/Executive-Functions-What-They-Evolved/dp/146250535X/ref=pd_sim_14_3?ie=UTF8&dpID=51B0RbyirsL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR107%2C160_&refRID=1AX8X81S5V8Q7FBJX6FY

""With this seminal work, Barkley single-handedly initiates a paradigm shift in our understanding of executive functioning (EF). Drawing on fields as diverse as neuropsychology, neurobiology, evolutionary biology, behavioral genetics, anthropology, and philosophy, he achieves a masterful synthesis, culminating in a hierarchical model of EF development through eight stages. Of particular value, the model gives rise to ecologically valid strategies for management of EF deficits and clearly enhances our understanding of ADHD and other conditions in which executive dysfunction is prominent. Highly readable, interesting, even exciting to read, this volume will undoubtedly stimulate and guide EF research and clinical applications for decades to come."--Mary V. Solanto, PhD, Department of Psychiatry and Director, ADHD Center, Mount Sinai School of Medicine

"For real advances in the field of executive functioning (EF) to occur, we need, first and foremost, a clear definition of the term. Barkley has provided that clarity. He explains what executive functions are, why they are critical to our day-to-day existence, and how they affect society. He justifiably rejects psychometric assessments of executive functions, based on their lack of ecological validity, and instead proposes multilevel assessments grounded in the natural environment. As a clinician working in the real world of people with EF deficits, the fact that Barkley's theory yields logical and applicable strategies for intervention is of great significance to me."--Richard Guare, PhD, Director, Center for Learning and Attention Disorders, Portsmouth, New Hampshire

"Barkley has never been one to shy away from new theories and ideas. He is perhaps one of the foremost critical thinkers of our time. Executive Functions is a tour de force of creativity and wide-ranging thinking. Barkley offers a reasoned and reasonable theory to understand the emerging field of EF and its related disorders. The chapter on clinical implications is particularly important for practitioners. This book is essential reading for researchers, clinicians, and students interested in the complexities of brain-behavior relationships and human adaptation."--Sam Goldstein, PhD, Neurology, Learning, and Behavior Center, University of Utah School of Medicine http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/ADHD_predominantly_inattentive says:

"Some experts, such as Dr. Russell Barkley, argue that ADHD-PI is so different from the other ADHD subtypes that it should be regarded as a distinct disorder. Barkley cites different symptoms among those with ADHD-PI—particularly the almost complete lack of conduct disorders and high-risk, thrill-seeking behavior—and markedly different responses to stimulant medication."

It's clear he's important. 73.189.17.90 (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)calmwinds

Is that his main conceptual distinction or "invention?" If so it should be explained in more detail here or elsewhere. If not, perhaps a list of his ideas would be appropriate?

--71.128.254.239 (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Idea of New Attention Disorder Spurs Research, and Debate by Alan Schwarz, The New York Times, April 11, 2014 says the following about Barkley:

• The psychologist Russell Barkley of the Medical University of South Carolina, for 30 years one of A.D.H.D.’s most influential and visible proponents, has claimed in research papers and lectures that sluggish cognitive tempo “has become the new attention disorder.”
• Dr. Barkley, who has said that “S.C.T. is a newly recognized disorder,” also has financial ties to Eli Lilly; he received $118,000 from 2009 to 2012 for consulting and speaking engagements, according to propublica.org. While detailing sluggish cognitive tempo in The Journal of Psychiatric Practice, Dr. Barkley stated that Strattera’s performance on sluggish cognitive tempo symptoms was “an exciting finding.” Dr. Barkley has also published a symptom checklist for mental health professionals to identify adults with the condition; the forms are available for $131.75 apiece from Guilford Press, which funds some of his research.
• Dr. Barkley, who edits sluggish cognitive tempo’s Wikipedia page, declined a request to discuss his financial interests in the condition’s acceptance.

After reading that New York Times article, I would say that Barkley is known for his "research" on sluggish cognitive tempo, which he says is a type of ADHD. --24.97.201.230 (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Barkley-Watson controversy

Uhm.... I took out this whole section from controversy. I feel, that this is.... unintelligble and unserious right from the first few sentences. And the rest that then builds upon and can't stand on it's own. I'm not trying to make some point about the controversy or whatever happened here. I don't know or care. The vague impression I got from that section was that Watson's research was against Barkley's interests and he's somehow manufactured it so, that she lost her job. And that I really don't trust this article at all. The whole section feels odd and weirdly constructed and hard to follow. Maybe that episode should have it's own wiki-article? Or be written up with some coherence?

anyway, my problem starts with the first few sentences: This research documented 15% rates of ADHD diagnosis and drug treatment in her community. Diagnosis rates also slammed and attacked by Keith Conners and Allen Frances. // was that documenting diagnosis or drug treatment? What's the 15% referring to. A naive reading implies that all diagnosed cases would be treated with drugs, which defies belief. // Because this is probably badly written, if one is not paying attention, one might think, that that's what the controversy is about. Watson claiming a non-sense 100% rate of drug-treatment. // Don't know who Conners and Frances are. But I know you can't slam a diagnosis rate. This is not Wrestling. But it's using wrestling language. // Does it want to tell me a story? Does it want me to click on a shitty YouTube video? // It could be "critiqued", perhaps? Also it should tell me, whether this was considered too low or too high. Also did they make their critique together or seperately? // Also.... who are these people? I know they have Wiki-articles, but I think a small descriptor each to give context would be appropriate.

Upon hearing of this, Barkley intervened and struck back, asserting that too few people were being diagnosed and medicated for ADHD. In 2004 Barkley claimed that LeFever’s findings from multiple peer-reviewed and published studies were so questionable that they “deserve investigation".[1] // Okay..... why is Barkley striking back here? Also..... "striking back"? What the hell?! // Also it's not clear how Watson struck him in the first place, that he would want to strike back. // As far as I understand they're both ADHD researchers or at least working in the broader ADHD-field, at least. // And they're not at..... Wrestlemania (unless I missed something. I might have. I have ADHD)

And at this point, you might as well scrap the rest of the sentences, cause they build up on something that doesn't make any sense (as I've argued above).

Gretchen LeFever Watson, a practising psychologist in south east Virginia began a program of ADHD research that included epidemiologic surveys. This research documented 15% rates of ADHD diagnosis and drug treatment in her community. Diagnosis rates also slammed and attacked by Keith Conners and Allen Frances. Upon hearing of this, Barkley intervened and struck back, asserting that too few people were being diagnosed and medicated for ADHD. In 2004 Barkley claimed that LeFever’s findings from multiple peer-reviewed and published studies were so questionable that they “deserve investigation".[1] Within weeks of Barkley’s call for an investigation of LeFever’s findings, someone submitted an anonymous complaint about LeFever’s work to EVMS (i.e., the complaint described above). In response, EVMS conducted an internal investigation of LeFever’s past and current research. Against EVMS policy and common protocol for investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct, the medical school confirmed to the media that LeFever was under investigation.[1] Barkley's visit and actions resulted in Watson being dismissed from her position. Watson's community intervention programme, which was non-pharma based and had been effective, was dismantled.[2][3][1] [4][1] Must.learn.more. (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I, Russell Barkley, could not agree more with the above. My skirmish with Dr. Watson is an incredibly minor issue in which she (and Alan Schwarz) wish to portray her as a victim when in fact I had nothing to do with her dismissal. I did criticize her work in print as producing highly unlikely results and she was subsequently investigated by her hospital for possible misconduct and violation of ethical standards for which she was put on administrative leave and subsequently left that employment. But I was never involved in all that and had no contact with her employer, as a call to her hospital would surely prove. Nor should Alan Schwarz be permitted to use innuendo in this biography that is misleading and largely done out of spite because I wouldn't do an interview with him (which he admits, and for good reason). As a published review of his book by other researchers shows, he often engages in selective citations and misrepresents the work of researchers in the field of ADHD to fit a preconceived agenda he has against medications and ADHD. For instance, here he states that I am a "pharma-funded scientist," implying that this is my main or only source of funding. As my website shows (http://www.russellbarkley.org/about.html), my pharma funded research constitutes less than 2% of all grant funding I have received in my career. But that would eviscerate his intentions so he leaves that out. He also claims that I received $129K from Eli Lilly from 2009-2-12 but not what for, as that would also water down his intent (it was for speaking about ADHD, consulting on research design, serving on their International Advisory Board, and serving as an expert witness in a Canadian drug patent dispute). But that is hardly the stuff of scandal he wishes to convey, unless one believes that scientists should never consult to pharma companies. Of course where would that leave us in this COVID-19 pandemic. Nor does he say that I have received no funding from Lilly since that time (8 years later!). But that too would defeat his purposes, which is to cast me as a mere shill for Eli Lilly. So if Alan's editing of my biography with such innuendo is to remain, then I have the write to add references that either refute his assertions or clarify their meaning thus defeating their purpose. RussellBarkley (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

A short passage taken from the Career section

In 1978 he claimed "A review of those studies using more objective measures of academic performance revealed few positive short- term or long-term drug effects on these measures. What few improvements have been noted can be readily attributed to better attention during testing. The major effect of the stimulants appears to be an improvement in classroom manageability rather than academic performance".

References

My concern for the quoted passage's quality of not meeting the requirement of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is based on the premise of WP:WIKIVOICE that Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. and WP:MEDRS that Using secondary sources then allows facts to be stated with greater reliability: Neither vitamin E nor selenium decreases the risk of prostate cancer and vitamin E may increase it..

The source Barkley, RA; Cunningham, CE (1978), "Do stimulant drugs improve the academic performance of hyperkinetic children? A review of outcome studies.", Clinical pediatrics, 17 (1): 85–92, doi:10.1177/000992287801700112, ISSN 0009-9228, PMID 22418 is classified as a review article on PubMed. Thus, stating facts as Russell Barkely's personal opinion is against WP:NPOV.

Also, the quoted passage I think was not carefully worded enough to ensure the WP:NPOV's nonjudgmental language is chosen, for example the word "claimed". Additionally, the quoted passage seems to be inserted into the article without describing the full context, which could be misleading and given that this article does not focus on ADHD. Finally, WP:AVOIDVICTIM: biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. I think the quoted passage is also off-topic.

Taken together, I decided to move the quoted passage away from the article.

Stringent Checker (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Redundant Paragraph in Consultant Section

In the consultant section, the sentence "In 2016 Alan Schwarz said Barkley was a "pharma sponsored scientist". It is not clear why their opinion is relevant and seems redundant with the preceding paragraph, which is objective and well sourced. I feel it should either be removed or expanded to explain why it is relevant.

AlexBenishek (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Done I feel the same. Stringent Checker ^[bargaining] 07:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Partial revert of Toadspike's edit

Hi @Димитрий Улянов Иванов,

I notice you recently reverted some edits by @Toadspike. There was a discussion that the removed content was obvious Wikipedia:Promo. I ask that you revert your recent edit, especially sections such as "His research has been cited by more than 123,000 other authors and he has a H-index (citation impact factor) of 145.", which is not relevant to his work .

Thank you!

~~~ MajesticRZ (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and apologies, thet did not seem as promotional content to me (e.g. research citations to indicate field prominence/relevance) and from reading the guidelines but I now see how that may be problematic. By the way, two of the embedded links you sent are not accessible. I will review and revert accordingly once I return from travelling. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Димитрий Улянов Иванов Hi Dimitri – thank you for your work on this article. I appreciate that you disagree with some of my changes. However, I think some elements should not be very controversial. For instance, my changes to the infobox were minimal, yet you seem to have reverted them entirely. I removed a lot of empty parameters, changed "performing a presentation" (a very awkward and uncommon phrase) to "speaking" (a more concise and easily understood phrase), removed "among other honors" (not appropriate for an infobox, which is only a summary), and removed a second infobox embedded within the first one, which provides no additional information and misuses the "sub-discipline" field. I would appreciate if this were undone.

Onto the harder bits – thank you for adding citations to the long list of papers he's published. However, the phrase "He is known for..." requires a source showing that he is indeed "known for" these things, not just that he has published on them. I am okay with leaving in the long list of papers, but I would change the phrase "He is known for..." to something like "He has published papers on..." or "Among the subjects he has written about are...".

Additionally, the sentence "He has given more than 800 invited lectures in more than 30 countries during his career." seems promotional to me. Many professors give many invited lectures – this is not notable in and of itself. It is especially inappropriate when the source cited is the subject's own website. This sentence should be removed, or an independent, reliable source should be found that justifies keeping it. Toadspike (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You make good points. I accidentally removed your infobox changes because I enacted mine under a restoration, that's my bad and which I now see these in the audits but didn't know at the time. I thought performing a presentation was more descriptive but yeah thinking about it more speaking is probablty better as it is less verbose. Although accurate, I'm not sure how "he is known for" should be substantiated (let me know if you can!) but I agree it should be cited or otherwise changed . As for the invited lectures, it is a significant part of his career but I agree with your point. Perhaps it can be reworded in a way to not appear promotional (e.g. without the numbers). The only thing I am somewhat unsure about (which I won't restore) is retracting his H-index, which is a valid indication of someone's research prominence in a field and from the guidelines I read nothing was explicitly against something like this. Sorry and thanks for the clarification. I will certainly revert yhese soon after I return home Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)