Buyers of adult ADHD assessment services find little guidance beyond the types of adhd in adults overview.
What the public sources say about adult ADHD
The ADHD Test page outlines three primary sub‑types – inattentive, hyperactive‑impulsive and combined – and notes that each has “approximate prevalence percentages”. It does not, however, provide any data on how the diagnostic tools for these sub‑types differ in methodology or results.
The NHS description of adult ADHD focuses on symptoms such as difficulty concentrating, excess energy and impulsivity, and advises people to seek help from a GP. It makes no mention of assessment products, procurement criteria or comparative performance.
Similarly, the Royal College of Psychiatrists offers a general overview of adult ADHD, covering the condition’s definition, typical presentation and treatment options. The article stops short of any guidance for employers or other buyers on selecting an assessment service.
Guidance for workplaces – but not for assessment procurement
ACAS provides a detailed guide on neurodiversity at work, outlining employers’ duties under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent staff. The guidance is valuable for creating inclusive policies, yet it does not address how an organisation should evaluate or purchase an ADHD assessment tool.
The British Dietetic Association’s resource on adult ADHD discusses the condition’s impact on dietetics practice and mentions the three sub‑types, but again offers no insight into the comparative merits of different assessment approaches.
The missing comparison framework
Across the six publicly available sources – ADHD Test, NHS, Royal College of Psychiatrists, British Dietetic Association, Royal College of General Practitioners and ACAS – there is a consistent description of the condition and its sub‑types, but none supplies a framework for buyers to compare assessment methods, psychometric validity, cost or outcome data.
For organisations that need to select an assessment, this creates a reliance on internal criteria such as brand name, brochure wording or anecdotal recommendations. The absence of independent, side‑by‑side data means that procurement decisions cannot be benchmarked against a recognised standard.
Implications for employers and procurement teams
Employers looking to support neurodivergent staff may wish to commission an assessment to confirm diagnosis and tailor workplace adjustments. Without publicly available comparison data, they risk choosing a tool that is less reliable or less suited to the specific sub‑type prevalent in their workforce.
In practice, this could lead to higher costs if an assessment needs to be repeated, or to sub‑optimal support plans if the chosen tool does not capture the full symptom profile. The gap also limits the ability of procurement teams to negotiate on evidence‑based criteria, potentially favouring vendors with stronger marketing rather than stronger science.
What is still unknown
The research packet contains no figures on the market size of adult ADHD assessment providers, no head‑count or revenue data for any specific vendor, and no published studies that directly compare the methods and outcomes of different assessments. Consequently, the claim that “buyers must compare method and results, not just the brochure name” remains unverified.
Stakeholders seeking clarity should monitor future research publications, professional body updates or regulator‑led benchmarking studies that could fill this evidence gap.
For further reading on the condition itself, see the NHS overview of adult ADHD and the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ information page. Guidance on workplace adjustments can be found in the ACAS neurodiversity guide.
Internal context on how other sectors are handling assessment procurement can be explored in our assessment market analysis and the broader neurodiversity in the workplace insight pieces.