A Young Caucasian Girl With ADHD: decision tree case guide
A three-decision psychopharmacology case on an 8-year-old girl referred for ADHD assessment, with each decision requiring a rationale, an intended outcome, and an explanation of any gap between them. This guide covers why the expectation has to be specific enough to be wrong, the safety signal at decision two, and the two findings the case supplies that are read backwards.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 6, 2026
The expectation has to be specific enough to be wrong
The sub-question that decides this paper is the fourth one at each decision point: explain any difference between what you expected and what happened, and why. You cannot answer it unless the second sub-question — what you were hoping to achieve — was written precisely enough to be wrong.
That coupling is worth planning for. If your expectation at decision one is that Katie will improve, then whatever the outcome is, there is no gap to explain and the fourth answer becomes filler. If your expectation is specific — a reduction in teacher-rated inattention within a stated number of weeks, sustained through the school day, without appetite suppression or cardiovascular change — then the outcome either meets it or does not, and the difference has a cause you can name. Dose, formulation duration, adherence, timing relative to the school day, and whether the diagnosis was right are the usual candidates, and naming which one applies is the analysis the assignment is built around. Writing all three expectations before you write any of the outcomes also stops the paper drifting into a retrospective justification of whatever happened.
The case contains a specific safety signal that the second decision point is constructed around. Katie's mornings improve, her afternoons do not, and she reports that her heart "felt funny" — with a measured rate of about 130. Two problems are now on the table and they are not the same problem. The afternoon decline is a duration-of-action question that a longer-acting formulation addresses. The tachycardia is a tolerability and safety question that a longer-acting formulation of the same molecule does not address and may prolong. Any option chosen at that point has to say what is being done about the heart rate — baseline and repeat measurement, cardiac and family history, and what threshold would stop treatment — or the paper has answered half of what the case put in front of it.
Two features of the presentation are easy to read past and both are load-bearing. The parents actively deny the diagnosis on the grounds that Katie would be "running around like a wild person", which describes a hyperactive presentation and not the predominantly inattentive one the teacher's ratings describe — a pattern that is under-recognised, particularly in girls, precisely because it is quiet. And the mental status examination records attention and concentration as grossly intact. A novel one-to-one interview with an interested adult is the setting in which inattentive presentations look most normal, so that finding does not exclude the diagnosis, and saying why is a stronger use of it than reporting it. Explaining that distinction to the parents is itself part of the treatment plan, because a family that believes the diagnosis is wrong is a family that will stop the medication.
There is also a gap in the assessment worth naming, because diagnosis requires evidence of impairment in more than one setting and this case supplies a rating scale from one. The teacher's form is in the file; a parent-completed scale is not, and the parents are on record disagreeing. Requesting one is a concrete thing to write. It also connects to the ethical section the brief asks for at the end: you are prescribing a controlled stimulant to an eight-year-old whose parents dispute that she has the condition, which raises consent, the child's own assent, and how you communicate a diagnosis to a family that has already rejected it. That is a more specific ethical discussion than confidentiality in general. Ethics here is not an appended paragraph; it is the reason the missing rating scale matters, since consent to treat rests on a diagnosis the parents can accept as established.
What the case supplies | How it is usually read | What it actually indicates |
|---|---|---|
Parents deny ADHD — "she'd be running around" | A barrier to treatment | A description of the hyperactive presentation, not the inattentive one on the teacher's form |
Attention grossly intact on mental status exam | Evidence against the diagnosis | Expected in a novel one-to-one interview; does not exclude it |
Only a teacher rating scale in the file | Sufficient documentation | One setting; a parent-completed scale is missing |
Mornings improved, afternoons unchanged | Partial response | A duration-of-action problem |
Heart rate about 130, "heart felt funny" | A side effect to note | A safety signal that a longer-acting formulation does not resolve |
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Write a treatment expectation specific enough that an outcome can falsify it.
- 02Separate an efficacy problem from a tolerability problem in the same clinical picture.
- 03Recognise a presentation that is under-identified because of how it looks rather than what it is.
- 04Judge what a normal finding in one setting does and does not rule out.
- 05Identify missing assessment data required by diagnostic criteria.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
What each decision point has to contain
- 01Three decisions about the medication to prescribe.
- 02For each: which decision was selected, and why, supported by evidence and references.
- 03For each: what you were hoping to achieve, supported by evidence and references.
- 04For each: any difference between the expected and actual result, and why.
- 05A patient-specific rationale for each of the two options not chosen at every decision point.
- 06A discussion of how ethical considerations might impact the treatment plan and communication with clients.
- 07Consideration of factors affecting the client's pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes.
Diagnosis first, then three decisions in sequence
Establish the diagnosis before the first prescription
Set out what supports the diagnosis, what is missing, and what you would request, including a parent-completed scale.
Decision 1 — with a falsifiable expectation
State the choice, the rationale, and an expected outcome with a measure and a timeframe.
Decision 1 — the options not chosen
Give a rationale specific to Katie for rejecting each alternative.
Decision 2 — separate the two problems
Address the afternoon decline as a duration question and the tachycardia as a safety question, then choose.
Decision 3 — close the loop
Choose, justify, and account for how the earlier decisions shaped what was available at this point.
Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and ethics
Cover weight-based dosing, metabolism, formulation release kinetics and adherence, then assent, parental disagreement and how the diagnosis is communicated.
Where the criteria and the monitoring requirements live
Recommended databases
- The course Learning Resources, which the brief cites repeatedly
- PubMed / NCBI Bookshelf
- Professional society practice parameters
Search sequence
- 1.Confirm the diagnostic criteria, particularly the requirement for evidence across settings, before justifying the first decision.
- 2.Read the pharmacology of the agent you select — onset, duration and the difference between immediate and extended release.
- 3.Check the cardiovascular monitoring expected with stimulant treatment in children before writing decision two.
- 4.Look up how the inattentive presentation differs from the hyperactive one, since that is what the parents are objecting to.
Sources for diagnosis, stimulant pharmacology and kinetics
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf, US National Library of Medicine · 2023
Diagnostic criteria including the requirement for impairment in more than one setting, and the presentations. This is the source both for the missing parent rating scale and for answering the parents' objection.
- 02
Methylphenidate
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf, US National Library of Medicine · 2023
Onset, duration, the difference between immediate and extended release, and the cardiovascular adverse effects. It is the reference for treating the afternoon decline and the heart rate as two separate problems.
- 03
Pharmacokinetics
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf, US National Library of Medicine · 2023
Absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination, which is what the opening instruction asks you to consider for this client. Use it for weight-based dosing and formulation release kinetics rather than reciting definitions.
Before the paper is submitted
Common mistakes
- Writing a vague expectation such as 'the patient will improve', which makes the fourth sub-question unanswerable.
- Treating the three decision points as three independent essays rather than a sequence where each constrains the next.
- Addressing the afternoon symptom decline at decision two and saying nothing about the heart rate of 130.
- Reading the parents' denial as an obstacle rather than as a description of the wrong presentation.
- Taking 'attention and concentration grossly intact' in the office as evidence against the diagnosis.
- Not noticing that only a teacher-completed rating scale is in the file.
- Skipping the patient-specific rationale for the options not chosen, which the brief asks for explicitly.
- Discussing ethics generally rather than the consent and assent problem this case actually creates.
- Omitting the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors, which the opening instruction names.
Submission checklist
- Each decision point has all four required sub-answers.
- Each stated expectation is specific enough to be measured against the outcome.
- The gap between expectation and outcome is explained by a named cause, not by chance.
- Decision two addresses both the duration of action and the heart rate.
- Monitoring parameters and a stopping threshold are stated where a stimulant is continued.
- The predominantly inattentive presentation is named and explained to the parents.
- The absence of a parent-completed rating scale is identified.
- Each unchosen option has a rationale specific to this patient.
- The ethics section addresses assent and prescribing amid parental disagreement.
- Every sub-answer that the brief marks for evidence carries a citation.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.