Employers must assess ADHD test methods, not just brochure titles
Buyers of adult ADHD assessment services face a data gap: they need to compare testing methods and outcomes rather than rely on product names alone.
Buyers of assessment services must look beyond brochure names to compare methods and results, as highlighted in the overview of types of adhd in adults.
What the evidence says about adult ADHD sub‑types
Several public health sources describe the three primary sub‑types that appear in adult populations. The ADHD Test article notes that the inattentive type accounts for roughly 33 % of adult cases, the hyperactive‑impulsive type about 7 %, and the combined type the remaining 60 %. The NHS page confirms that most adults show a mix of inattentive and hyperactive‑impulsive symptoms, while the Royal College of Psychiatrists explains that ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder that can affect concentration, impulse control and activity levels throughout life.
| Subtype | Share of adult cases |
|---|---|
| Inattentive (ADD) | 33 % |
| Hyperactive‑impulsive | 7 % |
| Combined | 60 % |
| Source: ADHD Test, 2026 | |
These figures provide a clinical baseline but do not address how assessment providers differentiate their tests or report outcomes.
Why the buying decision matters for employers
Employers increasingly encounter requests for workplace adjustments under UK Equality Act 2010 and EU equality directives. The British Dietetic Association notes that neurodivergent employees, including those with ADHD, may need tailored support around diet, time‑management and workplace ergonomics. The ACAS guidance on reasonable adjustments for neurodiversity outlines the legal duty to consider individual needs, which often begins with a formal diagnosis.
When a procurement team selects an assessment service, the choice can affect the quality of diagnosis, the speed of referral to occupational health, and ultimately the design of reasonable adjustments. A test that over‑emphasises hyperactivity may miss inattentive presentations, leading to incomplete support plans.
Current gaps in procurement evidence
Despite the regulatory backdrop, none of the publicly available sources in the packet provide data on how buyers compare test methodologies, validation studies, or outcome reliability. The research notes explicitly state that “the main claim cannot be verified” because the excerpts discuss sub‑types and symptoms but not procurement practices.
This evidence gap means that procurement officers often rely on superficial cues – such as the name on a brochure – rather than on documented performance metrics. The lack of comparative data makes it difficult to assess whether a provider’s test aligns with the employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments.
What remains unknown
At present there is no publicly disclosed information on:
- Which assessment tools have been independently validated for adult populations.
- How the sensitivity and specificity of different tests compare across the three sub‑types.
- Any cost‑benefit analysis that links test choice to downstream workplace accommodation outcomes.
Stakeholders – from HR departments to occupational health services – would benefit from a transparent benchmarking framework. Until such data are published, the recommendation is to request full methodological details from vendors, seek peer‑reviewed validation studies, and align test selection with the specific subtype profile most relevant to the workforce.
For further reading on the clinical picture of adult ADHD, see the NHS overview and the Royal College of Psychiatrists guidance. UnionPress has previously covered procurement best practices in Beschaffung von Verhandlungsschulungen: Was Einkäufer jetzt beachten müssen and the impact of labour‑market disruptions in German and Dutch ports face imminent strike‑driven disruptions.