Detection of Feigned ADHD across Two Domains: The MMPI-2-RF and CAARS for Faked Symptoms and TOVA for Simulated Attention Deficits

Examining the utility of the BAARS-IV scales as embedded symptom validity indicators for adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder evaluations

Objective: This study investigated whether extreme cut-scores on the Barkley Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Rating Scale-Fourth Edition (BAARS-IV) self-report scales could serve as symptom overreporting indicators in adult ADHD evaluations. Method: The sample consisted of 162 adults who underwent a neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Patients were classified into valid (n = 115) and invalid (n = 47) groups based on multiple criterion symptom validity tests. Results: Overreporting cut-scores identified for each of the BAARS-IV scales demonstrated acceptable classification accuracy or better. The Current Total scale yielded the highest classification accuracy (area under the curve of .83). An optimal raw cut-score of ≥56 for this scale yielded 47% sensitivity when upholding ≥90% specificity. A cut-score of ≥31 for the Current Inattention scale (90% specificity; 47% sensitivity) and ≥29 for the Current Sluggish Cognitive Tempo scale (88% specificity; 46% sensitivity) were also relatively strong indicators of overreporting. The Current Total and Current Sluggish Cognitive Tempo scales captured nonredundant aspects of symptom validity, and using them together increased sensitivity to 57% while maintaining ≥90% specificity. Conclusions: Findings provide preliminary support for the criterion and construct validity of extreme cut-scores on the BAARS-IV Current Sluggish Cognitive Tempo, Current Inattention, and Current Total scales as indicators of ADHD symptom overreporting. However, employing the cut-scores from the Current Sluggish Cognitive Tempo (≥29) and Current Total (≥56) together may be the most promising way to detect overreporting. Scores above both of these cut-points should, at a minimum, prompt further investigation into the validity of a patient's reported symptoms.

Symptom validity testing in adults with clinically diagnosed ADHD: comparison of the Conner's Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) and the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI)

OBJECTIVES

Compared to the number of performance validity measures, the range of available symptom validity measures is limited. The Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI) is a recently developed freestanding symptom validity test with promising psychometric characteristics for use on non-criminal forensic and a range of clinical populations. The goal of this study was to evaluate the utility of the SRSI for symptom validity testing in the clinical evaluation of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHODS

This analogue study compared 76 German patients diagnosed with ADHD (age range 19-63 years) with typically developing individuals from the Netherlands/Germany who were assigned to either a control group (N = 58; age range 18-73 years) or a simulation group (N = 46; age range 18-57 years). All participants completed the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) with its two embedded validity indicators Infrequency Index (CII) and ADHD Credibility Index (ACI), the SRSI, and the Digit Span (to derive the Reliable Digit Span).

RESULTS

Specificity in controls was perfect for the CAARS, but reached only about 90% for the SRSI. In contrast, sensitivity in experimental simulators ranged from 24% to 65% for the CAARS, but reached high rates of 69% to 82% for the SRSI. In the sample of patients with ADHD, the failure rate ranged from 8% to 34% (CAARS), and 33% to 47% (SRSI). Further, we found limited classification agreement between the validity measures.

CONCLUSION

The divergent results on the different validity indicators reflects the ongoing discussion on poor construct unity and clarity, and calls for more research addressing the heterogeneous construct. The utility of the SRSI to reliably distinguish between valid and invalid symptom report in the clinical evaluation of adult ADHD has to be investigated by more refined studies including both symptom and performance validity indicators.

A systematic review of the utility of continuous performance tests among adults with ADHD

OBJECTIVE

The clinical utility of continuous performance tests (CPTs) among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has increasingly been brought under question. Therefore, the objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to investigate the clinical utility of various commercially available CPTs, including the Conner's Continuous Performance Test (CCPT), Test of Variables of Attention (TOVA), Gordon Diagnostic System (GDS), and Integrated Visual and Auditory Continuous Performance Test (IVA) in the adult ADHD population.

METHODS

This systematic review followed the a priori PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Articles were gathered from PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Academic Search Complete, and Google Scholar on 11 April 2022. Sixty-nine articles were included in the final review. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Took for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.

RESULTS

Most articles demonstrated high risk of bias, and there was substantial heterogeneity across studies. Overall, the reviewed CPTs appeared to have limited diagnostic utility and classification accuracy. Although many studies showed differing scores between adults with ADHD and comparison groups, findings were not consistent. Characteristics of CPT performances among adults with ADHD were mixed, with little consistency and no evidence of a clear profile of performances; however, CCPT commission errors appeared to have the most utility when used a treatment or experimental outcome measure, compared to other CCPT scores.

CONCLUSION

Overall, CPTs should not be used in isolation as a diagnostic test but may be beneficial when used as a component of a comprehensive assessment.

Internalizing and somatic symptoms influence the discrepancy between subjective and objective cognitive difficulties in adults with ADHD who have valid and invalid test scores

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the relationship between various intrapersonal factors and the discrepancy between subjective and objective cognitive difficulties in adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The first aim was to examine these associations in patients with valid cognitive symptom reporting. The next aim was to investigate the same associations in patients with invalid scores on tests of cognitive symptom overreporting.

METHOD

The sample comprised 154 adults who underwent a neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Patients were divided into groups based on whether they had valid cognitive symptom reporting and valid test performance (n = 117) or invalid cognitive symptom overreporting but valid test performance (n = 37). Scores from multiple symptom and performance validity tests were used to group patients. Using patients' scores from a cognitive concerns self-report measure and composite index of objective performance tests, we created a subjective-objective discrepancy index to quantify the extent of cognitive concerns that exceeded difficulties on objective testing. Various measures were used to assess intrapersonal factors thought to influence the subjective-objective cognitive discrepancy, including demographics, estimated premorbid intellectual ability, internalizing symptoms, somatic symptoms, and perceived social support.

RESULTS

Patients reported greater cognitive difficulties on subjective measures than observed on objective testing. The discrepancy between subjective and objective scores was most strongly associated with internalizing and somatic symptoms. These associations were observed in both validity groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjective cognitive concerns may be more indicative of the extent of internalizing and somatic symptoms than actual cognitive impairment in adults with ADHD, regardless if they have valid scores on cognitive symptom overreporting tests.

Cross-validating the Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit-Adult symptom validity scales for assessment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adults

INTRODUCTION

The Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit-Adult is among the few questionnaires that offer validity indicators (i.e., Negative Impression [NI], Infrequency [IF], and Positive Impression [PI]) for classifying underreporting and overreporting of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms. This is the first study to cross-validate the NI, IF, and PI scales in a sample of adults with suspected or known ADHD.

METHOD

Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to examine the independent and combined value of the NI, IF, and PI scores in predicting invalid symptom reporting and neurocognitive performance in a sample of 543 adults undergoing ADHD evaluation.

RESULTS

The NI scale demonstrated better classification accuracy than the IF scale in discriminating patients with and without valid scores on measures of overreporting. Only NI scores significantly predicted validity status when used in combination with IF scores. Optimal cut-scores for the NI (≤51; 30% sensitivity / 90% specificity) and IF (≥4; 18% sensitivity / 90% specificity) scales were consistent with those reported in the original manual; however, these indicators poorly discriminated patients with invalid and valid neurocognitive performance. The PI scale demonstrated acceptable classification accuracy in discriminating patients with invalid and valid scores on measures of underreporting, albeit with an optimal cut-score (≥27; 36% sensitivity / 90% specificity) lower than that described in the manual.

CONCLUSION

Findings provide preliminary evidence of construct validity for these scales as embedded validity indicators of symptom overreporting and underreporting. However, these scales should not be used to guide clinical judgment regarding the validity of neurocognitive test performance.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form Profiles Among Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Examining the Effect of Comorbid Psychopathology and ADHD Presentation

OBJECTIVE

Despite widespread use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), it is surprisingly understudied among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This is significant as ADHD is a frequent referral for neuropsychological evaluation; however, the core symptom of attention difficulty is a nonspecific sequela of many psychological disorders. This study aimed to characterize MMPI-2-RF profiles among adults with ADHD and examine the effect of comorbid psychopathology.

METHOD

A large, demographically diverse sample of 413 consecutive adults referred for neuropsychological evaluation to assist with differential diagnosis of ADHD who completed the MMPI-2-RF was examined. Profiles of the 145 patients diagnosed with ADHD-only were compared to 192 with ADHD and a comorbid psychological disorder and a 55-patient non-ADHD psychiatric comparison group. Among the ADHD-only group, profiles also were compared based on ADHD-presentation type (Predominantly Inattentive vs. Combined presentation).

RESULTS

The ADHD/psychopathology and psychiatric comparison groups scored higher than the ADHD-only group across nearly all scales with widespread clinical elevations. Conversely, the ADHD-only group displayed an isolated elevation on the Cognitive Complaints scale. Comparison between ADHD presentations revealed several small-moderate significant differences, the largest of which occurred on the Externalizing and Interpersonal scales.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with ADHD alone, and no other psychopathology have a unique MMPI-2-RF profile characterized by isolated elevation on the Cognitive Complaints scale. These results support use of the MMPI-2-RF in assessment of adults with ADHD as it can help distinguish ADHD alone from ADHD/comorbid psychopathology and identify relevant psychiatric comorbidities that may be contributing to patients' inattention complaints.

Performance and symptom validity assessment in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Base rates of invalidity, concordance, and relative impact on cognitive performance

Objective: Differential diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common referral questions for neuropsychological evaluation but is complicated by the presence of external incentives. Validity assessment is therefore critical in such evaluations, employing symptom validity tests (SVTs) and performance validity tests (PVTs) to assess the validity of reported symptoms and cognitive test performance, respectively. This study aimed to establish the base rate of symptom and performance invalidity in adults referred for ADHD, compare concordance between performance and symptom validity, and assess the impact of each type of validity on cognitive test performance. Method: This consecutive case series included data from 392 demographically-diverse adults who underwent outpatient neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. All patients were administered the Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit-Adult (CAT-A) and a uniform cognitive test battery, including seven PVTs. Results: Invalid symptom reporting and PVT performance were found in 22% and 16% of the sample, respectively. Sixty-eight percent had concordantly valid SVTs/PVTs and 6% had invalid SVTs/PVTs, whereas the remaining 26% had either invalid SVTs or PVTs (but not both). Invalid PVT performance resulted in a significant decrease across all cognitive test scores, with generally large effects (ηp2=.01-.18). Invalid symptom reporting had minimal effects on cognitive test performance (ηp2= ≤.04). Conclusions: PVTs and SVTs are dissociable and therefore should not be used interchangeably in the context of adult ADHD evaluations. Rather, symptom and performance validity should continue to be assessed independently as they provide largely non-redundant information.

Gender Differences in Auditory and Visual Attentional Performance in Children with and without ADHD

OBJECTIVE

Despite the relatively high prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the impairment of ADHD in women is underestimated due to the different ways the phenomenon manifests compared to traditional male symptoms. In order to close the gender gap in diagnosis and treatment, this study aims to explore the impact of gender on auditory and visual attention in children with and without ADHD.

METHOD

A total of 220 children with and without ADHD participated in this study. Their auditory and visual attention performances were analyzed by comparative computerized auditory and visual subtests.

RESULTS

Auditory and visual attention performance in children with and without ADHD did affect by gender, including typically developing (TD) boys are better than TD girls at distinguishing visual targets from non-target stimuli. When performing attention tasks, TD girls generally maintained a cautious response, which was different from TD boys, who generally adopted positive response methods. ADHD girls suffered from more serious auditory inattention problems than ADHD boys; however, ADHD boys suffered from more auditory and visual impulsive problems than ADHD girls. The internal attention problems of female ADHD children were broader than that of their male ADHD peers and were also more severe, especially in problems of auditory omission and auditory response acuity.

CONCLUSIONS

ADHD children had a significant gap in auditory and visual attention performance compared to TD children. The research results support the impact of gender on the performance of auditory and visual attention in children with and without ADHD.

Validating Embedded Validity Indicators of Feigned ADHD-Associated Cognitive Impairment Using the MOXO-d-CPT

BACKGROUND

The current study aimed to validate the utility of previously established validity indicators derived from MOXO-d-CPT's continuous performance test.

METHOD

Healthy simulators feigned impairment after searching online for relevant information, an ecologically valid coaching condition (n = 39). They were compared to ADHD patients (n = 36) and healthy controls (n = 38).

RESULTS

Simulators performed significantly worse than ADHD patients in all MOXO-d-CPT indices, as well as a scale that integrates their contributions (feigned ADHD scale). Three indices (attention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity) and the latter scale exhibited adequate discriminative capacity. Higher education was associated with an exaggerated impairment among simulators, easing their detection.

CONCLUSION

Similarity between the current study and a previous study which examned the utlity of the MOXO-d-CPT validity indicators, increases our confidence in the efficacy of the latters embedded validity indicators. Though the findings provide initial validation of these validity indicators, generalizing beyond highly functioning participants necessitates further research.

Joint Consideration of Validity Indicators Embedded in Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS)

A decade of research has both illustrated the need for accurate clinical assessment of adult ADHD and brought forward a series of validity indicators assisting this diagnostic process. Several of these indicators have been embedded into Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS). As their different theoretical underpinnings offer the opportunity of possible synergy effects, the present study sought to examine whether the item- or index-wise combination of multiple validity indicators benefits classification accuracy. A sample of controls (n = 856) and adults with ADHD (n = 72) answered the CAARS, including the ADHD Credibility Index (ACI) honestly, while a group of instructed simulators (n = 135) completed the instrument as though they had ADHD. First, original CAARS items, which are part of the CAARS Infrequency Index (CII), and items drawn from the ACI were combined into a new CII-ACI-Compound Index. Secondly, existing validity indicators, including suspect T-score elevations and the CII, were considered in combination. Both approaches were evaluated in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The combination of four CII and five ACI items into the CII-ACI-Compound Index yielded a sensitivity between 41 and 51% and an estimated specificity above 87%. Suspect T-score elevations on all three DSM scales emerged as another potentially useful validity indicator with a sensitivity of 45 to 46% and a specificity > 90%. Deeming examinees non-credible whenever two or more validity indicators showed suspect results ensured low false-positive rates (< 10%), but reduced sensitivity significantly. Classifying respondents as non-credible as soon as any given indicator fell into the suspect range resulted in frequent false positives (> 11% of misclassified adults with ADHD). Depending on whether high specificity or high sensitivity is prioritized, such combined considerations offer valuable additions to individual validity indicators. High sensitivity provided by “either/or” combinations could prove useful in screening settings, whereas high stakes settings could benefit from “and” combinations.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent-Restructured Form (MMPI-A-RF) characteristics of ADHD in a Korean psychiatric sample

Global rates of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have risen. In Korea, ADHD is associated with functional impairments and comorbidity with other psychological disorders. This study examined the correlates of ADHD in a psychiatric sample of Korean adolescents on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent-Restructured Form (MMPI-A-RF). In a clinical sample of 247 adolescents, MMPI-A-RF scores from 46 patients diagnosed with ADHD were compared to the remainder of the clinical sample and to the Korean MMPI-A-RF norms. Results demonstrated significantly different scores for the ADHD group on scales indicating externalizing concerns and behavior dysfunction compared with the clinical group with other disorders and to a normative sample. Notable differences were also observed between clinical groups on scales reflecting interpersonal functioning. Relative risk ratio analyses demonstrated that an MMPI-A-RF T-score of 55 was generally most effective for predicting risk for an ADHD diagnosis in the clinical sample.

What can we learn about performance validity from TOVA response profiles?

Given the functional impairments associated with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD), a valid diagnosis is important. However, particularly when carried out in adulthood, the diagnostic process can be challenging and is complicated by conclusive evidence that a proportion of individuals referred for evaluation of AD/HD exaggerate or feign their symptoms. Relatively few methods, however, exist to identify such feigning. While continuous performance tests (CPTs) may provide useful information regarding performance validity, the question remains as to whether there are consistent patterns of exaggeration demonstrated by those feigning AD/HD. Thus, this study used cluster analysis to determine whether valid and reliable performance clusters would emerge based on CPT performance. Using archival data from a university-based AD/HD screening clinic, we investigated the performance of 305 adults on the Test of Variables of Attention (TOVA). Three profiles emerged, including one cluster who demonstrated exceptionally low performance on the TOVA, exceptionally high reports of AD/HD symptomology, and higher rates of failure on symptom and performance validity tests. The implication from our analysis is that this group most likely represents individuals who were exaggerating or magnifying their difficulties. The results reaffirm previous research showing that performance profiles on a continuous performance test can be used as an indicator of credible performance.

Self-reported functional impairment in college students: relationship to noncredible reporting, ADHD, psychological disorders, and other psychological factors

INTRODUCTION

Both symptoms and functional impairment should be assessed in college students seeking evaluations for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). However, impairment is not specific to ADHD. Although it is well documented that self-reported symptoms can be reported noncredibly, there is less research examining credibility of self-reported impairment, and few clinicians rule out alternative causes for impairment.

METHOD

Participants (N = 428) completed self-report measures of functional impairment, sleep, perceived stress, and in an ADHD symptom measure with embedded validity indicators.

RESULTS

Noncredible reporters endorsed greater functional impairment than credible reporters in several domains, but impairment was reported at a high rate even in credible responders (N = 323) in several domains. Participants who reported prior ADHD and participants who reported prior psychiatric diagnoses reported greater impairment and higher rates of clinically significant impairment than those who reported no prior diagnoses. Few differences in reported impairment emerged between those who reported ADHD and psychiatric diagnoses. Sleep and stress accounted for significant variance in impairment, and the ADHD group reported greater impairment than the psychiatric diagnosis and no diagnosis groups after controlling for these variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Results reinforce the importance of considering the validity of, and alternative sources for, self-reported impairment in college students with ADHD concerns.

How good are inpatients at feigning Miranda abilities?: An investigation of the Miranda Quiz, Inventory of Legal Knowledge, and Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology

The current study represents the first investigation into feigned Miranda abilities using an inpatient population. We investigated the use of a very generic measure (i.e., the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, or SIMS) as well as two specialized forensic feigning measures: the Miranda Quiz (MQ) and Inventory of Legal Knowledge (ILK). With a quasi-random assignment, 82 acute inpatients were evenly distributed to "feigning" and "genuine" groups. The recommended SIMS cut score > 14 performed poorly, misclassifying three-quarters of the genuine group as feigning. In general, sensitivities on the specialized scales were constrained by the general lack of severe decrements for the feigning group. However, specificities were strong to outstanding. In particular, the MQ floor effect showed some promise but was limited by its small number of items. The strongest potential was observed for the revised ILK scales, especially the Revised Clinical ILK (RC-ILK). When using single-point cut scores on two prior correctional samples, the RC-ILK produced excellent sensitivities (0.94 and 0.96) and outstanding specificities (0.98 and 0.99). Methodological issues and professional implications were discussed in the context of feigned Miranda abilities.

Can the MMPI Predict Adult ADHD? An Approach Using Machine Learning Methods

(1) Background: Adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms cause various social difficulties due to attention deficit and impulsivity. In addition, in contrast to ADHD in childhood, ADHD in adulthood is difficult to diagnose due to mixed psychopathologies. This study aimed to determine whether it is possible to predict ADHD symptoms in adults using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) with machine learning (ML) techniques; (2) Methods: Data collected from 5726 college students were analyzed. The MMPI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) was used, and ADHD symptoms in adults were evaluated using the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Self-Report Scale (ASRS). For statistical analysis, three ML algorithms were used, i.e., K-nearest neighbors (KNN), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), and random forest, with the ASRS evaluation result as the dependent variable and the 50 MMPI-2-RF scales as predictors; (3) Results: When the KNN, LDA, and random forest techniques were applied, the accuracy was 93.1%, 91.2%, and 93.6%, respectively, and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.722, 0.806, and 0.790, respectively. The AUC of the LDA method was the largest, with an excellent level of diagnostic accuracy; (4) Conclusions: ML using the MMPI-2 in a large group could provide reliable accuracy in screening for adult ADHD.

Detection of Feigned ADHD Using the MOXO-d-CPT

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the MOXO-d-CPT utility in detecting feigned ADHD and establish cutoffs with adequate specificity and sensitivity. Method: The study had two phases. First, using a prospective design, healthy adults who simulated ADHD were compared with healthy controls and ADHD patients who performed the tasks to the best of their ability (n = 47 per group). Participants performed the MOXO-d-CPT and an established performance validity test (PVT). Second, the MOXO-d-CPT classification accuracy, employed in Phase 1, was retrospectively compared with archival data of 47 ADHD patients and age-matched healthy controls. Results: Simulators performed significantly worse on all MOXO-d-CPT indices than healthy controls and ADHD patients. Three MOXO-d-CPT indices (attention, hyperactivity, impulsivity) and a scale combining these indices showed adequate discriminative capacity. Conclusion: The MOXO-d-CPT showed promise for the detection of feigned ADHD and, pending replication, can be employed for this aim in clinical practice and ADHD research.

Sluggish Cognitive Tempo Factors in Emerging Adults:Symptomatic and Neuropsychological Correlates

We examined whether there are factors of SCT in nonclinical young adults and whether SCT factors show differential relationships with depression, anxiety, ADHD, and executive functioning as assessed by self-report (EF-SR) or neuropsychological performance (EF-NP). Factor analysis revealed Daydreaming/Bored (D/B), Lethargy (L), and Cognitive Complaints (CC) factors. CC was associated with anxiety and D/B with depression. CC and D/B were associated with inattentive ADHD, while D/B was associated with hyperactive/impulsive ADHD. While all factors were associated with EF-SR, there were few relationships with EF-NP. Higher CC was associated with lower intellect, and higher D/B was related to better working memory.

Concordance between the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit-Adult (CAT-A) over-reporting validity scales for detecting invalid ADHD symptom reporting

This study investigated the relationship between symptom validity scales on the Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit-Adult (CAT-A) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in the context of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) evaluation. The sample comprised 140 consecutive patients referred for a neuropsychological evaluation of ADHD and were administered the CAT-A and the MMPI-2-RF and a battery of performance-based neurocognitive tests. Results indicated CAT-A/MMPI-2-RF symptom validity concordance of 51% between measures, with 38% concordant valid and 13% concordant invalid responses. Among those with discordance symptom validity results, rates of valid CAT-A/invalid MMPI-2-RF responding (41%) were more common than invalid CAT-A/valid MMPI-2-RF responding (8%). Results also indicated higher levels of ADHD symptoms among invalid responding within the CAT-A, whereas the MMPI-2-RF Cognitive Complaints scale did not differ by CAT-A validity status. Finally, symptom validity scales on both the CAT-A and MMPI-2-RF were largely discordant from neuropsychological test validity status per performance validity tests. Findings highlight the need for symptom validity testing when assessing ADHD and indicate that validity indices on broad personality assessments may assess different constructs than embedded validity indices in ADHD-specific measures.

Non-credible symptom report in the clinical evaluation of adult ADHD: development and initial validation of a new validity index embedded in the Conners' adult ADHD rating scales

As attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a feasible target for individuals aiming to procure stimulant medication or accommodations, there is a high clinical need for accurate assessment of adult ADHD. Proven falsifiability of commonly used diagnostic instruments is therefore of concern. The present study aimed to develop a new, ADHD-specific infrequency index to aid the detection of non-credible self-report. Disorder-specific adaptations of four detection strategies were embedded into the Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) and tested for infrequency among credible neurotypical controls (n = 1001) and credible adults with ADHD (n = 100). The new index’ ability to detect instructed simulators (n = 242) and non-credible adults with ADHD (n = 22) was subsequently examined using ROC analyses. Applying a conservative cut-off score, the new index identified 30% of participants instructed to simulate ADHD while retaining a specificity of 98%. Items assessing supposed symptoms of ADHD proved most useful in distinguishing genuine patients with ADHD from simulators, whereas inquiries into unusual symptom combinations produced a small effect. The CAARS Infrequency Index (CII) outperformed the new infrequency index in terms of sensitivity (46%), but not overall classification accuracy as determined in ROC analyses. Neither the new infrequency index nor the CII detected non-credible adults diagnosed with ADHD with adequate accuracy. In contrast, both infrequency indices showed high classification accuracy when used to detect symptom over-report. Findings support the new indices’ utility as an adjunct measure in uncovering feigned ADHD, while underscoring the need to differentiate general over-reporting from specific forms of feigning.

Assessment of prescription stimulant misuse among college students using the MMPI-2-RF

Prescription stimulant misuse (PSM) is a growing concern on college campuses and more research is needed to validate clinical measures commonly used for the assessment of risk for PSM among college students. The present study examined correlations between scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Second Edition-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and self- and peer-reported misuse of prescription stimulants and other drugs in a sample of 96 pairs (included within a total N = 212) of undergraduate students. Nearly half of the participants (48%) reported that they had been offered prescription stimulants and one quarter (26%) reported trying someone else's prescription stimulant medications, often to perform better academically. Scores on the MMPI-2-RF scales designed to measure general substance misuse (Substance Abuse [SUB]) and related behavioral or externalizing constructs (e.g., Antisocial Behavior [RC4], Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction [BXD], and Disconstraint-Revised [DISC-r]), were correlated positively with both self- and peer-reported prescription stimulant misuse (rs = 0.45-0.66), as well as with problematic use of other drugs (rs = 0.44-0.63). MMPI-2-RF scales designed to measure constructs in the domains of Emotional/Internalizing, Somatic/Cognitive, and Thought Dysfunction, as well as Interpersonal Functioning, had weaker correlations with misuse of prescription stimulants (rs < 0.24) and other drugs (rs < 0.29). These results provide support for the convergent validity of the MMPI-2-RF with regard to the assessment of prescription stimulant misuse and general drug misuse among college students.

Capital juror questionnaires in death-penalty cases: A study of attitudes, denials, and deceptions

The Sixth Amendment right to an "impartial jury" should guarantee fundamental fairness that in capital cases may literally be a matter of life and death. For ecological validity, the current study focuses on capital jury questionnaires (CJQs) employed in actual death-penalty cases. Study I examined 248 undergraduates and their responses to death-penalty relevant questions. As an MTurk investigation, Study II consisted of 259 community members potentially eligible for capital trial jury trials. Misrepresentations were operationalized as either denials (concealing their true views) or outright deceptions (dissembling the opposite viewpoint). Both studies found that CJQ items were very susceptible to both types of misrepresentation, irrespective of support-life or support-death views. Nearly 30% of undergraduates openly acknowledged that they would misrepresent close to half their CJQ responses. Overall, community members were much more willing to engage in denials and outright deceptions. The discussion focuses on how CJQs could be improved to promote candor about death-penalty views.

An International Perspective on Feigned Mental Disabilities: Conceptual Issues and Continuing Controversies

In forensic contexts, an increased prevalence of feigned symptom presentations should be expected, although it will probably vary by the context and specific forensic issue. Forensic experts should examine this possibility proactively while maintaining a balanced perspective that actively considers clinical data for both feigning and genuine responding. Psychological measures and standardized methods developed for feigning and other response styles can facilitate these often complex determinations. The current article provides an international perspective on the issue of feigned mental disabilities. In particular, important conceptual issues are discussed, such as the categorical versus dimensional approaches to feigning, and the advisability of well-defined rather than single-point cut scores for accuracy in clinical decision-making. Salient problems of differential diagnosis include a spectrum from malingering and factitious disorders to somatoform and conversion disorders. In rendering these important diagnostic distinctions, the questions of motivations and intentions remain key. However, the establishment of motivation cannot be facilely assumed from the context. Instead, forensic psychologists and psychiatrists bear the professional burden of carefully evaluating motivation and recognizing the clinical reality that sometimes the motivation in especially challenging cases may not be fully determined. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.