Development of a symptom validity index to assist in identifying ADHD symptom exaggeration or feigning

Determining cutoff scores on the Conners' adult ADHD rating scales that can definitively rule out the presence of ADHD in a clinical sample

In recent years, the prevalence of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the number of individuals seeking ADHD assessments has risen significantly, leading to an increased demand for accurate diagnostic tools. This study aimed to identify cutoff scores on the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS-S:L) that can definitively rule out the presence of ADHD. Among 102 clinically diagnosed adult ADHD participants and 448 non-ADHD participants who completed the CAARS-S:L, a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis established a perfectly discriminant cutoff T-score of <44 on the ADHD Symptoms Total subscale when looking at any ADHD diagnosis and <54 on the Inattentive Symptoms subscale when looking at individuals diagnosed with the inattentive subtype of ADHD. Alternative cutoffs of <54 (ADHD Symptoms Total subscale) and <63 (Inattentive Symptoms subscale) were also identified, both with a sensitivity of 0.95 or higher. Furthermore, the analysis found the ADHD Index to be a poor predictor of a negative ADHD diagnosis, suggesting against the use of this scale for cutoff determination. Despite this limitation, these findings indicate that with specific cutoffs, the CAARS-S:L may have the potential to conclusively rule out ADHD, effectively streamlining the diagnostic process and reducing unnecessary comprehensive assessments in clear negative cases.

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.

Short form Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scales: Factor structure and measurement invariance by sex in emerging adults

INTRODUCTION

The short version of the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS-S:S) is a self-report measure used to identify symptoms of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) during adulthood. However, its psychometric properties specifically in emerging adults, or the transitional age group between adolescence and adulthood, remain understudied. This study aimed to validate the factor structure of the CAARS-S:S in a sample of emerging adults.

METHOD

The CAARS-S:S measure was completed by adults (n = 591) aged 18 to 29 located in English-speaking countries, including Australia, Canada and the United States. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test a four-factor model of Inattention/Memory Problems, Hyperactivity/Restlessness, Impulsivity/Emotional Lability and Problems with Self-Concept, as well as the model's invariance by sex. Sex was also included as a covariate in the model to examine differences in males' and females' scores on each factor.

RESULTS

Overall, the four-factor structure fit the data and was invariant across males and females. All factors demonstrated high internal reliability (average ωt and α = .86). It was observed that males tended to score higher on Inattention/Memory Problems while females scored higher on Problems with Self-Concept.

CONCLUSION

This research establishes the psychometric properties of the CAARS-S:S, placing greater confidence in using it to screen for ADHD symptoms in emerging adults living in a Westernized cultural context. The detailed findings of this research, implications for the use of the CAARS-S:S in this age group and potential future directions for examining the properties of the measure are discussed.

Predictive value of performance validity testing and symptom validity testing in psychoeducational assessment

Using archival data from 2463 psychoeducational assessments of postsecondary students we investigated whether failure on either symptom or performance validity tests (SVTs or PVTs) was associated with score differences on various cognitive, achievement, or executive functioning performance measures or on symptom report measures related to mental health or attention complaints. In total, 14.6% of students failed one or more PVT, 33.6% failed one or more SVT, and 41.6% failed at least one validity test. Individuals who failed SVTs tended to have the highest levels of self-reported symptoms relative to other groups but did not score worse on performance-based psychological tests. Those who failed PVTs scored worse on performance-based tests relative to other groups. Failure on at least one PVT and one SVT resulted in both performance and self-reported symptoms suggestive of greater impairment compared with those who passed all validity measures. Findings also highlight the need for domain-specific SVTs; failing ADHD SVTs was associated only with extreme reports of ADHD and executive functioning symptoms while failing mental health SVTs related only to extreme reports of mental health complaints. Results support using at least one PVT and one SVT in psychoeducational assessments to aid in diagnostic certainty, given the frequency of non-credible presentation in this population of postsecondary students.

Feigning Adult ADHD on a Comprehensive Neuropsychological Test Battery: An Analogue Study

The evaluation of performance validity is an essential part of any neuropsychological evaluation. Validity indicators embedded in routine neuropsychological tests offer a time-efficient option for sampling performance validity throughout the assessment while reducing vulnerability to coaching. By administering a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery to 57 adults with ADHD, 60 neurotypical controls, and 151 instructed simulators, we examined each test's utility in detecting noncredible performance. Cut-off scores were derived for all available outcome variables. Although all ensured at least 90% specificity in the ADHD Group, sensitivity differed significantly between tests, ranging from 0% to 64.9%. Tests of selective attention, vigilance, and inhibition were most useful in detecting the instructed simulation of adult ADHD, whereas figural fluency and task switching lacked sensitivity. Five or more test variables demonstrating results in the second to fourth percentile were rare among cases of genuine adult ADHD but identified approximately 58% of instructed simulators.

Validation of an adult ADHD measure of feigning in a sample including individuals with depression and anxiety symptoms

Few studies of measures or techniques designed to detect feigning of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) have included groups reporting symptoms of depression and anxiety. Based on the high rate of comorbidity between ADHD and mood disorders, inclusion of such groups is important to mimic clinical referral patterns. The current study evaluated the validity of the ADHD Symptom Infrequency Scale (ASIS), a measure designed to detect malingered symptoms of ADHD, in a four-known groups design that included a group consisting of subjects with symptoms of anxiety and depression. Four groups were included in the current study: (1) control, (2) simulator, (3) ADHD diagnosed, (4) individuals with elevated symptoms of depression/anxiety. The ASIS Infrequency scale showed strong internal consistency (α = .83). Discriminant validity for the Infrequency Scale was established through a low correlation between the ASIS scale assessing feigning and a measure of anxiety and depression (r = -.02). Sensitivity was high for detection of simulation (.71), while specificity was high across comparisons, ranging from .86 to .99. Results support the ASIS as a reliable and valid measure of ADHD that is sensitive to feigning, even when including a sample of individuals reporting symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Embedded cognitive and emotional/affective self-reported symptom validity indices on the patient competency rating scale

OBJECTIVE

Although there is an abundance of research on stand-alone and embedded performance validity tests and stand-alone symptom validity tests (SVTs), less emphasis has been placed on embedded SVTs. The goal of the current study was to examine the ability of embedded indicators within the Patient Competency Rating Scale (PCRS) to separately detect invalid cognitive and/or emotional/affective symptom responding.

METHOD

Participants included 299 veterans assessed in a VA medical center epilepsy monitoring unit from 2013-2017 (mean age = 48.8 years, SD = 13.5 years). Two SVT composites were created; self-reported cognitive symptom validity (SVT-C) and self-reported emotional/affective symptom validity (SVT-E). Groups were compared on PCRS total and index scores (i.e., cognitive, activities of daily living, emotional, and interpersonal competencies) using ANOVAs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses assessed the classification accuracy of the PCRS total and index scores for SVT-C and SVT-E.

RESULTS

In ANOVAs, SVT-C was significantly associated with all PCRS indices, while SVT-E was only significantly associated with the PCRS total, emotional, and interpersonal competency indices. Although the PCRS-T ≤ 90 had the strongest classification of SVT-C and SVT-E (specificities: .90, sensitivities: .44 to .50), PCRS index scores showed suggestive evidence of domain specificity, with PCRS-ADL ≤22, PCRS-C ≤ 20, and PCRS-CADL ≤45 best classifying SVT-C (specificities: .92, sensitivities: .33) and the PCRS-E ≤ 18 best classifying the SVT-E group (specificity: .93, sensitivity: .40).

CONCLUSION

Results suggest the PCRS may be used to obtain clinically useful information while including embedded indicators that can assess cognitive and/or emotional/affective symptom invalidity.

Scores in Self-Report Questionnaires Assessing Adult ADHD Can Be Influenced by Negative Response Bias but Are Unrelated to Performance on Executive Function and Attention Tests

Self-report questionnaires are in widespread use in the assessment of adults with suspected attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Notwithstanding the high degree of validity, these questionnaires are considered to possess, their stand-alone use in assessment for adult ADHD may result in false-positive diagnoses due to the risk of negative response bias. Most of the self-report questionnaires in typical use are based on the diagnostic systems DSM-5 or ICD-10. From a neuropsychological point of view, however, testing of various executive function abilities and attentional performance is important in the assessment of adult ADHD. The present study (N = 211) found no evidence linking executive function (working memory and inhibitory processes) and attentional performance (processing speed) to the results of a self-report questionnaire, the ADHS-LE. The number of failures on the three symptom or performance validity tests (SVT/PVT) used provided the sole, and significant, explanation for the response behavior reported on the ADHS-LE. Of these three SVT/PVTs (the German version of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, SIMS, the reliable digit span, and the standard deviation of simple reaction time), only the SIMS was found to be a significant predictor variable. In the clinical context of this study, 32.6% of subjects produced at least one invalid SVT/PVT result. The use of a more conservative criterion—failure on at least two of the three SVT/PVTs deemed to be feigning ADHD—reduced the proportion of participants generating invalid values to 5%.

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.

The Multidimensional ADHD Rating Scale: A measure of symptoms, impairment, and symptom validity

Objective: Two studies examined the psychometric properties of the Multidimensional ADHD Rating Scale (MARS), which assesses ADHD symptoms, related functional impairment, and symptom validity (SV). Method: Study 1 used MARS item responses from college students with and without ADHD (with some of the latter group assigned to feign ADHD) to create an SV-index, and to identify optimal cut scores for the clinical (symptom and impairment) indexes. Study 2 cross-validated the findings on a new sample. Results: In both studies, malingerers reported more symptoms and impairment than participants with ADHD, who reported more symptoms and impairment than controls. Receiver operating characteristic analyses found very good discrimination of genuine ADHD from control cases by the clinical MARS indexes, and very good discrimination of genuine ADHD from malingered ADHD by the SV-index. Conclusion: This research provides initial support for the effectiveness of the MARS to detect simulated cases of malingering, and to differentiate ADHD from non-ADHD cases in college students.

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.

American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering

Objective: Citation and download data pertaining to the 2009 AACN consensus statement on validity assessment indicated that the topic maintained high interest in subsequent years, during which key terminology evolved and relevant empirical research proliferated. With a general goal of providing current guidance to the clinical neuropsychology community regarding this important topic, the specific update goals were to: identify current key definitions of terms relevant to validity assessment; learn what experts believe should be reaffirmed from the original consensus paper, as well as new consensus points; and incorporate the latest recommendations regarding the use of validity testing, as well as current application of the term 'malingering.' Methods: In the spring of 2019, four of the original 2009 work group chairs and additional experts for each work group were impaneled. A total of 20 individuals shared ideas and writing drafts until reaching consensus on January 21, 2021. Results: Consensus was reached regarding affirmation of prior salient points that continue to garner clinical and scientific support, as well as creation of new points. The resulting consensus statement addresses definitions and differential diagnosis, performance and symptom validity assessment, and research design and statistical issues. Conclusions/Importance: In order to provide bases for diagnoses and interpretations, the current consensus is that all clinical and forensic evaluations must proactively address the degree to which results of neuropsychological and psychological testing are valid. There is a strong and continually-growing evidence-based literature on which practitioners can confidently base their judgments regarding the selection and interpretation of validity 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.

A comparison of the self-report patterns of analog versus real-world malingerers of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Much of what we know about malingering of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been learned from the performance of analog malingerers, typically first-year psychology students given credit for study participation. It is not clear, however, whether their performance is similar to that found in actual clinical settings. Indeed, past research suggests that analog malingerers may overexaggerate deficits relative to real-world malingerers, making them easier to identify in controlled studies. The purpose of the current study was, therefore, to compare the performance of analog malingers to post-secondary students strongly suspected of malingering ADHD on a self-report measure of ADHD symptoms. Their scores were, in turn, compared to those returned by students with genuine ADHD and clinical controls. Results demonstrated that, apart from analog subjects overexaggerating symptoms of hyperactivity, few differences exist between the scores returned by analog malingerers relative to clinical malingerers. While newly devised symptom validity measures show promise in identifying malingered ADHD, neither the analog nor the clinical malingers consistently failed these symptom validity scales. Furthermore, a good portion in both malingering groups failed to endorse high levels of ADHD symptoms in general. Clinical implications are discussed.

Item Response Theory Analyses of Barkley's Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scales

There are many challenges associated with assessment and diagnosis of ADHD in adulthood. Utilizing the graded response model (GRM) from item response theory (IRT), a comprehensive item-level analysis of adult ADHD rating scales in a clinical population was conducted with Barkley's Adult ADHD Rating Scale-IV, Self-Report of Current Symptoms (CSS), a self-report diagnostic checklist and a similar self-report measure quantifying retrospective report of childhood symptoms, Barkley's Adult ADHD Rating Scale-IV, Self-Report of Childhood Symptoms (BAARS-C). Differences in item functioning were also considered after identifying and excluding individuals with suspect effort. Items associated with symptoms of inattention (IA) and hyperactivity/impulsivity (H/I) are endorsed differently across the lifespan, and these data suggest that they vary in their relationship to the theoretical constructs of IA and H/I. Screening for sufficient effort did not meaningfully change item level functioning. The application IRT to direct item-to-symptom measures allows for a unique psychometric assessment of how the current DSM-5 symptoms represent latent traits of IA and H/I. Meeting a symptom threshold of five or more symptoms may be misleading. Closer attention given to specific symptoms in the context of the clinical interview and reported difficulties across domains may lead to more informed diagnosis.

Discriminating malingered attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder from genuine symptom reporting using novel Personality Assessment Inventory validity measures

It is now widely understood that ADHD can be feigned easily and convincingly. Despite this, almost no methods exist to assist clinicians in identifying when such behavior occurs. Recently, new validity indicators specific to feigned ADHD were reported for the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Derived from a logistic regression, these algorithms are said to have excellent specificity and good sensitivity in identifying feigned ADHD. However, these authors compared those with genuine ADHD only to nonclinical undergraduate students (asked to respond honestly or asked to simulate ADHD); no criterion group of definite malingerers was included. We therefore investigated these new validity indicators with 331 postsecondary students who underwent assessment for possible ADHD and compared scores of those who were eventually diagnosed with ADHD (n = 111) to those who were not [Clinical controls (66), Definite malingerers (36); No diagnosis (117)]. The two proposed PAI algorithms were found to have poor positive predictive value (.19 and .17). Self-report validity measures from the Connors' Adult Attention Rating Scale, and the Negative Impression Management scale on the PAI returned more positive results. Overall, more research is needed to better identify noncredible ADHD presentation, as the PAI-based methods proposed by Aita et al. appear inadequate as symptom validity measures.

Diagnosing Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in young adults: A qualitative review of the utility of assessment measures and recommendations for improving the diagnostic process

Objective: Identify assessment measures that augment the clinical interview and improve the diagnostic accuracy of adult ADHD assessment.Method: The sometimes limited research literatures concerning the diagnostic efficacies of the clinical interview, standard and novel ADHD behavior rating scales, performance and symptom validity testing, and cognitive tests are critically reviewed.Results: Based on this qualitative review, both clinical interviews alone and ADHD behavior rating scales alone have adequate sensitivity but poor specificity in diagnosing ADHD. Response validity and symptom validity tests have reasonably good sensitivity and very good specificity in detecting invalid symptom presentation. Cognitive test batteries have inadequate sensitivity and specificity in identifying ADHD. Using cognitive tests in conjunction with behavior rating scales significantly improves the specificity of an assessment battery. Executive function behavior rating scales and functional impairment rating scales are unlikely to improve the diagnostic accuracy of ADHD assessment.Conclusions: Based on this review, key clinical interview questions, behavior rating scales, symptom validity tests, and cognitive tests that have promise to enhance current assessment practices are recommended. These are the authors' personal opinions, not consensus standards, or guidelines promulgated by any organization. These measures are incorporated in a practical, somewhat abbreviated, battery that has the potential to improve clinicians' ability to diagnose adult ADHD.

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Transitional Aged Youth

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Extensive research has been conducted on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adults; however, less is known about ADHD during the transition from childhood to adulthood. Transitional aged youth (TAY) with ADHD represents a particularly vulnerable population as their newfound independence and responsibility often coincides with the development of comorbid disorders. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of TAY-ADHD.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies discovering ADHD symptoms emerging in TAY call the classification of ADHD as a disorder necessarily developing in childhood into question. TAY-ADHD are also shown to be vulnerable to academic and social impairments, increased risky behavior, and comorbid psychiatric disorders. Due to the risk of stimulant diversion in TAY, providers are advised to take precaution when prescribing medication to this population. Recent studies demonstrating the efficacy of psychotherapy in conjunction with non-stimulant or extended release stimulant medication provide a feasible alternative. This review highlights research on the course and evaluation of ADHD, impairments and comorbidities specific to TAY, and treatments tailored to address the unique challenges associated with TAY-ADHD.

Malingered Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder on the Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales: Do Reasons for Malingering Matter?

Malingering is a significant assessment concern in adults undergoing evaluations for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and may occur for a number of reasons, including access to medication and/or accommodations. Therefore, it is important to investigate ways to determine accuracy of self-reported ADHD symptoms. The present study used a simulation design to examine the impact of reasons for malingering on the Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) Symptom subscales and the CAARS infrequency index (CII). Participants ( N = 157) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: best effort, malingering for stimulant medication, or malingering for extra time accommodations. The three groups were compared with 34 individuals reporting previous diagnosis of ADHD. Results showed that individuals in both malingering groups scored higher than controls on all CAARS subscales and CII. Individuals in the medication malingering group, but not the extra time malingering group, scored higher than the ADHD group on CII and several CAARS subscales whose content overtly reflects ADHD symptomatology. Findings emphasize the influence of malingering on self-reported ADHD symptoms and the need to assess for malingering in ADHD evaluation. Results also suggest that reason for malingering might differentially affect self-report of ADHD symptoms.