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

The Impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences on Symptom and Performance Validity Tests Among a Multiracial Sample Presenting for ADHD Evaluation

OBJECTIVE

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are commonly reported in individuals presenting for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) evaluation. Performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) are essential to ADHD evaluations in young adults, but extant research suggests that those who report ACEs may be inaccurately classified as invalid on these measures. The current study aimed to assess the degree to which ACE exposure differentiated PVT and SVT performance and ADHD symptom reporting in a multi-racial sample of adults presenting for ADHD evaluation.

METHOD

This study included 170 adults referred for outpatient neuropsychological ADHD evaluation who completed the ACE Checklist and a neurocognitive battery that included multiple PVTs and SVTs. Analysis of variance was used to examine differences in PVT and SVT performance among those with high (≥4) and low (≤3) reported ACEs.

RESULTS

Main effects of the ACE group were observed, such that high ACE group reporting demonstrated higher scores on SVTs assessing ADHD symptom over-reporting and infrequent psychiatric and somatic symptoms on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form. Conversely, no significant differences emerged in total PVT failures across ACE groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Those with high ACE exposure were more likely to have higher scores on SVTs assessing over-reporting and infrequent responses. In contrast, ACE exposure did not affect PVT performance. Thus, ACE exposure should be considered specifically when evaluating SVT performance in the context of ADHD evaluations, and more work is needed to understand factors that contribute to different patterns of symptom reporting as a function of ACE exposure.

Exploring Subfactors of Adult Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome and Impact on Neuropsychological Performance

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated subfactors of cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS; previously referred as sluggish cognitive tempo) among adults referred for neuropsychological evaluation of attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHOD

Retrospective analyses of data from 164 outpatient neuropsychological evaluations examined associations between CDS subfactors and self-reported psychological symptoms and cognitive performance.

RESULTS

Factor analysis produced two distinct but positively correlated constructs: "Cognitive Complaints'' and "Lethargy." Both correlated positively with symptom reports (rs = 0.26-0.57). Cognitive Complaints correlated negatively with working memory, processing speed, and executive functioning performance (rs = -0.21 to -0.37), whereas Lethargy correlated negatively only with processing speed and executive functioning performance (rs = -0.26 to -0.42). Both predicted depression symptoms, but only Cognitive Complaints predicted inattention symptoms. Both subfactors demonstrated modest to nonsignificant associations with cognitive performance after accounting for estimated premorbid intelligence and inattention.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicate a bidimensional conceptualization of CDS, with differential associations between its constituent subfactors, reported symptoms, and cognitive performance.

Examination of the relationship between symptom and performance validity measures across referral subtypes

INTRODUCTION

The extent to which performance validity (PVT) and symptom validity (SVT) tests measure separate constructs is unclear. Prior research using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2 & RF) suggested that PVTs and SVTs are separate but related constructs. However, the relationship between Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) SVTs and PVTs has not been explored. This study aimed to replicate previous MMPI research using the PAI, exploring the relationship between PVTs and overreporting SVTs across three subsamples, neurodevelopmental (attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)/learning disorder), psychiatric, and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI).

METHODS

Participants included 561 consecutive referrals who completed the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and the PAI. Three subgroups were created based on referral question. The relationship between PAI SVTs and the PVT was evaluated through multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS

The results demonstrated the relationship between PAI symptom overreporting SVTs, including Negative Impression Management (NIM), Malingering Index (MAL), and Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS), and PVTs varied by referral subgroup. Specifically, overreporting on CBS but not NIM and MAL significantly predicted poorer PVT performance in the full sample and the mTBI sample. In contrast, none of the overreporting SVTs significantly predicted PVT performance in the ADHD/learning disorder sample but conversely, all SVTs predicted PVT performance in the psychiatric sample.

CONCLUSIONS

The results partially replicated prior research comparing SVTs and PVTs and suggested that constructs measured by SVTs and PVTs vary depending upon population. The results support the necessity of both PVTs and SVTs in clinical neuropsychological practice.

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.

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.

Cognitive Underperformance in a Mixed Neuropsychiatric Sample at Diagnostic Evaluation of Adult ADHD

(1) Background: The clinical assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adulthood is known to show non-trivial base rates of noncredible performance and requires thorough validity assessment. (2) Objectives: The present study estimated base rates of noncredible performance in clinical evaluations of adult ADHD on one or more of 17 embedded validity indicators (EVIs). This study further examines the effect of the order of test administration on EVI failure rates, the association between cognitive underperformance and symptom overreporting, and the prediction of cognitive underperformance by clinical information. (3) Methods: A mixed neuropsychiatric sample (N = 464, ADHD = 227) completed a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment battery on the Vienna Test System (VTS; CFADHD). Test performance allows the computation of 17 embedded performance validity indicators (PVTs) derived from eight different neuropsychological tests. Further, all participants completed several self- and other-report symptom rating scales assessing depressive symptoms and cognitive functioning. The Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory-II were administered to derive embedded symptom validity measures (SVTs). (4) Results and conclusion: Noncredible performance occurs in a sizeable proportion of about 10% up to 30% of individuals throughout the entire battery. Tests for attention and concentration appear to be the most adequate and sensitive for detecting underperformance. Cognitive underperformance represents a coherent construct and seems dissociable from symptom overreporting. These results emphasize the importance of performing multiple PVTs, at different time points, and promote more accurate calculation of the positive and negative predictive values of a given validity measure for noncredible performance during clinical assessments. Future studies should further examine whether and how the present results stand in other clinical populations, by implementing rigorous reference standards of noncredible performance, characterizing those failing PVT assessments, and differentiating between underlying motivations.

Base rates of non-credible performance in a post-secondary student sample seeking accessibility accommodations

Objective: Performance Validity Tests (PVTs) have been used to identify non-credible performance in clinical, medicolegal, forensic, and, more recently, academic settings. The inclusion of PVTs when administering psychoeducational assessments is essential given that specific accommodation such as flexible deadlines and increased writing time can provide an external incentive for students without disabilities to feign symptoms. Method: The present study used archival data to establish base rates of non-credible performance in a sample of post-secondary students (n = 1045) who underwent a comprehensive psychoeducational evaluation for the purposes of obtaining academic accommodations. In accordance with current guidelines, non-credible performance was determined by failure on two or more freestanding or embedded PVTs. Results: 9.4% of participants failed at least two of the PVTs they were administered, of which 8.5% failed two PVTs, and approximately 1% failed three PVTs. Base rates of failure for specific PVTs ranged from 25% (b Test) to 11.2% (TOVA). Conclusions: The present study found a lower base rate of non-credible performance than previously observed in comparable populations. This likely reflects the utilization of conservative criteria in detecting non-credible performance to avoid false positives. By contrast, inconsistent base rates previously found in the literature may reflect inconsistent methodologies. These results further emphasize the importance of administering multiple PVTs during psychoeducational assessments. The implications of these findings can further inform clinicians administering assessments in academic settings and aid in the appropriate utilization of PVTs in psychoeducational evaluation to determine accessibility accommodations.

Multivariate examination of embedded indicators of performance validity for ADHD evaluations: A targeted approach

This study investigated the individual and combined utility of 10 embedded validity indicators (EVIs) within executive functioning, attention/working memory, and processing speed measures in 585 adults referred for an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) evaluation. Participants were categorized into invalid and valid performance groups as determined by scores from empirical performance validity indicators. Analyses revealed that all of the EVIs could meaningfully discriminate invalid from valid performers (AUCs = .69-.78), with high specificity (≥90%) but low sensitivity (19%-51%). However, none of them explained more than 20% of the variance in validity status. Combining any of these 10 EVIs into a multivariate model significantly improved classification accuracy, explaining up to 36% of the variance in validity status. Integrating six EVIs from the Stroop Color and Word Test, Trail Making Test, Verbal Fluency Test, and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition was as efficacious (AUC = .86) as using all 10 EVIs together. Failing any two of these six EVIs or any three of the 10 EVIs yielded clinically acceptable specificity (≥90%) with moderate sensitivity (60%). Findings support the use of multivariate models to improve the identification of performance invalidity in ADHD evaluations, but chaining multiple EVIs may only be helpful to an extent.

Self-Reported Adult ADHD Symptoms: Evidence Supporting Cautious Use in an Assessment-Seeking Sample

OBJECTIVE

Self-report symptom inventories are commonly used in adult ADHD assessment, and research indicates they should be interpreted with caution. This study investigated one self-report symptom inventory for adult ADHD in a clinical sample.

METHOD

Archival data were used to evaluate diagnostic utility of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Self-Report: Long Version (CAARS-S:L) in a sample of 122 adults seeking ADHD assessment.

RESULTS

Overall, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) estimates for the ADHD Index and other CAARS-S:L scales demonstrated weak accuracy. Anxiety and depression were the most common diagnoses present when a false positive on the ADHD Index was observed. PPV and specificity for the ADHD Index were higher in males compared to females.

CONCLUSION

The CAARS-S:L may be useful for screening purposes in some cases, but should not be the main method used for diagnostic purposes. Clinical implications of findings are discussed.