Settling the Score: Can CPT-3 Embedded Validity Indicators Distinguish Between Credible and Non-Credible Responders Referred for ADHD and/or SLD?

Diagnostic Utility of Conners Continuous Performance Test-3 for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on the utility of the Conners CPT-3 in persons with ADHD.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted. Six databases were searched using inclusion criteria: research studies, year 2000+, English, and ages 8+. Two raters independently screened 1,480 title/abstracts and subsequently reviewed 399 full texts. Data extraction and critical appraisal were conducted. Reflective thematic analysis through inductive coding identified qualitative themes.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria with five themes identified. Five studies found CPT-3 was a weak or poor predictor of ADHD diagnosis while two found it was an adequate predictor. Two studies found CPT-3 could differentiate clients with comorbid ADHD/anxiety from ADHD or ADHD from obsessive-compulsive disorder. One found CPT-3 could not differentiate ADHD from ASD or comorbid ADHD/ASD.

CONCLUSIONS

Results revealed CPT-3 as a standalone measure is a weak or poor predictor of ADHD. Multiple measures for evaluating persons with ADHD are recommended.

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.

From "below chance" to "a single error is one too many": Evaluating various thresholds for invalid performance on two forced choice recognition tests

This study was designed to empirically evaluate the classification accuracy of various definitions of invalid performance in two forced-choice recognition performance validity tests (PVTs; FCRCVLT-II and Test of Memory Malingering [TOMM-2]). The proportion of at and below chance level responding defined by the binomial theory and making any errors was computed across two mixed clinical samples from the United States and Canada (N = 470) and two sets of criterion PVTs. There was virtually no overlap between the binomial and empirical distributions. Over 95% of patients who passed all PVTs obtained a perfect score. At chance level responding was limited to patients who failed ≥2 PVTs (91% of them failed 3 PVTs). No one scored below chance level on FCRCVLT-II or TOMM-2. All 40 patients with dementia scored above chance. Although at or below chance level performance provides very strong evidence of non-credible responding, scores above chance level have no negative predictive value. Even at chance level scores on PVTs provide compelling evidence for non-credible presentation. A single error on the FCRCVLT-II or TOMM-2 is highly specific (0.95) to psychometrically defined invalid performance. Defining non-credible responding as below chance level scores is an unnecessarily restrictive threshold that gives most examinees with invalid profiles a Pass.