Examining Conners Continuous Performance Test-3 (CPT-3) Embedded Performance Validity Indicators in an Adult Clinical Sample Referred for ADHD Evaluation

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

“…S. Ord et al (2021; i.e., CEVI 1 and CEVI 3), and two newly created composites, one of which includes aggregating the number of T -scores at or above a specified cutoff (Composite 1) and the other includes summing T -Scores (Composite 2). Although the six composite indicators significantly predicted validity status, they did not provide better classification accuracy than the individual indicators (Scimeca et al, 2021). Further, indicators that were found to distinguish between credible and non-credible responders yielded low sensitivity (0.13–0.38) and were discrepant from those found in A.…”

“…Scimeca et al (2021) further examined the utility of the CPT-3 as an EVI in a sample of 201 civilian adults referred for ADHD. Participants who failed 2+ PVTs out of 7 possible criterion measures were included in the non-credible group.…”

“…S. Ord et al (2021). As a result, the authors concluded that EVI’s derived from the CPT-3 lack stability and may not be appropriate for individuals referred for ADHD (Scimeca et al, 2021).…”

“…Given the discrepancies regarding the utility of composite indicators as well as individual CPT-3 indicators as EVIs including VAR, OMI, HRT SD, and HRT ISI Change, the current study seeks to further investigate the effectiveness of both individual and composite scores from the CPT-3 for detecting non-credible performance in sample of adults referred for psychoeducational evaluation. Similarly to Scimeca et al (2021), several freestanding and embedded PVTs were used to create the credible and non-credible groups. Given the similar criterion grouping approach and similarity between samples, we hypothesized that composite EVIs would not provide better classification accuracy than the individual indicators.…”

Feigned ADHD Associated Cognitive Impairment: Utility of Integrating an Eye-tracker and the MOXO-dCPT

“…In addition, their use will not increase the evaluation’s duration, in contrast to the incorporation of standalone PVTs. A recent review (Harrison et al, 2021), however, concludes that although ADHD simulators perform worse than genuine patients on several CPTs, cutoffs of traditional measures were associated, at maximum, with moderate sensitivity levels (see, also, Nicholls et al, 2020; Scimeca et al, 2021).…”