Journal of attention disorders · 2022
Settling the Score: Can CPT-3 Embedded Validity Indicators Distinguish Between Credible and Non-Credible Responders Referred for ADHD and/or SLD?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Robinson Anthony, Reed Christopher, Davis Katrail, Divers Ross, Miller Luke, Erdodi Laszlo A, Calamia Matthew
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to further investigate the clinical utility of individual and composite indicators within the CPT-3 as embedded validity indicators (EVIs) given the discrepant findings of previous investigations.
METHODS: A total of 201 adults undergoing psychoeducational evaluation for ADHD and/or Specific Learning Disorder (SLD) were divided into credible (n = 159) and non-credible (n = 42) groups based on five criterion measures.
RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) revealed that 5/9 individual indicators and 2/4 composite indicators met minimally acceptable classification accuracy of ≥0.70 (AUC = 0.43-0.78). Individual (0.16-0.45) and composite indicators (0.23-0.35) demonstrated low sensitivity when using cutoffs that maintained specificity ≥90%.
CONCLUSION: Given the lack of stability across studies, further research is needed before recommending any specific cutoff be used in clinical practice with individuals seeking psychoeducational assessment.
METHODS: A total of 201 adults undergoing psychoeducational evaluation for ADHD and/or Specific Learning Disorder (SLD) were divided into credible (n = 159) and non-credible (n = 42) groups based on five criterion measures.
RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) revealed that 5/9 individual indicators and 2/4 composite indicators met minimally acceptable classification accuracy of ≥0.70 (AUC = 0.43-0.78). Individual (0.16-0.45) and composite indicators (0.23-0.35) demonstrated low sensitivity when using cutoffs that maintained specificity ≥90%.
CONCLUSION: Given the lack of stability across studies, further research is needed before recommending any specific cutoff be used in clinical practice with individuals seeking psychoeducational assessment.