Settling the score: Can CPT-3 embedded validity indicators distinguish between credible and non-credible responders referred for ADHD and/or SLD?

A Robinson, C Reed, K Davis… - Journal of attention …, 2023 - journals.sagepub.com
Journal of attention disorders, 2023journals.sagepub.com
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 …
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.
Sage Journals
以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果