ABSTRACT
The present study explores the predictive power of seven neuropsychological assessment tools used in combination in classifying children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Twenty-one ADHD boys and 22 community control children participated. Group differences were significant on the continuous performance test only; however, battery analysis did increase overall predictive power, which was moderate. This study highlights the difficulty in identifying consistent mean differences on tests of frontal/executive functioning across studies, as well as the need to assess the predictive validity of these tests in classifying children with ADHD. The study suggests that these tests may provide greater predictive validity when used in combination. Inconsistencies in the literature are discussed, with consideration of research methodology, the heterogeneity of the ADHD population, and comorbid diagnoses.
Subject(s)
Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/diagnosis , Neuropsychological Tests/statistics & numerical data , Attention , Cognition Disorders/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Male , Predictive Value of Tests , Psychometrics/statistics & numerical data , Psychomotor Performance , Reference Values , Reproducibility of Results , Risk AssessmentABSTRACT
Suggestions for arm levitation and for visual, auditory, tactile, and taste hallucinations were administered twice via audiotape to a group of high suggestible students and low suggestible simulators. During one of the administrations, participants were led to believe they were alone, but their behavior was surreptitiously recorded on videotape and observed on a video monitor. During the other administration, they were observed openly by an experimenter who had not been informed about group assignment. When unaware that they were being observed, simulators were significantly less responsive to suggestion and engaged in substantially more role-inappropriate behavior. In contrast, the responsiveness of nonsimulating students was not affected by the presence of an experimenter, and they exhibited little role-inappropriate behavior even when alone. These data indicate that the responses of suggestible individuals reflect internally generated changes in experience and are not due to simple intentional compliance (i.e., faking).
