A systematic review of the utility of continuous performance tests among adults with ADHD.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical utility of continuous performance tests (CPTs) among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has increasingly been brought under question. Therefore, the objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to investigate the clinical utility of various commercially available CPTs, including the Conner's Continuous Performance Test (CCPT), Test of Variables of Attention (TOVA), Gordon Diagnostic System (GDS), and Integrated Visual and Auditory Continuous Performance Test (IVA) in the adult ADHD population. METHODS: This systematic review followed the a priori PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Articles were gathered from PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Academic Search Complete, and Google Scholar on 11 April 2022. Sixty-nine articles were included in the final review. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Took for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. RESULTS: Most articles demonstrated high risk of bias, and there was substantial heterogeneity across studies. Overall, the reviewed CPTs appeared to have limited diagnostic utility and classification accuracy. Although many studies showed differing scores between adults with ADHD and comparison groups, findings were not consistent. Characteristics of CPT performances among adults with ADHD were mixed, with little consistency and no evidence of a clear profile of performances; however, CCPT commission errors appeared to have the most utility when used a treatment or experimental outcome measure, compared to other CCPT scores. CONCLUSION: Overall, CPTs should not be used in isolation as a diagnostic test but may be beneficial when used as a component of a comprehensive assessment.

A survey of neuropsychological assessment feedback practices among neuropsychologists.

OBJECTIVE: Feedback on neuropsychological assessment is a critical part of clinical practice, but there are few empirical papers on neuropsychological feedback practices. We sought to fill this gap in the literature by surveying practicing neuropsychologists in the United States. Questions addressed how they provide verbal and written feedback to patients and referral sources. Survey questions also addressed billing practices and training in the provision of feedback. METHODS: A survey was developed using Qualtrics XM to survey currently licensed, independently practicing clinical neuropsychologists in the United States about their feedback practices. The survey was completed by 184 individuals. RESULTS: Nearly all respondents reported that they provide verbal feedback to patients, most often in-person, within three weeks following testing. Typically, verbal feedback sessions with patients last 45 min. Verbal feedback was provided to referrals by about half of our sample, typically via a brief phone call. Most participants also reported providing written feedback to both the patient and referring provider, most commonly via the written report within three weeks after testing. Regarding billing, most respondents use neuropsychological testing evaluation codes. The COVID-19 pandemic appeared to have had a limited impact on the perceived effectiveness and quality of verbal feedback sessions. Finally, respondents reported that across major stages of professional development, training in the provision of feedback gradually increased but was considered inadequate by many participants. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide an empirical summary of the "state of current practice" for providing neuropsychological assessment feedback. Further experimental research is needed to develop an evidence-base for effective feedback practices.

Preliminary evidence for digit span performance validity indicators within the neuropsychological assessment battery.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate multiple embedded performance validity indicators within the Digits Forward and Digits Backward subtests of the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB), including Reliable Digit Span (RDS), as no published papers have examined embedded digit span validity indicators within these subtests of the NAB. Retrospective archival chart review was conducted at an outpatient neuropsychology clinic. Participants were 92 adults (ages 19-68) who completed NAB Digits Forward and Digits Backward, and the Word Choice Test (WCT). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, t-tests, and sensitivity and specificity analyses were conducted. Analyses showed that RDS demonstrated acceptable classification accuracy between those who passed the WCT and those who did not. The area under the curve (AUC) value for RDS was 0.702; however, AUC values for all other digit span indices were unacceptably low. The optimal cutoff for RDS was identified (<8). RDS for the NAB appears to be an adequate indicator of performance validity; however, considering the very small number of participants who were invalid on the WCT (n = 15), as well as the utilization of only one stand-alone PVT to classify validity status, these findings are preliminary and in need of replication.

The Development and Validation of the Embedded Validity Indicator for the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an embedded measure of performance validity within the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB). METHOD: This study involved a retrospective chart review at an outpatient neuropsychology clinic. Participants were 183 adults (ages 18-70) who completed the attention and memory modules of the NAB, as well as the Word Choice Test, Green's Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT), and Green's Non-Verbal MSVT, as part of a clinical neuropsychological assessment (n = 147) or as part of a forensic neuropsychological evaluation (n = 36). Replicating methodology utilized by Silverberg et al. (2007) for the development of the Effort Index within the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status, an Embedded Validity Indictor (EVI) for the NAB was developed in the present study based on Digits Forward and List Learning Long Delayed Forced-Choice Recognition (list recognition) subtests. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses indicated the newly developed NAB EVI was able to significantly differentiate between valid and invalid status on stand-alone performance-validity tests, with area under the curve values ranging from 0.797 to 0.977. Optimal cutoffs for medical, forensic, and mixed samples were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed NAB EVI shows promise as an embedded performance validity measure; however, due to moderate sensitivity, it should be used in combination with stand-alone performance validity tests to detect invalid performance.