Symptom validity testing in adults with clinically diagnosed ADHD: comparison of the Conner's Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) and the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI).

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1080/13803395.2024.2411365
Anselm B M Fuermaier, Lara Tucha, Thomas Merten, Maryam Fathollah Gol, Oliver Tucha
{"title":"Symptom validity testing in adults with clinically diagnosed ADHD: comparison of the Conner's Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) and the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI).","authors":"Anselm B M Fuermaier, Lara Tucha, Thomas Merten, Maryam Fathollah Gol, Oliver Tucha","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2024.2411365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Compared to the number of performance validity measures, the range of available symptom validity measures is limited. The Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI) is a recently developed freestanding symptom validity test with promising psychometric characteristics for use on non-criminal forensic and a range of clinical populations. The goal of this study was to evaluate the utility of the SRSI for symptom validity testing in the clinical evaluation of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This analogue study compared 76 German patients diagnosed with ADHD (age range 19-63 years) with typically developing individuals from the Netherlands/Germany who were assigned to either a control group (<i>N</i> = 58; age range 18-73 years) or a simulation group (<i>N</i> = 46; age range 18-57 years). All participants completed the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) with its two embedded validity indicators Infrequency Index (CII) and ADHD Credibility Index (ACI), the SRSI, and the Digit Span (to derive the Reliable Digit Span).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Specificity in controls was perfect for the CAARS, but reached only about 90% for the SRSI. In contrast, sensitivity in experimental simulators ranged from 24% to 65% for the CAARS, but reached high rates of 69% to 82% for the SRSI. In the sample of patients with ADHD, the failure rate ranged from 8% to 34% (CAARS), and 33% to 47% (SRSI). Further, we found limited classification agreement between the validity measures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The divergent results on the different validity indicators reflects the ongoing discussion on poor construct unity and clarity, and calls for more research addressing the heterogeneous construct. The utility of the SRSI to reliably distinguish between valid and invalid symptom report in the clinical evaluation of adult ADHD has to be investigated by more refined studies including both symptom and performance validity indicators.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":"693-706"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2411365","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Compared to the number of performance validity measures, the range of available symptom validity measures is limited. The Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI) is a recently developed freestanding symptom validity test with promising psychometric characteristics for use on non-criminal forensic and a range of clinical populations. The goal of this study was to evaluate the utility of the SRSI for symptom validity testing in the clinical evaluation of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Methods: This analogue study compared 76 German patients diagnosed with ADHD (age range 19-63 years) with typically developing individuals from the Netherlands/Germany who were assigned to either a control group (N = 58; age range 18-73 years) or a simulation group (N = 46; age range 18-57 years). All participants completed the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) with its two embedded validity indicators Infrequency Index (CII) and ADHD Credibility Index (ACI), the SRSI, and the Digit Span (to derive the Reliable Digit Span).

Results: Specificity in controls was perfect for the CAARS, but reached only about 90% for the SRSI. In contrast, sensitivity in experimental simulators ranged from 24% to 65% for the CAARS, but reached high rates of 69% to 82% for the SRSI. In the sample of patients with ADHD, the failure rate ranged from 8% to 34% (CAARS), and 33% to 47% (SRSI). Further, we found limited classification agreement between the validity measures.

Conclusion: The divergent results on the different validity indicators reflects the ongoing discussion on poor construct unity and clarity, and calls for more research addressing the heterogeneous construct. The utility of the SRSI to reliably distinguish between valid and invalid symptom report in the clinical evaluation of adult ADHD has to be investigated by more refined studies including both symptom and performance validity indicators.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床诊断为多动症的成人症状有效性测试:康纳成人多动症评定量表 (CAARS) 与症状自评量表 (SRSI) 的比较。
目标:与成绩效度测量的数量相比,现有症状效度测量的范围有限。症状自评量表(SRSI)是最近开发的一种独立的症状效度测试,其心理测量学特性很有前途,可用于非刑事法医和各种临床人群。本研究的目的是评估 SRSI 在对患有注意力缺陷/多动障碍(ADHD)的成人进行临床评估时进行症状有效性测试的实用性:这项模拟研究比较了 76 名被诊断为多动症的德国患者(年龄在 19-63 岁之间)和来自荷兰/德国的发育典型患者,他们被分配到对照组(58 人;年龄在 18-73 岁之间)或模拟组(46 人;年龄在 18-57 岁之间)。所有参与者都填写了康纳斯成人多动症评定量表(CAARS)及其两个嵌入式有效性指标--频率指数(CII)和多动症可信度指数(ACI)、SRSI和数字跨度(以得出可靠的数字跨度):结果:对照组对 CAARS 的特异性非常好,但对 SRSI 的特异性仅达到约 90%。相反,实验模拟人对 CAARS 的灵敏度为 24% 至 65%,而对 SRSI 的灵敏度则高达 69% 至 82%。在多动症患者样本中,失败率在8%到34%(CAARS)和33%到47%(SRSI)之间。此外,我们还发现有效性测量之间的分类一致性有限:结论:不同效度指标的结果存在差异,这反映出人们一直在讨论结构不统一和不清晰的问题,并呼吁针对异质性结构开展更多研究。在对成人多动症进行临床评估时,SRSI 是否能可靠地区分有效和无效症状报告,还有待包括症状和表现效度指标在内的更精细的研究来验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
期刊最新文献
The impact of noise exposure, time pressure, and cognitive load on objective task performance and subjective sensory overload and fatigue. Detecting noncredible symptomology in ADHD evaluations using machine learning. The time has come: discussing the clinical neuropsychology provider's role in cultural respect and inclusion. Analysis of skew, examination of intercorrelations, and determining the optimal threshold for performance invalidity when 10 performance validity tests are administered during a neuropsychological evaluation. The relationship between self-monitoring and cognitive strategy use in midlife and older adults.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1