Examining the utility of the BAARS-IV scales as embedded symptom validity indicators for adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder evaluations.

IF 3 3区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical Neuropsychologist Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1080/13854046.2024.2420376
John-Christopher A Finley, Anthony D Robinson, Brian M Cerny, Gabriel P Ovsiew, Neil H Pliskin, Matthew Calamia, Devin M Ulrich, Matthew S Phillips, Jason R Soble
{"title":"Examining the utility of the BAARS-IV scales as embedded symptom validity indicators for adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder evaluations.","authors":"John-Christopher A Finley, Anthony D Robinson, Brian M Cerny, Gabriel P Ovsiew, Neil H Pliskin, Matthew Calamia, Devin M Ulrich, Matthew S Phillips, Jason R Soble","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2024.2420376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> This study investigated whether extreme cut-scores on the Barkley Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Rating Scale-Fourth Edition (BAARS-IV) self-report scales could serve as symptom overreporting indicators in adult ADHD evaluations. <b>Method:</b> The sample consisted of 162 adults who underwent a neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Patients were classified into valid (<i>n</i> = 115) and invalid (<i>n</i> = 47) groups based on multiple criterion symptom validity tests. <b>Results:</b> Overreporting cut-scores identified for each of the BAARS-IV scales demonstrated acceptable classification accuracy or better. The Current Total scale yielded the highest classification accuracy (area under the curve of .83). An optimal raw cut-score of ≥56 for this scale yielded 47% sensitivity when upholding ≥90% specificity. A cut-score of ≥31 for the Current Inattention scale (90% specificity; 47% sensitivity) and ≥29 for the Current Sluggish Cognitive Tempo scale (88% specificity; 46% sensitivity) were also relatively strong indicators of overreporting. The Current Total and Current Sluggish Cognitive Tempo scales captured nonredundant aspects of symptom validity, and using them together increased sensitivity to 57% while maintaining ≥90% specificity. <b>Conclusions:</b> Findings provide preliminary support for the criterion and construct validity of extreme cut-scores on the BAARS-IV Current Sluggish Cognitive Tempo, Current Inattention, and Current Total scales as indicators of ADHD symptom overreporting. However, employing the cut-scores from the Current Sluggish Cognitive Tempo (≥29) and Current Total (≥56) together may be the most promising way to detect overreporting. Scores above both of these cut-points should, at a minimum, prompt further investigation into the validity of a patient's reported symptoms.</p>","PeriodicalId":55250,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2024.2420376","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study investigated whether extreme cut-scores on the Barkley Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Rating Scale-Fourth Edition (BAARS-IV) self-report scales could serve as symptom overreporting indicators in adult ADHD evaluations. Method: The sample consisted of 162 adults who underwent a neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Patients were classified into valid (n = 115) and invalid (n = 47) groups based on multiple criterion symptom validity tests. Results: Overreporting cut-scores identified for each of the BAARS-IV scales demonstrated acceptable classification accuracy or better. The Current Total scale yielded the highest classification accuracy (area under the curve of .83). An optimal raw cut-score of ≥56 for this scale yielded 47% sensitivity when upholding ≥90% specificity. A cut-score of ≥31 for the Current Inattention scale (90% specificity; 47% sensitivity) and ≥29 for the Current Sluggish Cognitive Tempo scale (88% specificity; 46% sensitivity) were also relatively strong indicators of overreporting. The Current Total and Current Sluggish Cognitive Tempo scales captured nonredundant aspects of symptom validity, and using them together increased sensitivity to 57% while maintaining ≥90% specificity. Conclusions: Findings provide preliminary support for the criterion and construct validity of extreme cut-scores on the BAARS-IV Current Sluggish Cognitive Tempo, Current Inattention, and Current Total scales as indicators of ADHD symptom overreporting. However, employing the cut-scores from the Current Sluggish Cognitive Tempo (≥29) and Current Total (≥56) together may be the most promising way to detect overreporting. Scores above both of these cut-points should, at a minimum, prompt further investigation into the validity of a patient's reported symptoms.

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
研究 BAARS-IV 量表作为成人注意缺陷/多动障碍评估的嵌入症状有效性指标的实用性。
研究目的本研究探讨了巴克利成人注意力缺陷/多动障碍(ADHD)评定量表-第四版(BAARS-IV)自我报告量表的极端切分值是否可作为成人ADHD评估中的症状过度报告指标。研究方法样本包括162名接受过ADHD神经心理学评估的成人。根据多重标准症状有效性测试结果,将患者分为有效组(115 人)和无效组(47 人)。结果显示BAARS-IV各量表的过度报告切分分数显示了可接受的分类准确性或更好的分类准确性。当前总分量表的分类准确率最高(曲线下面积为 0.83)。该量表的最佳原始切分分数为≥56,在特异性≥90%的情况下,灵敏度为47%。当前注意力不集中量表的切分分数≥31(特异性为 90%;敏感性为 47%)和当前认知节奏迟钝量表的切分分数≥29(特异性为 88%;敏感性为 46%)也是相对较强的多报指标。当前总分量表和当前迟钝认知节拍量表捕捉到了症状有效性的非冗余方面,同时使用这两个量表可将灵敏度提高到 57%,同时保持≥90%的特异性。结论:研究结果初步证明了 BAARS-IV 当前认知节律缓慢量表、当前注意力不集中量表和当前总分量表的极端切分分值作为多动症症状多报指标的标准有效性和结构有效性。然而,同时采用当前认知节律迟缓量表(≥29)和当前总分量表(≥56)的切点分数可能是检测多报的最有前途的方法。超过这两个切点的分数至少应提示对患者报告症状的有效性进行进一步调查。
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
Clinical Neuropsychologist
Clinical Neuropsychologist 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
12.80%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Clinical Neuropsychologist (TCN) serves as the premier forum for (1) state-of-the-art clinically-relevant scientific research, (2) in-depth professional discussions of matters germane to evidence-based practice, and (3) clinical case studies in neuropsychology. Of particular interest are papers that can make definitive statements about a given topic (thereby having implications for the standards of clinical practice) and those with the potential to expand today’s clinical frontiers. Research on all age groups, and on both clinical and normal populations, is considered.
期刊最新文献
Symptom validity indices for the Beck Depression Inventory-II: development and cross-validation in research and clinical samples. Development of a Symptom Validity Index for the Beck Anxiety Inventory. Interpreting the direct- and derived-Trail Making Test scores in Argentinian children: regression-based norms, convergent validity, test-retest reliability, and practice effects. Enhanced detection of suboptimal effort in psychoeducational assessments for dyslexia. Neuropsychological normative standards for late career physicians.
×
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