比较WAIS-IV字母-数字排序子测试与可靠数字跨度测试在转诊评估注意力缺陷/多动障碍的成人中的嵌入式成绩效度指标。

IF 3 3区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical Neuropsychologist Pub Date : 2024-02-13 DOI:10.1080/13854046.2024.2315738
John-Christopher A Finley, Violeta J Rodriguez, Brian M Cerny, Fini Chang, Julia M Brooks, Gabriel P Ovsiew, Devin M Ulrich, Zachary J Resch, Jason R Soble
{"title":"比较WAIS-IV字母-数字排序子测试与可靠数字跨度测试在转诊评估注意力缺陷/多动障碍的成人中的嵌入式成绩效度指标。","authors":"John-Christopher A Finley, Violeta J Rodriguez, Brian M Cerny, Fini Chang, Julia M Brooks, Gabriel P Ovsiew, Devin M Ulrich, Zachary J Resch, Jason R Soble","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2024.2315738","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> This study investigated the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition Letter-Number Sequencing (LNS) subtest as an embedded performance validity indicator among adults undergoing an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) evaluation, and its potential incremental value over Reliable Digit Span (RDS). <b>Method:</b> This cross-sectional study comprised 543 adults who underwent neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Patients were divided into valid (<i>n</i> = 480) and invalid (<i>n</i> = 63) groups based on multiple criterion performance validity tests. <b>Results:</b> LNS total raw scores, age-corrected scaled scores, and age- and education-corrected T-scores demonstrated excellent classification accuracy (area under the curve of .84, .83, and .82, respectively). The optimal cutoff for LNS raw score (≤16), age-corrected scaled score (≤7), and age- and education-corrected T-score (≤36) yielded .51 sensitivity and .94 specificity. Slightly lower sensitivity (.40) and higher specificity (.98) was associated with a more conservative T-score cutoff of ≤33. Multivariate models incorporating both LNS and RDS improved classification accuracy (area under the curve of .86), and LNS scores explained a significant but modest proportion of variance in validity status above and beyond RDS. Chaining LNS T-score of ≤33 with RDS cutoff of ≤7 increased sensitivity to .69 while maintaining ≥.90 specificity. <b>Conclusions:</b> Findings provide preliminary evidence for the criterion and construct validity of LNS as an embedded validity indicator in ADHD evaluations. Practitioners are encouraged to use LNS T-score cutoff of ≤33 or ≤36 to assess the validity of obtained test data. Employing either of these LNS cutoffs with RDS may enhance the detection of invalid performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":55250,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing embedded performance validity indicators within the WAIS-IV Letter-Number sequencing subtest to Reliable Digit Span among adults referred for evaluation of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.\",\"authors\":\"John-Christopher A Finley, Violeta J Rodriguez, Brian M Cerny, Fini Chang, Julia M Brooks, Gabriel P Ovsiew, Devin M Ulrich, Zachary J Resch, Jason R Soble\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13854046.2024.2315738\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> This study investigated the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition Letter-Number Sequencing (LNS) subtest as an embedded performance validity indicator among adults undergoing an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) evaluation, and its potential incremental value over Reliable Digit Span (RDS). <b>Method:</b> This cross-sectional study comprised 543 adults who underwent neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Patients were divided into valid (<i>n</i> = 480) and invalid (<i>n</i> = 63) groups based on multiple criterion performance validity tests. <b>Results:</b> LNS total raw scores, age-corrected scaled scores, and age- and education-corrected T-scores demonstrated excellent classification accuracy (area under the curve of .84, .83, and .82, respectively). The optimal cutoff for LNS raw score (≤16), age-corrected scaled score (≤7), and age- and education-corrected T-score (≤36) yielded .51 sensitivity and .94 specificity. Slightly lower sensitivity (.40) and higher specificity (.98) was associated with a more conservative T-score cutoff of ≤33. Multivariate models incorporating both LNS and RDS improved classification accuracy (area under the curve of .86), and LNS scores explained a significant but modest proportion of variance in validity status above and beyond RDS. Chaining LNS T-score of ≤33 with RDS cutoff of ≤7 increased sensitivity to .69 while maintaining ≥.90 specificity. <b>Conclusions:</b> Findings provide preliminary evidence for the criterion and construct validity of LNS as an embedded validity indicator in ADHD evaluations. Practitioners are encouraged to use LNS T-score cutoff of ≤33 or ≤36 to assess the validity of obtained test data. Employing either of these LNS cutoffs with RDS may enhance the detection of invalid performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Neuropsychologist\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-13\",\"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/10.1080/13854046.2024.2315738\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2024.2315738","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

摘要

研究目的本研究调查了韦氏成人智力量表--第四版字母-数字排序(LNS)分测验,将其作为接受注意力缺陷/多动障碍(ADHD)评估的成人的嵌入式成绩效度指标,以及其相对于可靠数字跨度(RDS)的潜在增量价值。研究方法:这项横断面研究包括 543 名接受 ADHD 神经心理学评估的成人。根据多重标准表现效度测试结果,将患者分为有效组(480 人)和无效组(63 人)。结果显示LNS原始总分、年龄校正比例分以及年龄和教育校正T分均显示出极佳的分类准确性(曲线下面积分别为0.84、0.83和0.82)。LNS 原始分数(≤16 分)、年龄校正比例分数(≤7 分)以及年龄和教育校正 T 分数(≤36 分)的最佳临界值可产生 0.51 的灵敏度和 0.94 的特异性。更保守的 T 评分临界值≤33 的敏感性略低(0.40),特异性更高(0.98)。同时包含 LNS 和 RDS 的多变量模型提高了分类准确性(曲线下面积为 0.86),LNS 评分可以解释 RDS 以上和 RDS 以外的有效性状态变异,但所占比例不大。将 LNS T 评分≤33 与 RDS 临界值≤7 相结合,可将灵敏度提高到 0.69,同时保持≥.90 的特异性。结论:研究结果提供了初步证据,证明LNS作为ADHD评估的嵌入式效度指标,具有标准效度和建构效度。我们鼓励从业人员使用≤33或≤36的LNS T-score临界值来评估所获得测试数据的有效性。将 LNS 临界值与 RDS 结合使用可提高对无效表现的检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparing embedded performance validity indicators within the WAIS-IV Letter-Number sequencing subtest to Reliable Digit Span among adults referred for evaluation of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Objectives: This study investigated the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition Letter-Number Sequencing (LNS) subtest as an embedded performance validity indicator among adults undergoing an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) evaluation, and its potential incremental value over Reliable Digit Span (RDS). Method: This cross-sectional study comprised 543 adults who underwent neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Patients were divided into valid (n = 480) and invalid (n = 63) groups based on multiple criterion performance validity tests. Results: LNS total raw scores, age-corrected scaled scores, and age- and education-corrected T-scores demonstrated excellent classification accuracy (area under the curve of .84, .83, and .82, respectively). The optimal cutoff for LNS raw score (≤16), age-corrected scaled score (≤7), and age- and education-corrected T-score (≤36) yielded .51 sensitivity and .94 specificity. Slightly lower sensitivity (.40) and higher specificity (.98) was associated with a more conservative T-score cutoff of ≤33. Multivariate models incorporating both LNS and RDS improved classification accuracy (area under the curve of .86), and LNS scores explained a significant but modest proportion of variance in validity status above and beyond RDS. Chaining LNS T-score of ≤33 with RDS cutoff of ≤7 increased sensitivity to .69 while maintaining ≥.90 specificity. Conclusions: Findings provide preliminary evidence for the criterion and construct validity of LNS as an embedded validity indicator in ADHD evaluations. Practitioners are encouraged to use LNS T-score cutoff of ≤33 or ≤36 to assess the validity of obtained test data. Employing either of these LNS cutoffs with RDS may enhance the detection of invalid performance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Large-scale evidence for the validity of remote MoCA administration among people with cerebellar ataxia. A clinical evaluation program to monitor neurocognitive risk in children and adolescents with sickle cell disease. Correction. Neuropsychology practice guidance for the neuropsychiatric aspects of Long COVID. The role of cognitive reserve and depression on executive function in older adults: A 10-year study from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention.
×
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