对患有多动症的成年人进行连续性表现测试的实用性进行系统回顾。

IF 3 3区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical Neuropsychologist Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-29 DOI:10.1080/13854046.2024.2315740
Jacob L Varela, Anna T Magnante, Holly M Miskey, Anna S Ord, Adrienne Eldridge, Robert D Shura
{"title":"对患有多动症的成年人进行连续性表现测试的实用性进行系统回顾。","authors":"Jacob L Varela, Anna T Magnante, Holly M Miskey, Anna S Ord, Adrienne Eldridge, Robert D Shura","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2024.2315740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":55250,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of the utility of continuous performance tests among adults with ADHD.\",\"authors\":\"Jacob L Varela, Anna T Magnante, Holly M Miskey, Anna S Ord, Adrienne Eldridge, Robert D Shura\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13854046.2024.2315740\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Neuropsychologist\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"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/10.1080/13854046.2024.2315740\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2024.2315740","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:注意力缺陷/多动症(ADHD)成人患者的连续表现测试(CPT)的临床实用性越来越受到质疑。因此,本研究旨在系统回顾文献,调查各种市售连续表现测试(CPT)在成人注意力缺陷/多动症人群中的临床实用性,包括康纳连续表现测试(CCPT)、注意力变量测试(TOVA)、戈登诊断系统(GDS)和视听综合连续表现测试(IVA):本系统性综述事先遵循了 PRISMA(系统性综述和元分析首选报告项目)指南。文章于 2022 年 4 月 11 日从 PsycINFO、PsycARTICLES、Academic Search Complete 和 Google Scholar 收集而来。69篇文章被纳入最终综述。采用美国国立卫生研究院的观察性队列和横断面研究质量评估表对偏倚风险进行了评估:结果:大多数文章的偏倚风险较高,而且不同研究之间存在很大的异质性。总体而言,所审查的 CPT 似乎诊断效用和分类准确性有限。尽管许多研究显示患有多动症的成人与对比组之间的得分存在差异,但研究结果并不一致。成人多动症患者的CPT表现特征参差不齐,几乎没有一致性,也没有证据表明有明确的表现特征;然而,与其他CCPT评分相比,CCPT佣金误差在作为治疗或实验结果测量时似乎最有用:总之,CPTs 不应单独作为诊断测试使用,但作为综合评估的一个组成部分使用时可能会有所裨益。
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
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.

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
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. Naturalistic assessment of everyday multitasking in Parkinson's disease with and without mild cognitive impairment. Utility of learning ratio scores from the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) Word List Memory Test in distinguishing patterns of cognitive decline in veterans referred for neuropsychological evaluation.
×
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