注意缺陷/多动障碍评估中的表现效度评估:非记忆嵌入效度指标的交叉验证。

IF 1.6 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY Developmental Neuropsychology Pub Date : 2022-08-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-05 DOI:10.1080/87565641.2022.2096889
Jenna E Ausloos-Lozano, Hanaan Bing-Canar, Humza Khan, Palak G Singh, Amanda M Wisinger, Andrew A Rauch, Caitlin M Ogram Buckley, Luke G Petry, Kyle J Jennette, Jason R Soble, Zachary J Resch
{"title":"注意缺陷/多动障碍评估中的表现效度评估:非记忆嵌入效度指标的交叉验证。","authors":"Jenna E Ausloos-Lozano,&nbsp;Hanaan Bing-Canar,&nbsp;Humza Khan,&nbsp;Palak G Singh,&nbsp;Amanda M Wisinger,&nbsp;Andrew A Rauch,&nbsp;Caitlin M Ogram Buckley,&nbsp;Luke G Petry,&nbsp;Kyle J Jennette,&nbsp;Jason R Soble,&nbsp;Zachary J Resch","doi":"10.1080/87565641.2022.2096889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) are key components of neuropsychological evaluations. However, most are memory-based and may be less useful in the assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Four non-memory-based validity indices derived from processing speed and executive functioning measures commonly included in ADHD evaluations, namely Verbal Fluency (VF) and the Trail Making Test (TMT), were cross-validated using the Rey 15-Item Test (RFIT) Recall and Recall/Recognition as memory-based comparison measures. This consecutive case series included data from 416 demographically-diverse adults who underwent outpatient neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Validity classifications were established, with ≤1 PVT failure of five independent criterion PVTs as indicative of valid performance (374 valid performers/42 invalid performers). Among the statistically significant validity indicators, TMT-A and TMT-B T-scores (AUCs = .707-.723) had acceptable classification accuracy ranges and sensitivities ranging from 29%-36% (≥89% specificity). RFIT Recall/Recognition produced similar results as TMT-B T-score with 42% sensitivity/90% specificity, but with lower classification accuracy. In evaluating adult ADHD, VF and TMT embedded PVTs demonstrated comparable sensitivity and specificity values to those found in other clinical populations but necessitated alternate cut-scores. Results also support use of RFIT Recall/Recognition over the standard RFIT Recall as a PVT for adult ADHD evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":50586,"journal":{"name":"Developmental Neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing performance validity during attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder evaluations: Cross-validation of non-memory embedded validity indicators.\",\"authors\":\"Jenna E Ausloos-Lozano,&nbsp;Hanaan Bing-Canar,&nbsp;Humza Khan,&nbsp;Palak G Singh,&nbsp;Amanda M Wisinger,&nbsp;Andrew A Rauch,&nbsp;Caitlin M Ogram Buckley,&nbsp;Luke G Petry,&nbsp;Kyle J Jennette,&nbsp;Jason R Soble,&nbsp;Zachary J Resch\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/87565641.2022.2096889\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) are key components of neuropsychological evaluations. However, most are memory-based and may be less useful in the assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Four non-memory-based validity indices derived from processing speed and executive functioning measures commonly included in ADHD evaluations, namely Verbal Fluency (VF) and the Trail Making Test (TMT), were cross-validated using the Rey 15-Item Test (RFIT) Recall and Recall/Recognition as memory-based comparison measures. This consecutive case series included data from 416 demographically-diverse adults who underwent outpatient neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Validity classifications were established, with ≤1 PVT failure of five independent criterion PVTs as indicative of valid performance (374 valid performers/42 invalid performers). Among the statistically significant validity indicators, TMT-A and TMT-B T-scores (AUCs = .707-.723) had acceptable classification accuracy ranges and sensitivities ranging from 29%-36% (≥89% specificity). RFIT Recall/Recognition produced similar results as TMT-B T-score with 42% sensitivity/90% specificity, but with lower classification accuracy. In evaluating adult ADHD, VF and TMT embedded PVTs demonstrated comparable sensitivity and specificity values to those found in other clinical populations but necessitated alternate cut-scores. Results also support use of RFIT Recall/Recognition over the standard RFIT Recall as a PVT for adult ADHD evaluations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50586,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Developmental Neuropsychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Developmental Neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2022.2096889\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/7/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developmental Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2022.2096889","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

嵌入式效能效度测试是神经心理学评价的重要组成部分。然而,大多数是基于记忆的,在评估注意力缺陷/多动障碍(ADHD)时可能不太有用。采用Rey 15-Item Test (RFIT) Recall和Recall/Recognition作为基于记忆的比较指标,对ADHD评估中常用的处理速度和执行功能测量得出的四个非记忆效度指标,即Verbal流利度(VF)和Trail Making Test (TMT)进行交叉验证。这个连续的病例系列包括来自416名不同人口统计学的成年人的数据,他们接受了ADHD门诊神经心理学评估。建立效度分类,以5项独立标准PVT失败≤1项作为有效绩效的指标(374名有效表现者/42名无效表现者)。在具有统计学意义的效度指标中,TMT-A和TMT-B t评分(auc = .707 ~ .723)具有可接受的分类准确度范围和灵敏度,范围为29% ~ 36%(特异性≥89%)。RFIT召回/识别的结果与TMT-B t评分相似,灵敏度为42%,特异性为90%,但分类准确率较低。在评估成人ADHD时,VF和TMT嵌入的pvt显示出与其他临床人群相当的敏感性和特异性值,但需要替代cut-scores。结果还支持使用RFIT回忆/识别,而不是标准的RFIT回忆作为成人ADHD评估的PVT。
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
Assessing performance validity during attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder evaluations: Cross-validation of non-memory embedded validity indicators.

Embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) are key components of neuropsychological evaluations. However, most are memory-based and may be less useful in the assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Four non-memory-based validity indices derived from processing speed and executive functioning measures commonly included in ADHD evaluations, namely Verbal Fluency (VF) and the Trail Making Test (TMT), were cross-validated using the Rey 15-Item Test (RFIT) Recall and Recall/Recognition as memory-based comparison measures. This consecutive case series included data from 416 demographically-diverse adults who underwent outpatient neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Validity classifications were established, with ≤1 PVT failure of five independent criterion PVTs as indicative of valid performance (374 valid performers/42 invalid performers). Among the statistically significant validity indicators, TMT-A and TMT-B T-scores (AUCs = .707-.723) had acceptable classification accuracy ranges and sensitivities ranging from 29%-36% (≥89% specificity). RFIT Recall/Recognition produced similar results as TMT-B T-score with 42% sensitivity/90% specificity, but with lower classification accuracy. In evaluating adult ADHD, VF and TMT embedded PVTs demonstrated comparable sensitivity and specificity values to those found in other clinical populations but necessitated alternate cut-scores. Results also support use of RFIT Recall/Recognition over the standard RFIT Recall as a PVT for adult ADHD evaluations.

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
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
17
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Devoted to exploring relationships between brain and behavior across the life span, Developmental Neuropsychology publishes scholarly papers on the appearance and development of behavioral functions, such as language, perception, and social, motivational and cognitive processes as they relate to brain functions and structures. Appropriate subjects include studies of changes in cognitive function—brain structure relationships across a time period, early cognitive behaviors in normal and brain-damaged children, plasticity and recovery of function after early brain damage, the development of complex cognitive and motor skills, and specific and nonspecific disturbances, such as learning disabilities, mental retardation, schizophrenia, stuttering, and developmental aphasia. In the gerontologic areas, relevant subjects include neuropsychological analyses of normal age-related changes in brain and behavioral functions, such as sensory, motor, cognitive, and adaptive abilities; studies of age-related diseases of the nervous system; and recovery of function in later life. Empirical studies, research reviews, case reports, critical commentaries, and book reviews are featured in each issue. By publishing both basic and clinical studies of the developing and aging brain, the journal encourages additional scholarly work that advances understanding of the field of lifespan developmental neuropsychology.
期刊最新文献
Age-Related Effects on Facial Emotion Recognition in Schoolchildren: An ERP Study. Self-Reported Traumatic Brain Injury and Its Biopsychosocial Risk Factors in Siblings of Individuals with Neurodevelopmental Conditions. Cross-Sectional Study on the Effect of Bilingualism, Age, Gender, and Family Income on Executive Function Development in a Sample of Lebanese School-Aged Children. Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Individuals with Non-Syndromic Craniosynostosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Visuospatial Perception in Prematurely Born Children Without Cerebral Palsy or Retinopathy but With Scholar Complaints.
×
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