Settling the Score

Can CPT-3 Embedded Validity Indicators Distinguish Between Credible and Non-Credible Responders Referred for ADHD and/or SLD?

Robinson, Anthony
Reed, Christopher
Davis, Katrail
Divers, Ross
Miller, Luke
Erdodi, Laszlo A.
Calamia, Matthew

¹Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA
²University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Matthew Calamia, Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, 33 Johnston Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Attention Disorders 27(1):p 80-88, January 2023. | DOI: 10.1177/10870547221121781

Objective:

The purpose of the present study was to further investigate the clinical utility of individual and composite indicators within the CPT-3 as embedded validity indicators (EVIs) given the discrepant findings of previous investigations.

Methods:

A total of 201 adults undergoing psychoeducational evaluation for ADHD and/or Specific Learning Disorder (SLD) were divided into credible (n = 159) and non-credible (n = 42) groups based on five criterion measures.

Results:

Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) revealed that 5/9 individual indicators and 2/4 composite indicators met minimally acceptable classification accuracy of ≥0.70 (AUC = 0.43–0.78). Individual (0.16–0.45) and composite indicators (0.23–0.35) demonstrated low sensitivity when using cutoffs that maintained specificity ≥90%.

Conclusion:

Given the lack of stability across studies, further research is needed before recommending any specific cutoff be used in clinical practice with individuals seeking psychoeducational assessment.