Cognitive Underperformance in a Mixed Neuropsychiatric Sample at Diagnostic Evaluation of Adult ADHD

Abstract

(1) Background: The clinical assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adulthood is known to show non-trivial base rates of noncredible performance and requires thorough validity assessment. (2) Objectives: The present study estimated base rates of noncredible performance in clinical evaluations of adult ADHD on one or more of 17 embedded validity indicators (EVIs). This study further examines the effect of the order of test administration on EVI failure rates, the association between cognitive underperformance and symptom overreporting, and the prediction of cognitive underperformance by clinical information. (3) Methods: A mixed neuropsychiatric sample (N = 464, ADHD = 227) completed a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment battery on the Vienna Test System (VTS; CFADHD). Test performance allows the computation of 17 embedded performance validity indicators (PVTs) derived from eight different neuropsychological tests. Further, all participants completed several self- and other-report symptom rating scales assessing depressive symptoms and cognitive functioning. The Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory-II were administered to derive embedded symptom validity measures (SVTs). (4) Results and conclusion: Noncredible performance occurs in a sizeable proportion of about 10% up to 30% of individuals throughout the entire battery. Tests for attention and concentration appear to be the most adequate and sensitive for detecting underperformance. Cognitive underperformance represents a coherent construct and seems dissociable from symptom overreporting. These results emphasize the importance of performing multiple PVTs, at different time points, and promote more accurate calculation of the positive and negative predictive values of a given validity measure for noncredible performance during clinical assessments. Future studies should further examine whether and how the present results stand in other clinical populations, by implementing rigorous reference standards of noncredible performance, characterizing those failing PVT assessments, and differentiating between underlying motivations.