How Is ADHD Assessed and Documented? Examination of Psychological Reports Submitted to Determine Eligibility for Postsecondary Disability.

Objective: To examine how ADHD evaluations are documented for postsecondary students requesting disability eligibility. Method: A total of 100 psychological reports submitted for eligibility determination were coded for documentation of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) criteria, methods and instruments used in the evaluations, and recommended academic accommodations. Results: Results showed that a minimal number of reports (≤1%) documented that students met all DSM criteria for ADHD. Psychologists rarely documented childhood impairment, symptoms across settings, or the use of rule-outs. Symptom severity was emphasized over current impairment. The majority of psychologists utilized a multi-informant, multi-method evaluation approach, but certain methods (e.g., symptom validity tests, record reviews) were limited in use. Most reports included recommendations for academic accommodations, with extended time being the most common (72%). Conclusion: This study raises awareness to the aspects of adequate ADHD evaluation and subsequent documentation that can be improved by psychologists. Recommendations are made regarding valid documentation of ADHD for disability determination purposes.

Validation of curriculum-based reading passages and comparison of college students with and without dyslexia or ADHD.

Although reading is an essential skill for college success, little is known about how college students with and without disabilities read within their actual college curriculum. In the present article, we report on two studies addressing this issue. Within study 1, we developed and validated curriculum-based oral reading fluency measures using a sample of college students without disabilities (N = 125). In study 2, we administered the curriculum-based measures to four groups (each with n = 25): college students without disabilities, college students with dyslexia, college students with ADHD, and a clinical control group. Study 1 results indicated that the curriculum-based measures demonstrated good reliability and criterion validity. Results from study 2 indicated that college students with dyslexia were substantially slower readers than all groups without dyslexia (ds > 1.8). The curriculum-based measures demonstrated high accuracy in classifying participants with dyslexia and with impaired oral reading fluency (area under the curve > .94). Implications for incorporating curriculum-based measures in postsecondary settings are discussed.

Test Anxiety Among College Students With Specific Reading Disability (Dyslexia): Nonverbal Ability and Working Memory as Predictors.

Test anxiety and its correlates were examined with college students with and without specific reading disability (RD; n = 50 in each group). Results indicated that college students with RD reported higher test anxiety than did those without RD, and the magnitude of these differences was in the medium range on two test anxiety scales. Relative to college students without RD, up to 5 times as many college students with RD reported clinically significant test anxiety. College students with RD reported significantly higher cognitively based test anxiety than physically based test anxiety. Reading skills, verbal ability, and processing speed were not correlated with test anxiety. General intelligence, nonverbal ability, and working memory were negatively correlated with test anxiety, and the magnitude of these correlations was medium to large. When these three cognitive constructs were considered together in multiple regression analyses, only working memory and nonverbal ability emerged as significant predictors and varied based on the test anxiety measure. Implications for assessment and intervention are discussed.