Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form Profiles Among Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Examining the Effect of Comorbid Psychopathology and ADHD Presentation.

OBJECTIVE: Despite widespread use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), it is surprisingly understudied among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This is significant as ADHD is a frequent referral for neuropsychological evaluation; however, the core symptom of attention difficulty is a nonspecific sequela of many psychological disorders. This study aimed to characterize MMPI-2-RF profiles among adults with ADHD and examine the effect of comorbid psychopathology. METHOD: A large, demographically diverse sample of 413 consecutive adults referred for neuropsychological evaluation to assist with differential diagnosis of ADHD who completed the MMPI-2-RF was examined. Profiles of the 145 patients diagnosed with ADHD-only were compared to 192 with ADHD and a comorbid psychological disorder and a 55-patient non-ADHD psychiatric comparison group. Among the ADHD-only group, profiles also were compared based on ADHD-presentation type (Predominantly Inattentive vs. Combined presentation). RESULTS: The ADHD/psychopathology and psychiatric comparison groups scored higher than the ADHD-only group across nearly all scales with widespread clinical elevations. Conversely, the ADHD-only group displayed an isolated elevation on the Cognitive Complaints scale. Comparison between ADHD presentations revealed several small-moderate significant differences, the largest of which occurred on the Externalizing and Interpersonal scales. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with ADHD alone, and no other psychopathology have a unique MMPI-2-RF profile characterized by isolated elevation on the Cognitive Complaints scale. These results support use of the MMPI-2-RF in assessment of adults with ADHD as it can help distinguish ADHD alone from ADHD/comorbid psychopathology and identify relevant psychiatric comorbidities that may be contributing to patients' inattention complaints.

All of the accuracy in half of the time: Assessing abbreviated versions of the Test of Memory Malingering in the context of verbal and visual memory impairment.

ObjectiveThe Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) Trial 1 (T1) and errors on the first 10 items of T1 (T1-e10) were developed as briefer versions of the TOMM to minimize evaluation time and burden, although the effect of genuine memory impairment on these indices is not well established. This study examined whether increasing material-specific verbal and visual memory impairment affected T1 and T1-e10 performance and accuracy for detecting invalidity. Method: Data from 155 neuropsychiatric patients administered the TOMM, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R) during outpatient evaluation were examined. Valid (N = 125) and invalid (N = 30) groups were established by four independent criterion performance validity tests. Verbal/visual memory impairment was classified as ≥37 T (normal memory); 30 T-36T (mild impairment); and ≤29 T (severe impairment). Results: Overall, T1 had outstanding accuracy, with 77% sensitivity/90% specificity. T1-e10 was less accurate but had excellent discriminability, with 60% sensitivity/87% specificity. T1 maintained excellent accuracy regardless of memory impairment severity, with 77% sensitivity/≥88% specificity and a relatively invariant cut-score even among those with severe verbal/visual memory impairment. T1-e10 had excellent classification accuracy among those with normal memory and mild impairment, but accuracy and sensitivity dropped with severe impairment and the optimal cut-score had to be increased to maintain adequate specificity. Conclusion: TOMM T1 is an effective performance validity test with strong psychometric properties regardless of material-specificity and severity of memory impairment. By contrast, T1-e10 functions relatively well in the context of mild memory impairment but has reduced discriminability with severe memory impairment.

Distinct Latent Profiles of Working Memory and Processing Speed in Adults with ADHD.

This study examined the neuropsychological profile of patients with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) based on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) working memory and processing speed indices. We aimed to establish whether distinct ADHD subtypes emerge based on neuropsychological testing and determine whether ADHD subgroups differ based on neurocognitive and demographic factors in 179 adult patients with ADHD. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) revealed four discrete latent subgroups within the sample, each with distinct patterns of working memory and processing speed. Classes significantly differed in demographically predicted IQ, education, and self-reported depression and anxiety. Results reveal heterogeneity in cognitive performance in adult ADHD.

Masking effect of high IQ on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test in an adult sample with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: High intelligence (IQ) adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often perform better on neuropsychological tests relative to average IQ adults with ADHD, despite commensurate functional impairment. This study compared adults with ADHD and high versus average IQ on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) to specifically assess this proposed masking effect of IQ on verbal learning/memory performance among those undergoing neuropsychological evaluation. METHOD: RAVLT performance between patients with ADHD and average versus high Test of Premorbid Function-estimated IQ were compared. Latent growth curve modeling (LGCM) evaluated learning acquisition across trials. RESULTS: RAVLT total learning, immediate, and delayed free recall performances were significantly better in the high IQ relative to the average IQ group. LGCM showed similar quadradic growth trajectories for both IQ groups. Both groups reported equivalent symptom severity and functional complaints in childhood and adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with ADHD and high IQ performed normally on a verbal learning/memory test compared to adults with average IQ, who scored 0.5-1.0 standard deviations below the mean. These results suggest a masking of performance-based memory deficits in the context of higher IQ in adults with ADHD, supporting growing evidence that higher IQ masks neurocognitive deficits during the assessment of adults with ADHD.

Psychometric implications of failure on one performance validity test: a cross-validation study to inform criterion group definition.

Introduction: Research to date has supported the use of multiple performance validity tests (PVTs) for determining validity status in clinical settings. However, the implications of including versus excluding patients failing one PVT remains a source of debate, and methodological guidelines for PVT research are lacking. This study evaluated three validity classification approaches (i.e. 0 vs. ≥2, 0-1 vs. ≥2, and 0 vs. ≥1 PVT failures) using three reference standards (i.e. criterion PVT groupings) to recommend approaches best suited to establishing validity groups in PVT research methodology.Method: A mixed clinical sample of 157 patients was administered freestanding (Medical Symptom Validity Test, Dot Counting Test, Test of Memory Malingering, Word Choice Test), and embedded PVTs (Reliable Digit Span, RAVLT Effort Score, Stroop Word Reading, BVMT-R Recognition Discrimination) during outpatient neuropsychological evaluation. Three reference standards (i.e. two freestanding and three embedded PVTs from the above list) were created. Rey 15-Item Test and RAVLT Forced Choice were used solely as outcome measures in addition to two freestanding PVTs not employed in the reference standard. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses evaluated classification accuracy using the three validity classification approaches for each reference standard.Results: When patients failing only one PVT were excluded or classified as valid, classification accuracy ranged from acceptable to excellent. However, classification accuracy was poor to acceptable when patients failing one PVT were classified as invalid. Sensitivity/specificity across two of the validity classification approaches (0 vs. ≥2; 0-1 vs. ≥2) remained reasonably stable.Conclusions: These results reflect that both inclusion and exclusion of patients failing one PVT are acceptable approaches to PVT research methodology and the choice of method likely depends on the study rationale. However, including such patients in the invalid group yields unacceptably poor classification accuracy across a number of psychometrically robust outcome measures and therefore is not recommended.