Psychometric Properties of Computerized Cognitive Tools and Standard Neuropsychological Tests Used to Assess Sport Concussion: A Systematic Review.

Athletic programs are more frequently turning to computerized cognitive tools in order to increase efficiencies in concussion assessment. However, assessment using a traditional neuropsychological test battery may provide a more comprehensive and individualized evaluation. Our goal was to inform sport clinicians of the best practices for concussion assessment through a systematic literature review describing the psychometric properties of standard neuropsychological tests and computerized tools. We conducted our search in relevant databases including Ovid Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Journal articles were included if they evaluated psychometric properties (e.g., reliability, sensitivity) of a cognitive assessment within pure athlete samples (up to 30 days post-injury). Searches yielded 4,758 unique results. Ultimately, 103 articles met inclusion criteria, all of which focused on adolescent or young adult participants. Test-retest reliability estimates ranged from .14 to .93 for computerized tools and .02 to .95 for standard neuropsychological tests, with strongest correlations on processing speed tasks for both modalities, although processing speed tasks were most susceptible to practice effects. Reliability was improved with a 2-factor model (processing speed and memory) and by aggregating multiple baseline exams, yet remained below acceptable limits for some studies. Sensitivity to decreased cognitive performance within 72 h of injury ranged from 45%-93% for computerized tools and 18%-80% for standard neuropsychological test batteries. The method for classifying cognitive decline (normative comparison, reliable change indices, regression-based methods) affected sensitivity estimates. Combining computerized tools and standard neuropsychological tests with the strongest psychometric performance provides the greatest value in clinical assessment. To this end, future studies should evaluate the efficacy of hybrid test batteries comprised of top-performing measures from both modalities.

The vulnerability of self-reported disability measures to malingering: a simulated ADHD study.

OBJECTIVE: Making diagnostic and accommodation decisions for potential Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in adults is difficult, as the assessor often relies more on self-reported symptoms and functional disability than in childhood evaluations. Malingering of ADHD occurs frequently in the educational setting and for a variety of reasons, including the potential benefits of access to stimulant medications and academic accommodations. METHOD: The present study utilized a simulation design to examine the potential for malingering of self-reported functional disability on the World Health Organization Disability Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS). Participants were 167 students from two Midwestern universities. Thirty-six self-reported a previous diagnosis of ADHD, and the remaining 131 students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: best effort, malingering for the purpose of receiving stimulant medication, or malingering for the purpose of receiving extra time accommodations. RESULTS: Individuals in both malingering groups reported higher levels of disability on all domains of the WHODAS compared to healthy controls and individuals with ADHD. There were no significant differences between malingering groups. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the WHODAS is susceptible to non-credible responses and should not be relied upon solely as a measure of disability in the context of ADHD evaluations.

Further Validation of the Conner's Adult Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Rating Scale Infrequency Index (CII) for Detection of Non-Credible Report of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can be easily presented in a non-credible manner, through non-credible report of ADHD symptoms and/or by non-credible performance on neuropsychological tests. While most studies have focused on detection of non-credible performance using performance validity tests, there are few studies examining the ability to detect non-credible report of ADHD symptoms. We provide further validation data for a recently developed measure of non-credible ADHD symptom report, the Conner's Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) Infrequency Index (CII). METHOD: Using archival data from 86 adults referred for concerns about ADHD, we examined the accuracy of the CII in detecting extreme scores on the CAARS and invalid reporting on validity indices of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Format (MMPI-2-RF). We also examined the accuracy of the CII in detecting non-credible performance on standalone and embedded performance validity tests. RESULTS: The CII was 52% sensitive to extreme scores on CAARS DSM symptom subscales (with 97% specificity) and 20%-36% sensitive to invalid responding on MMPI-2-RF validity scales (with near 90% specificity), providing further evidence for the interpretation of the CII as an indicator of non-credible ADHD symptom report. However, the CII detected only 18% of individuals who failed a standalone performance validity test (Word Memory Test), with 87.8% specificity, and was not accurate in detecting non-credible performance using embedded digit span cutoffs. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies should continue to examine how best to assess for non-credible symptom report in ADHD referrals.

[Formula: see text] Effects of screening for postconcussive syndrome (PCS) on PCS symptom self-report and neuropsychological test performance.

OBJECTIVE: Many non-neurological factors are related to postconcussive syndrome (PCS) symptom report and neuropsychological test performance in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Use of mTBI screening instruments may also contribute to report of PCS symptoms and neuropsychological performance. We examined the impact of randomized PCS screening feedback on PCS symptom report and neuropsychological performance in 152 young adults with no history of mTBI. METHOD: Participants were 158 undergraduates attending a medium-sized Midwestern university who completed the Postconcussive Syndrome Questionnaire (PCSQ) prior to the study and were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Participants were either given feedback that they endorsed more symptoms than average, feedback that they endorsed fewer symptoms than average, or neutral information. Participants then completed the PCSQ for a second time as well as the Auditory Verbal Learning Test and Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test. RESULTS: Contrary to expectations, participants receiving feedback that they endorsed more symptoms than average did not endorse more PCSQ symptoms post-feedback than participants in other conditions (p = .12); however, consistent with expectations, they demonstrated poorer verbal learning (p = .005) and delayed recall (p = .04) than participants in the below average feedback condition and reported higher rates of retrospective recall of prior mTBI than participants in the neutral condition (p = .01). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that feedback from screening measures can influence individuals' performance and retrospective recall of their personal TBI history. Findings have implications for use of screening measures for PCS in clinical and research settings.