Neuropsychological assessment, intervention, and best practices for women with non-Central nervous system cancer: A scoping review of current standards.

Objective: Existing literature has sought to characterize the broad cognitive impact of non-central nervous system cancer and its treatment, including chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, and hormonal regulation. However, despite the frequency of women that are diagnosed with breast and gynecological cancer, there is limited research on the specific cognitive experiences of women undergoing cancer treatment. Presently, the current literature lacks concise guidance for neuropsychologists to support the cognitive health of women facing cancer, despite the acknowledged impact of cancer interventions and chronic illness on cognitive outcomes. Method: Applying scoping review criteria outlined by Peters et al. (2015) and adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive examination of literature spanning multiple databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, PsychINFO) with a focus on the cognitive impact of cancer treatment on women. Conclusions: Women are subject to unique treatment-related outcomes due to the impact of hormonal alterations, differences in metabolization of certain chemotherapies, and psychosocial risk factors. Despite the known impact of cancer intervention, chronic illness, and cancer-related sequelae on cognitive outcomes, the current literature does not parsimoniously outline best practices for neuropsychologists to promote the health of women experiencing cancer. The current paper (1) provides an overview of the cognitive implications of cancer treatment with an intentional focus on cancers that are more prevalent in women versus men, (2) addresses the characteristics of this impact for women undergoing cancer intervention(s), and (3) provides possible intervention and treatment strategies for mental health providers and neuropsychologists.

Differentiating Performance on the Connors Continuous Performance Test (CPT-3) as a Function of Comorbid Internalizing Psychopathology.

OBJECTIVE: Internalizing psychopathology commonly co-occurs with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Attention concerns are present in both ADHD and internalizing disorders, yet the neuropsychological functioning of those with comorbid ADHD and internalizing psychopathology is underexamined. METHOD: This study compared Conners' Continuous Performance Test-Third Edition (CPT-3) profiles across ADHD (n = 141), internalizing psychopathology (n = 78), and comorbid (ADHD/internalizing psychopathology; n = 240) groups. RESULTS: Compared to the internalizing psychopathology group, the comorbid group had higher mean T-scores on CPT-3 indices indicative of inattentiveness and impulsivity and more clinically elevated T-scores (T>60) on indices measuring inattentiveness and impaired sustained attention. Patients in the comorbid group were also more likely to have abnormal overall CPT-3 profiles (>2 elevated T-scores) than the ADHD and psychopathology only groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with comorbid ADHD/internalizing psychopathology may evidence a more impaired attentional performance on the CPT-3, which could aid in more tailored treatment planning.

Empirically derived symptom profiles in adults with attention-Deficit/hyperactivity disorder: An unsupervised machine learning approach.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with various cognitive, behavioral, and mood symptoms that complicate diagnosis and treatment. The heterogeneity of these symptoms may also vary depending on certain sociodemographic factors. It is therefore important to establish more homogenous symptom profiles in patients with ADHD and determine their association with the patient's sociodemographic makeup. The current study used unsupervised machine learning to identify symptom profiles across various cognitive, behavioral, and mood symptoms in adults with ADHD. It was then examined whether symptom profiles differed based on relevant sociodemographic factors. METHODS: Participants were 382 adult outpatients (62% female; 51% non-Hispanic White) referred for neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. RESULTS: Employing Gaussian Mixture Modeling, we identified two distinct symptom profiles in adults with ADHD: "ADHD-Plus Symptom Profile" and "ADHD-Predominate Symptom Profile." These profiles were primarily differentiated by internalizing psychopathology (Cohen's d = 1.94-2.05), rather than by subjective behavioral and cognitive symptoms of ADHD or neurocognitive test performance. In a subset of 126 adults without ADHD who were referred for the same evaluation, the unsupervised machine learning algorithm only identified one symptom profile. Group comparison analyses indicated that female patients were most likely to present with an ADHD-Plus Symptom Profile (χ2 = 5.43, p < .001). CONCLUSION: The machine learning technique used in this study appears to be an effective way to elucidate symptom profiles emerging from comprehensive ADHD evaluations. These findings further underscore the importance of considering internalizing symptoms and patients' sex when contextualizing adult ADHD diagnosis and treatment.

Multivariate examination of embedded indicators of performance validity for ADHD evaluations: A targeted approach.

This study investigated the individual and combined utility of 10 embedded validity indicators (EVIs) within executive functioning, attention/working memory, and processing speed measures in 585 adults referred for an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) evaluation. Participants were categorized into invalid and valid performance groups as determined by scores from empirical performance validity indicators. Analyses revealed that all of the EVIs could meaningfully discriminate invalid from valid performers (AUCs = .69-.78), with high specificity (≥90%) but low sensitivity (19%-51%). However, none of them explained more than 20% of the variance in validity status. Combining any of these 10 EVIs into a multivariate model significantly improved classification accuracy, explaining up to 36% of the variance in validity status. Integrating six EVIs from the Stroop Color and Word Test, Trail Making Test, Verbal Fluency Test, and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition was as efficacious (AUC = .86) as using all 10 EVIs together. Failing any two of these six EVIs or any three of the 10 EVIs yielded clinically acceptable specificity (≥90%) with moderate sensitivity (60%). Findings support the use of multivariate models to improve the identification of performance invalidity in ADHD evaluations, but chaining multiple EVIs may only be helpful to an extent.

The Impact of Learning and Memory on Performance Validity Tests in a Mixed Clinical Pediatric Population.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the degree to which verbal and visuospatial memory abilities influence performance validity test (PVT) performance in a mixed clinical pediatric sample. METHOD: Data from 252 consecutive clinical pediatric cases (Mage=11.23 years, SD=4.02; 61.9% male) seen for outpatient neuropsychological assessment were collected. Measures of learning and memory (e.g., The California Verbal Learning Test-Children's Version; Child and Adolescent Memory Profile [ChAMP]), performance validity (Test of Memory Malingering Trial 1 [TOMM T1]; Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition [WISC-V] or Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition Digit Span indices; ChAMP Overall Validity Index), and intellectual abilities (e.g., WISC-V) were included. RESULTS: Learning/memory abilities were not significantly correlated with TOMM T1 and accounted for relatively little variance in overall TOMM T1 performance (i.e., ≤6%). Conversely, ChAMP Validity Index scores were significantly correlated with verbal and visual learning/memory abilities, and learning/memory accounted for significant variance in PVT performance (12%-26%). Verbal learning/memory performance accounted for 5%-16% of the variance across the Digit Span PVTs. No significant differences in TOMM T1 and Digit Span PVT scores emerged between verbal/visual learning/memory impairment groups. ChAMP validity scores were lower for the visual learning/memory impairment group relative to the nonimpaired group. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the utility of including PVTs as standard practice for pediatric populations, particularly when memory is a concern. Consistent with the adult literature, TOMM T1 outperformed other PVTs in its utility even among the diverse clinical sample with/without learning/memory impairment. In contrast, use of Digit Span indices appear to be best suited in the presence of visuospatial (but not verbal) learning/memory concerns. Finally, the ChAMP's embedded validity measure was most strongly impacted by learning/memory performance.

The Divergent Roles of Symptom and Performance Validity in the Assessment of ADHD.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined concordance between symptom and performance validity among clinically-referred patients undergoing neuropsychological evaluation for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Data from 203 patients who completed the WAIS-IV Working Memory Index, the Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit-Adult (CAT-A), and ≥4 criterion performance validity tests (PVTs) were analyzed. RESULTS: Symptom and performance validity were concordant in 76% of cases, with the majority being valid performance. Of the remaining 24% of cases with divergent validity findings, patients were more likely to exhibit symptom invalidity (15%) than performance invalidity (9%). Patients demonstrating symptom invalidity endorsed significantly more ADHD symptoms than those with credible symptom reporting (ηp2 = .06-.15), but comparable working memory test performance, whereas patients with performance invalidity had significantly worse working memory performance than those with valid PVT performance (ηp2 = .18). CONCLUSION: Symptom and performance invalidity represent dissociable constructs in patients undergoing neuropsychological evaluation of ADHD and should be evaluated independently.

They're not just little adults: The utility of adult performance validity measures in a mixed clinical pediatric sample.

Performance validity tests (PVTs) have become a standard part of adult neuropsychological practice; however, they are less widely used in pediatric testing. The current study aimed to obtain a better understanding of the application of PVTs within a mixed clinical pediatric sample with a wide range of diagnosis, IQ, and age. Cross-sectional data were analyzed from 130 consecutive pediatric patients evaluated as part of clinical care and diagnosed with a variety of medical/neurological, developmental, and psychiatric disorders. Patients were administered a battery of neuropsychological tests; results of intellectual functioning measures (i.e., Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition [WISC-V] or Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition [WAIS-IV]), and PVTs (i.e., Test of Memory Malingering [TOMM] and Digit Span [DS] subtests of the WISC-V/WAIS-IV) were analyzed to assess PVT performance across the sample as well as age- and Full-Scale IQ-related (FSIQ) effects on pass rate. Results suggested that the TOMM is an effective validity test for youth, as the TOMM adult cutoff score was also valid for children (88% pass rate on TOMM trial 1 cut-score ≥41, 71% pass rate on TOMM trial 1 cut-score ≥45). In contrast, Reliable Digit Span (RDS) was less accurate (34% failed RDS [cut-score ≤6], 54% failed RDS-r [cut-score ≤10], and 25% failed DS ACSS [cut-score ≤5]) using standard adult cutoffs. Notably, although TOMM scores were not strongly influenced by IQ, DS scores increased as IQ increased. Overall, further analysis of PVTs can champion new standards of practice through additional research establishing PVT accuracy within pediatric populations.