B – 73 Comparing Performance Validity Test (PVT) Performance Between Participants in Simulation and a Known Groups Designs for Adult ADHD Evaluations

Abstract Objective It is recommended to use performance validity tests in adult ADHD. However, extant research has largely used a simulation design, which may not lead to applicable results. The present study combines both a simulation and a known-groups design and to compare/contrast performance on several widely-used PVTs and SVTs. Method Known-groups participants included 53 individuals (11 males, 42 females) ranging in age from 18 to 72 years (M = 33.6, SD = 13.2), referred for ADHD evaluation. Of these, 28 were classified as honest responders (HRs) and 25 as noncredible responders (NCRs). Student participants were paid and included 44 individuals (12 males, 32 females) (22 simulators, 22 honest responders) ranging in age from 18 to 30 years (M = 19.5, SD = 2.2), without a current diagnosis of ADHD. Monetary incentives were offered to perform as directed. All participants completed the CPT-3, the WCST, the TMT, the TOMM, the Word Choice Test from the ACS (WCT), the RRBANS; the WAIS-IV, the Rey Fifteen Item Test; and the Dot Counting Test (DCT). Results Best indicators in patients were the Reliable Digit Span, the WCST 64 embedded PVT, the Silverberg Effort Index for the RBANS, the TOMM and the WCT. In student simulators, we saw similar results, although both the embedded PVT on the CPT-3 and the DCT were found to be significant predictors for simulators. Conclusion Surprising results convergence across designs, likely resulting from our effort to incentivize simulator effort. For all but TMT-B more NCRs than HRs failed the cutoffs.