The Impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences on Symptom and Performance Validity Tests Among a Multiracial Sample Presenting for ADHD Evaluation.

IF 2.1 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Christopher Gonzalez, John-Christopher A Finley, Elmma Khalid, Karen S Basurto, Hannah B VanLandingham, Lauren A Frick, Julia M Brooks, Rachael L Ellison, Devin M Ulrich, Jason R Soble, Zachary J Resch
{"title":"The Impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences on Symptom and Performance Validity Tests Among a Multiracial Sample Presenting for ADHD Evaluation.","authors":"Christopher Gonzalez, John-Christopher A Finley, Elmma Khalid, Karen S Basurto, Hannah B VanLandingham, Lauren A Frick, Julia M Brooks, Rachael L Ellison, Devin M Ulrich, Jason R Soble, Zachary J Resch","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acae006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are commonly reported in individuals presenting for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) evaluation. Performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) are essential to ADHD evaluations in young adults, but extant research suggests that those who report ACEs may be inaccurately classified as invalid on these measures. The current study aimed to assess the degree to which ACE exposure differentiated PVT and SVT performance and ADHD symptom reporting in a multi-racial sample of adults presenting for ADHD evaluation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This study included 170 adults referred for outpatient neuropsychological ADHD evaluation who completed the ACE Checklist and a neurocognitive battery that included multiple PVTs and SVTs. Analysis of variance was used to examine differences in PVT and SVT performance among those with high (≥4) and low (≤3) reported ACEs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Main effects of the ACE group were observed, such that high ACE group reporting demonstrated higher scores on SVTs assessing ADHD symptom over-reporting and infrequent psychiatric and somatic symptoms on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form. Conversely, no significant differences emerged in total PVT failures across ACE groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Those with high ACE exposure were more likely to have higher scores on SVTs assessing over-reporting and infrequent responses. In contrast, ACE exposure did not affect PVT performance. Thus, ACE exposure should be considered specifically when evaluating SVT performance in the context of ADHD evaluations, and more work is needed to understand factors that contribute to different patterns of symptom reporting as a function of ACE exposure.</p>","PeriodicalId":8176,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are commonly reported in individuals presenting for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) evaluation. Performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) are essential to ADHD evaluations in young adults, but extant research suggests that those who report ACEs may be inaccurately classified as invalid on these measures. The current study aimed to assess the degree to which ACE exposure differentiated PVT and SVT performance and ADHD symptom reporting in a multi-racial sample of adults presenting for ADHD evaluation.

Method: This study included 170 adults referred for outpatient neuropsychological ADHD evaluation who completed the ACE Checklist and a neurocognitive battery that included multiple PVTs and SVTs. Analysis of variance was used to examine differences in PVT and SVT performance among those with high (≥4) and low (≤3) reported ACEs.

Results: Main effects of the ACE group were observed, such that high ACE group reporting demonstrated higher scores on SVTs assessing ADHD symptom over-reporting and infrequent psychiatric and somatic symptoms on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form. Conversely, no significant differences emerged in total PVT failures across ACE groups.

Conclusions: Those with high ACE exposure were more likely to have higher scores on SVTs assessing over-reporting and infrequent responses. In contrast, ACE exposure did not affect PVT performance. Thus, ACE exposure should be considered specifically when evaluating SVT performance in the context of ADHD evaluations, and more work is needed to understand factors that contribute to different patterns of symptom reporting as a function of ACE exposure.

在接受多动症评估的多种族样本中,童年不良经历对症状和表现有效性测试的影响。
目的:在接受注意力缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)评估时,报告童年不良经历(ACE)的人屡见不鲜。表现效度测试(PVT)和症状效度测试(SVT)是评估青少年注意力缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)的重要依据,但现有研究表明,那些报告有ACE经历的人可能会被不准确地归类为在这些测试中无效。本研究旨在评估ACE暴露在多种族成人ADHD评估样本中对PVT和SVT表现以及ADHD症状报告的区分程度:这项研究包括170名接受门诊神经心理学ADHD评估的成年人,他们完成了ACE检查表和包括多项PVT和SVT的神经认知测试。研究人员采用方差分析方法研究了高ACE(≥4)和低ACE(≤3)人群在PVT和SVT表现上的差异:结果:观察到了ACE组的主要影响,例如,ACE高报告组在SVT中的得分更高,SVT评估了ADHD症状的过度报告,以及明尼苏达多相人格量表-2-重组表中不经常出现的精神和躯体症状。相反,ACE 组的 PVT 总失败率没有出现明显差异:结论:ACE暴露程度高的人更有可能在评估过度报告和非经常性反应的SVT上得分更高。相比之下,ACE暴露并不影响PVT表现。因此,在评估ADHD的SVT表现时,应特别考虑到ACE暴露,并且需要做更多的工作来了解ACE暴露导致不同症状报告模式的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
358
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal publishes original contributions dealing with psychological aspects of the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of disorders arising out of dysfunction of the central nervous system. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology will also consider manuscripts involving the established principles of the profession of neuropsychology: (a) delivery and evaluation of services, (b) ethical and legal issues, and (c) approaches to education and training. Preference will be given to empirical reports and key reviews. Brief research reports, case studies, and commentaries on published articles (not exceeding two printed pages) will also be considered. At the discretion of the editor, rebuttals to commentaries may be invited. Occasional papers of a theoretical nature will be considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信