Internalizing and somatic symptoms influence the discrepancy between subjective and objective cognitive difficulties in adults with ADHD who have valid and invalid test scores

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
John-Christopher A. Finley, Anthony D. Robinson, Hannah B. VanLandingham, Devin M. Ulrich, Matthew S. Phillips, Jason R. Soble
{"title":"Internalizing and somatic symptoms influence the discrepancy between subjective and objective cognitive difficulties in adults with ADHD who have valid and invalid test scores","authors":"John-Christopher A. Finley, Anthony D. Robinson, Hannah B. VanLandingham, Devin M. Ulrich, Matthew S. Phillips, Jason R. Soble","doi":"10.1017/s1355617724000365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: This study investigated the relationship between various intrapersonal factors and the discrepancy between subjective and objective cognitive difficulties in adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The first aim was to examine these associations in patients with valid cognitive symptom reporting. The next aim was to investigate the same associations in patients with invalid scores on tests of cognitive symptom overreporting. Method: The sample comprised 154 adults who underwent a neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Patients were divided into groups based on whether they had valid cognitive symptom reporting and valid test performance (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 117) or invalid cognitive symptom overreporting but valid test performance (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 37). Scores from multiple symptom and performance validity tests were used to group patients. Using patients’ scores from a cognitive concerns self-report measure and composite index of objective performance tests, we created a subjective-objective discrepancy index to quantify the extent of cognitive concerns that exceeded difficulties on objective testing. Various measures were used to assess intrapersonal factors thought to influence the subjective-objective cognitive discrepancy, including demographics, estimated premorbid intellectual ability, internalizing symptoms, somatic symptoms, and perceived social support. Results: Patients reported greater cognitive difficulties on subjective measures than observed on objective testing. The discrepancy between subjective and objective scores was most strongly associated with internalizing and somatic symptoms. These associations were observed in both validity groups. Conclusions: Subjective cognitive concerns may be more indicative of the extent of internalizing and somatic symptoms than actual cognitive impairment in adults with ADHD, regardless if they have valid scores on cognitive symptom overreporting tests.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617724000365","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study investigated the relationship between various intrapersonal factors and the discrepancy between subjective and objective cognitive difficulties in adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The first aim was to examine these associations in patients with valid cognitive symptom reporting. The next aim was to investigate the same associations in patients with invalid scores on tests of cognitive symptom overreporting. Method: The sample comprised 154 adults who underwent a neuropsychological evaluation for ADHD. Patients were divided into groups based on whether they had valid cognitive symptom reporting and valid test performance (n = 117) or invalid cognitive symptom overreporting but valid test performance (n = 37). Scores from multiple symptom and performance validity tests were used to group patients. Using patients’ scores from a cognitive concerns self-report measure and composite index of objective performance tests, we created a subjective-objective discrepancy index to quantify the extent of cognitive concerns that exceeded difficulties on objective testing. Various measures were used to assess intrapersonal factors thought to influence the subjective-objective cognitive discrepancy, including demographics, estimated premorbid intellectual ability, internalizing symptoms, somatic symptoms, and perceived social support. Results: Patients reported greater cognitive difficulties on subjective measures than observed on objective testing. The discrepancy between subjective and objective scores was most strongly associated with internalizing and somatic symptoms. These associations were observed in both validity groups. Conclusions: Subjective cognitive concerns may be more indicative of the extent of internalizing and somatic symptoms than actual cognitive impairment in adults with ADHD, regardless if they have valid scores on cognitive symptom overreporting tests.
内化症状和躯体症状对测试成绩有效和无效的成人多动症患者主观和客观认知困难之间差异的影响
研究目的本研究调查了注意力缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)成人患者的各种人际因素与主观和客观认知困难之间的差异之间的关系。研究的第一个目的是在认知症状报告有效的患者中研究这些关联。其次是研究在认知症状过度报告测试中得分无效的患者的相同关联。研究方法样本包括154名接受过多动症神经心理学评估的成年人。根据患者是否具有有效的认知症状报告和有效的测试表现(n = 117)或无效的认知症状过度报告但具有有效的测试表现(n = 37)将其分为两组。采用多种症状和表现有效性测试的得分对患者进行分组。利用患者在认知问题自我报告测量中的得分和客观表现测试的综合指数,我们创建了一个主客观差异指数,以量化认知问题超出客观测试困难的程度。我们还使用了各种测量方法来评估被认为会影响主观-客观认知差异的个人内部因素,包括人口统计学、估计的病前智力、内化症状、躯体症状和感知到的社会支持。结果显示与客观测试结果相比,患者在主观测量中报告的认知困难更大。主观评分与客观评分之间的差异与内化症状和躯体症状的关系最为密切。这些关联在两个有效性组中都能观察到。结论:与实际认知障碍相比,主观认知问题可能更能反映成人多动症患者的内化症状和躯体症状的程度,无论他们在认知症状过度报告测试中的得分是否有效。
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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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