Raising the bar: Preliminary investigation of alternative MSVT cutoffs for adults referred for ADHD.

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Anthony D Robinson, Matthew Calamia
{"title":"Raising the bar: Preliminary investigation of alternative MSVT cutoffs for adults referred for ADHD.","authors":"Anthony D Robinson, Matthew Calamia","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2025.2488355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study investigated the classification accuracy of alternative cutoffs for three Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) indices, Immediate Recall (IR), Delayed Recall (DR), and Consistency (CNS). Study 1 included 83 college students randomized into two simulated ADHD groups (Incentivized simulator <i>n</i> = 25; Non-incentivized simulator <i>n</i> = 28) and one control group (<i>n</i> = 30). Study 2 included cross-sectional data from 114 ADHD referrals at a university-based clinic (<i>n</i> = 91 valid group; <i>n</i> = 23 invalid group) who completed the MSVT and at least two additional performance validity tests. Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves in study 1 revealed significant areas under the curve for IR, DR, and CNS (AUC = .81 - .86), high to perfect specificity (.93 - .10), and moderate to high sensitivity (.45 - .75) using cutoffs of ≤85, ≤90, and ≤95. ROC curve analyses in study 2 yielded significant areas under the curve for IR (AUC = .73), DR (AUC = .74), and CNS (AUC = .78). An optimal cut score of ≤90 across all three subtests yielded modest sensitivity (.35 - .52) while still maintaining adequate specificity (.91 - .96). The manual-recommended cutoff for invalidity (IR, DR, or CNS ≤85) demonstrated high specificity (95%) but only modest sensitivity (35%) whereas the modified cutoff (IR, DR, or CNS ≤90) increased sensitivity substantially (56%) while maintaining adequate specificity (90%). This study provides preliminary support for alternative MSVT cutoffs in adult ADHD assessments. However, additional research is warranted before utilizing these alternative cutoffs in clinical contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2025.2488355","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigated the classification accuracy of alternative cutoffs for three Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) indices, Immediate Recall (IR), Delayed Recall (DR), and Consistency (CNS). Study 1 included 83 college students randomized into two simulated ADHD groups (Incentivized simulator n = 25; Non-incentivized simulator n = 28) and one control group (n = 30). Study 2 included cross-sectional data from 114 ADHD referrals at a university-based clinic (n = 91 valid group; n = 23 invalid group) who completed the MSVT and at least two additional performance validity tests. Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves in study 1 revealed significant areas under the curve for IR, DR, and CNS (AUC = .81 - .86), high to perfect specificity (.93 - .10), and moderate to high sensitivity (.45 - .75) using cutoffs of ≤85, ≤90, and ≤95. ROC curve analyses in study 2 yielded significant areas under the curve for IR (AUC = .73), DR (AUC = .74), and CNS (AUC = .78). An optimal cut score of ≤90 across all three subtests yielded modest sensitivity (.35 - .52) while still maintaining adequate specificity (.91 - .96). The manual-recommended cutoff for invalidity (IR, DR, or CNS ≤85) demonstrated high specificity (95%) but only modest sensitivity (35%) whereas the modified cutoff (IR, DR, or CNS ≤90) increased sensitivity substantially (56%) while maintaining adequate specificity (90%). This study provides preliminary support for alternative MSVT cutoffs in adult ADHD assessments. However, additional research is warranted before utilizing these alternative cutoffs in clinical contexts.

提高标准:对成人ADHD患者替代MSVT临界值的初步调查。
本研究探讨了医学症状效度测验(MSVT)三个指标,即即时回忆(IR)、延迟回忆(DR)和一致性(CNS)的替代截断点的分类准确性。研究1包括83名大学生,随机分为两个模拟ADHD组(incentive simulator n = 25;非激励模拟器n = 28)和一个对照组(n = 30)。研究2包括来自114名ADHD转诊的大学诊所的横断面数据(n = 91有效组;n = 23无效组),他们完成了MSVT和至少两个额外的性能有效性测试。研究1的受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线显示IR、DR和CNS曲线下的显著区域(AUC = 0.81 - 0.86),具有高至完美的特异性(。93 - 0.10),中等至高灵敏度(。45 - 0.75),截止值分别为≤85、≤90和≤95。研究2的ROC曲线分析显示,IR (AUC = 0.73)、DR (AUC = 0.74)和CNS (AUC = 0.78)的曲线下面积显著。所有三个子测试的最佳切割分数≤90产生适度的敏感性(。35 - 0.52),同时仍保持足够的特异性(。91 - 0.96)。手册推荐的无效截止值(IR、DR或CNS≤85)显示出高特异性(95%),但只有适度的敏感性(35%),而修改后的截止值(IR、DR或CNS≤90)在保持足够特异性(90%)的同时大幅提高了敏感性(56%)。这项研究为成人ADHD评估中替代的MSVT截止点提供了初步支持。然而,在临床环境中使用这些替代截止点之前,需要进行额外的研究。
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
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-PSYCHOLOGY
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: pplied Neuropsychology-Adult publishes clinical neuropsychological articles concerning assessment, brain functioning and neuroimaging, neuropsychological treatment, and rehabilitation in adults. Full-length articles and brief communications are included. Case studies of adult patients carefully assessing the nature, course, or treatment of clinical neuropsychological dysfunctions in the context of scientific literature, are suitable. Review manuscripts addressing critical issues are encouraged. Preference is given to papers of clinical relevance to others in the field. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief, and, if found suitable for further considerations are peer reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees. All peer review is single-blind and submission is online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.
×
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