Search

It is now widely understood that ADHD can be feigned easily and convincingly. Despite this, almost no methods exist to assist clinicians in identifying when such behavior occurs. Recently, new validity indicators specific to feigned ADHD were reported for the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Derived from a logistic regression, these algorithms are said to have excellent specificity and good sensitivity in identifying feigned ADHD. However, these authors compared those with genuine ADHD only to nonclinical undergraduate students (asked to respond honestly or asked to simulate ADHD); no criterion group of definite malingerers was included. We therefore investigated these new validity indicators with 331 postsecondary students who underwent assessment for possible ADHD and compared scores of those who were eventually diagnosed with ADHD (n = 111) to those who were not [Clinical controls (66), Definite malingerers (36); No diagnosis (117)]. The two proposed PAI algorithms were found to have poor positive predictive value (.19 and .17). Self-report validity measures from the Connors' Adult Attention Rating Scale, and the Negative Impression Management scale on the PAI returned more positive results. Overall, more research is needed to better identify noncredible ADHD presentation, as the PAI-based methods proposed by Aita et al. appear inadequate as symptom validity measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building on a recent work of Harrison, Armstrong, Harrison, Iverson and Lange which suggested that Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) scores might systematically overestimate the severity of intellectual impairments if Canadian norms are used, the present study examined differences between Canadian and American derived WAIS-IV scores from 861 postsecondary students attending school across the province of Ontario, Canada. This broader data set confirmed a trend whereby individuals’ raw scores systematically produced lower standardized scores through the use of Canadian as opposed to American norms. The differences do not appear to be due to cultural, educational, or population differences, as participants acted as their own controls. The ramifications of utilizing the different norms were examined with regard to psychoeducational assessments and educational placement decisions particularly with respect to the diagnoses of Learning Disability and Intellectual Disability. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]