Search

Objective: The clinical utility of continuous performance tests (CPTs) among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has increasingly been brought under question. Therefore, the objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to investigate the clinical utility of various commercially available CPTs, including the Conner's Continuous Performance Test (CCPT), Test of Variables of Attention (TOVA), Gordon Diagnostic System (GDS), and Integrated Visual and Auditory Continuous Performance Test (IVA) in the adult ADHD population., Methods: This systematic review followed the a priori PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Articles were gathered from PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Academic Search Complete, and Google Scholar on 11 April 2022. Sixty-nine articles were included in the final review. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Took for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies., Results: Most articles demonstrated high risk of bias, and there was substantial heterogeneity across studies. Overall, the reviewed CPTs appeared to have limited diagnostic utility and classification accuracy. Although many studies showed differing scores between adults with ADHD and comparison groups, findings were not consistent. Characteristics of CPT performances among adults with ADHD were mixed, with little consistency and no evidence of a clear profile of performances; however, CCPT commission errors appeared to have the most utility when used a treatment or experimental outcome measure, compared to other CCPT scores., Conclusion: Overall, CPTs should not be used in isolation as a diagnostic test but may be beneficial when used as a component of a comprehensive assessment.

Objective: Feedback on neuropsychological assessment is a critical part of clinical practice, but there are few empirical papers on neuropsychological feedback practices. We sought to fill this gap in the literature by surveying practicing neuropsychologists in the United States. Questions addressed how they provide verbal and written feedback to patients and referral sources. Survey questions also addressed billing practices and training in the provision of feedback., Methods: A survey was developed using Qualtrics XM to survey currently licensed, independently practicing clinical neuropsychologists in the United States about their feedback practices. The survey was completed by 184 individuals., Results: Nearly all respondents reported that they provide verbal feedback to patients, most often in-person, within three weeks following testing. Typically, verbal feedback sessions with patients last 45 min. Verbal feedback was provided to referrals by about half of our sample, typically via a brief phone call. Most participants also reported providing written feedback to both the patient and referring provider, most commonly via the written report within three weeks after testing. Regarding billing, most respondents use neuropsychological testing evaluation codes. The COVID-19 pandemic appeared to have had a limited impact on the perceived effectiveness and quality of verbal feedback sessions. Finally, respondents reported that across major stages of professional development, training in the provision of feedback gradually increased but was considered inadequate by many participants., Conclusions: Results provide an empirical summary of the "state of current practice" for providing neuropsychological assessment feedback. Further experimental research is needed to develop an evidence-base for effective feedback practices.