Joint Consideration of Validity Indicators Embedded in Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS)

Abstract A decade of research has both illustrated the need for accurate clinical assessment adult ADHD and brought forward a series validity indicators assisting this diagnostic process. Several these have been embedded into Conners’ Adult Rating Scales (CAARS). As their different theoretical underpinnings offer opportunity possible synergy effects, present study sought to examine whether item- or index-wise combination multiple benefits classification accuracy. sample controls ( n = 856) adults with 72) answered CAARS, including Credibility Index (ACI) honestly, while group instructed simulators 135) completed instrument as though they had ADHD. First, original CAARS items, which are part Infrequency (CII), items drawn from ACI were combined new CII-ACI-Compound Index. Secondly, existing indicators, suspect T- score elevations CII, considered in combination. Both approaches evaluated terms sensitivity specificity. The four CII five yielded between 41 51% an estimated specificity above 87%. Suspect on all three DSM scales emerged another potentially useful indicator 45 46% > 90%. Deeming examinees non-credible whenever two more showed results ensured low false-positive rates (< 10%), but reduced significantly. Classifying respondents soon any given fell range resulted frequent false positives (> 11% misclassified ADHD). Depending high is prioritized, such considerations valuable additions individual indicators. High provided by “either/or” combinations could prove screening settings, whereas stakes settings benefit “and” combinations.