Saklofske, in Psychometrics and Psychological Assessment, 2017. These tests, in addition to the GDS, are administered via a computerized software program.The Conners Continuous Performance Test 3rd Edition™ (Conners CPT 3™) is a task-oriented computerised assessment of attention-related problems in individuals aged 8 years and older.Among these, Conners CPT 8, the Children Sustained Attention Task 11, the Integrated Visual and Auditory Test 12, and the Test of Variables of.Carina Coulacoglou, Donald H. Four commonly utilized CPTs include the Conners Continuous Performance Test3 rd Edition (CPT-3 Conners, 2015), the Test of Variables of Attention (TOVA), the Integrated Visual and Auditory Continuous Performance Test (IVA+Plus), and the GDS.
Conners Continuous Performance Test Free Periods AreDoes the Conners Continuous Performance Test aid in ADHD diagnosisThe Conners CPT 3 can be used in conjunction with the Conners Continuous Auditory Test of Attention (Conners CATA™) which assesses auditory processing and attention-related problems in individuals aged 8 years and older. The Conners CPT 3 provides objective information about an individual’s performance in attention tasks, complementing information obtained from rating scales such as the Conners 3.Annual medication-free periods are recommended to reassess the need for medication. The Conners-3 (Conners, 2008) Parent Rating Scale (Conners-3-P) is the most recent revision to a widely used behavior rating scale system.The Conners-3-P is designed similarly to the BASC-2 Achenbach systems in that it By indexing the respondent’s performance in areas of inattentiveness, impulsivity, sustained attention, and vigilance, the Conners CPT 3 can be useful to the process of diagnosing Attention-Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) and other neurological conditions related to attention.Trusted results with the most representative CPT normative samples collected. Easy interpretation with new reports offering clear visuals and summaries. A comprehensive evaluation with the introduction of an auditory attention test.New easy to understand clinical likelihood statements are based on T-scores and displayed as very high, high, moderate, or minimal.During the 14-minute, 360-trial administration, respondents are required to push the spacebar when any letter, except “X”, appears. New Scores and Score Dimensions of Attention Measured: Enhanced look and feel of the program designed to reduce glare and reflection on computer or laptop monitors. Normative samples normed on a variety of computer models and operating systems. Consists of 1400 cases representative of the latest United States (U.S.) population census. Revised paradigm: New ratio of non-targets (the letter X) to targets (all other letters) to improve the test’s sensitivity to impulsivity problems. The responses of the ADHD sample were also affected more by changes in block and ISI (i.e., higher HRT Block Change and HRT ISI Change scores).Another approach in establishing the Conners CPT 3’s validity is to show how it works together with other measures of similar constructs in the assessment of attention problems.To assess such validity, samples were collected in which cases were scored on the Conners CPT 3 and another measure of attention. Similarly, the ADHD sample made a greater number of errors (i.e., they had higher percentages of Omissions, Commissions and Perseverations than did the general population sample) and showed more variability in their responses overall (i.e., higher HRT SD scores) and across subblocks (i.e., higher Variability scores) compared to the matched sample of general population. As expected, the ADHD sample performed more poorly (i.e., they had higher scores on the Conners CPT 3).In particular, the ADHD sample had lower d’ scores, indicating more difficulty in distinguishing between relevant stimuli and distractors. Results indicated that significant differences were found between the ADHD sample and the matched general population sample on most measures with small to moderate effect sizes (d = 0.10 to 0.49). In order to conduct discriminative validity analyses, Conners CPT 3 data were collected during the standardisation process from 346 children and adults who had an existing ADHD diagnosis.Conners CPT 3 scores from this ADHD sample were compared to a matched sample from the general population. Firefox version 46 download for macNew Easy to Read Reports:The computer-generated scoring reports have been re-designed to better guide assessors through each step of the recommended interpretation process.Updated with a new easy to follow look and feel.Interpret the data more efficiently with the addition of clear visuals.More interpretive text to complement and narrate the wealth of data.Easy to understand Clinical Likelihood Statements are based on the number of atypical T-scores to estimate the likelihood of a clinical disorder. These results indicate that adding the Conners CPT 3 to scores from rating scales increases the ability to predict group membership. These values were 3.6%, 7.7%, and 2.7%, respectively, higher than when the rating scale was used on its own. For adults, when the CAARS and Conners CPT 3 scores were considered together, the overall correct classification rate was 92.7%, sensitivity was 73.1%, and specificity was 97.3%. Logistic regressions were conducted in order to determine how well scores from the Conners CPT 3 improve the diagnostic efficacy of the rating scales in predicting group membership into ADHD or general population groups.For youth, when the Conners 3-P and Conners CPT 3 scores were considered together, there was an overall correct classification rate (i.e., the ability to accurately predict group membership) of 88.4%, sensitivity (i.e., the ability to correctly detect ADHD cases) of 89.5%, and specificity (i.e., the ability to correctly detect general population cases) of 87.3%.These values were 4.5%, 3.5%, and 5.5%, respectively, higher than when the rating scale was used on its own.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorShannon ArchivesCategories |