Cognitive deficits and psychosocial functioning in adult ADHD: Bridging the gap between objective test measures and subjective reports

Kallweit, C.; Paucke, Madlen; Strauß, Maria; Exner, Cornelia

doi:10.1080/13803395.2020.1779188

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These problems lead to a high level of psychological stress. This leads to a reduced coping ability to deal with everyday life obstacles, as well as problems in social relationships in adult ADHD [ 87 ]. When analysing the results of the Japanese study [ 79 ], it can be noted that the study did not investigate time management or time perception skills.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time Perception in Adult ADHD: Findings from a Decade—A Review

Mette

2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Time perception is impaired in adult ADHD. Since the term time perception subsumes different constructs, including time estimation, time reproduction, time production, and duration discrimination, it remains open whether certain domains are more affected than other domains in adult ADHD. The aim of this explorative review is to present the current state of research on time perception in adult ADHD by analysing studies from the past 10 years. A review of the literature addressing adult ADHD time perception, time estimation, and time reproduction was performed. The search strategy was conducted by using the databases “PubMed”, “Medline”, and “PSYNDEX”. The results of the present review indicate that the number of studies on time perception in adult ADHD is very scarce. Moreover, the main investigated domains of time perception in the past decade were time estimation, time reproduction and time management. Whereas some of the found studies were able to demonstrate a distinct deficit in time estimation, time reproduction and time management other studies were unable to demonstrate a clear association between ADHD and time estimation and time reproduction deficits. However, the diagnostic protocols, study design, and methodology varied between studies. Further studies on time estimation and time reproduction need to be carried out.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time Perception in Adult ADHD: Findings from a Decade—A Review

Mette

2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 8 provides an overview of 30 articles that did not provide a definition, but that explicitly linked conclusions about the test’s EV to the study results, thereby offering direct evidence about how EV was operationalized. From these, 18 (60%) cited prediction of functional outcome (i.e., veridicality) alone as evidence of the test’s EV, and an additional five (17%) cited prediction of functional outcome in combination with the test’s appearance (i.e., verisimilitude; Allain et al, 2014; Burgess et al, 1998; Gilboa et al, 2019) or in combination with the test’s ability to discriminate between patients and controls (Kallweit et al, 2020; Montgomery, Hatton, Fisk, Ogden, & Jansari, 2010). The remaining seven articles (23%) did not rely on the prediction of functional outcomes as evidence of EV.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, results suggest that in the past 20 years, in the literature on face-valid tests of EF, researchers have begun to rely on test appearance alone to claim EV. Additionally, wholly erroneous conceptualizations have also begun to emerge, conflating EV with sensitivity to brain injury (Torralva et al, 2012), tests’ ability to differentiate groups (Kallweit et al, 2020; Montgomery et al, 2010), or construct or concurrent validity evidenced by associations with other tests (Doherty et al, 2015; Jovanovski et al, 2012; La Paglia et al, 2012, 2014; Laloyaux et al, 2014; Raspelli et al, 2011). Importantly, for some authors, EV appears to have become completely decoupled from prediction of functional outcome, as some studies that examined the association between the test and functional outcome failed to draw any connection between their results and EV (Alderman et al, 2003; Chevignard et al, 2010; Chicchi Giglioli et al, 2021; Finnanger et al, 2022; Júlio et al, 2019; Laloyaux et al, 2014; Longaud-Valès et al, 2016; Moriyama et al, 2002; O’Shea et al, 2010; Oliveira et al, 2016; Orkin Simon et al, 2022; Verdejo-García & Pérez-García, 2007; Zartman et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9 Initial review of articles yielded 25 concordant and five discordant decisions (Kappa = .717) about the authors' conceptualization of EV, but full agreement was achieved following a discussion among at least two authors. et al, 2019) or in combination with the test's ability to discriminate between patients and controls (Kallweit et al, 2020;Montgomery, Hatton, Fisk, Ogden, & Jansari, 2010). The remaining seven articles (23%) did not rely on the prediction of functional outcomes as evidence of EV.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conceptualization of the term “ecological validity” in neuropsychological research on executive function assessment: a systematic review and call to action

Suchy,

DesRuisseaux,

Gereau Mora

et al. 2024

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: “Ecological validity” (EV) is classically defined as test’s ability to predict real-world functioning, either alone or together with test’s similarity to real-world tasks. In neuropsychological literature on assessment of executive functions (EF), EV is conceptualized inconsistently, leading to misconceptions about the utility of tests. The goal of this systematic review was to examine how EV is conceptualized in studies of EF tests described as ecologically valid. Method: MEDLINE and PsychINFO Databases were searched. PRISMA guidelines were observed. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, this search yielded 90 articles. Deductive content analysis was employed to determine how the term EV was used. Results: About 1/3 of the studies conceptualized EV as the test’s ability to predict functional outcomes, 1/3 as both the ability to predict functional outcome and similarity to real-world tasks, and 1/3 were either unclear about the meaning of the term or relied on notions unrelated to classical definitions (e.g., similarity to real-world tasks alone, association with other tests, or the ability to discriminate between populations). Conclusions: Conceptualizations of the term EV in literature on EF assessment vary grossly, subsuming the notions of criterion, construct, and face validity, as well as sensitivity/specificity. Such inconsistency makes it difficult to interpret clinical utility of tests that are described as ecologically valid. We call on the field to require that, at minimum, the term EV be clearly defined in all publications, or replaced with more concrete terminology (e.g., criterion validity).

show abstract

“…However, considering the negligible to small proportions of explained variance, and no reoccurring patterns of prediction across the models, it can be concluded that subjective reports of symptoms and impairments have no meaningful predictive value for objective neuropsychological test performances [99,100]. While both subjective reports and objective test performance have been advocated to provide the clinician with valuable information in a clinical evaluation and treatment planning, they seem to be distinct and nonredundant sources of information and should not be treated interchangeably [53,55,91,[101][102][103][104]. It remains a challenge for future research to determine the value of any of the information derived in a clinical assessment to predict the sustainable change, long-term outcome, improvement in symptoms, impairments, and general well-being.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Self- and Informant-Reports on Symptoms and Impairments in the Clinical Evaluation of Adult ADHD

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little is known about which clinical features may aid the differentiation between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other clinical conditions. This study seeks to determine the role of self- and informant reports on symptoms and impairments in the clinical evaluation of adult ADHD and explore their association with objective neuropsychological test performance by examining data of 169 outpatients referred for a diagnostic evaluation of adult ADHD. Participants were assigned either to an ADHD group (ADHD, n = 73) or one of two clinical comparison groups, depending on whether they show indications (Clinical Comparison Group, CCG, n = 53) or no indications (Clinical Comparison Group—Not Diagnosed, CCG-ND, n = 43) of psychiatric disorders other than ADHD. All participants and their informants completed a set of questionnaires. Compared to the CCG-ND, the ADHD group obtained significantly higher scores on ADHD symptoms, impulsivity, cognitive deficits, and anxiety. Compared to the CCG, the ADHD group scored significantly higher on ADHD symptoms but lower on depression. Further regression analyses revealed that self- and informant reports failed to predict neuropsychological test performance. Self- and informant reported information may be distinct features and do not correspond to results of objective neuropsychological testing.

show abstract

Cognitive deficits and psychosocial functioning in adult ADHD: Bridging the gap between objective test measures and subjective reports

Cited by 8 publications

References 25 publications

Time Perception in Adult ADHD: Findings from a Decade—A Review

Time Perception in Adult ADHD: Findings from a Decade—A Review

Conceptualization of the term “ecological validity” in neuropsychological research on executive function assessment: a systematic review and call to action

The Role of Self- and Informant-Reports on Symptoms and Impairments in the Clinical Evaluation of Adult ADHD

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About