C - 48Base Rate of WMT and RDS Failure in ADHD
Le résumé fourni par la source
Objective: Accurate base rates of failure on measures of performance validity in specific populations helps inform clinical practice and protects against base rate neglect. Base rates are better estimated with multiple samples across practice types and geographic locations. Our study was informed by previous research (Suhr, et. al., 2008) which found a 31% Word Memory Test (WMT) failure rate in young adults in a university clinic setting referred for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Our study provides additional base rate information on the WMT as well as novel base rate information regarding failure on the Reliable Digit Span (RDS) in adults referred for assessment of possible ADHD. Additionally, our data extends findings to an outpatient private practice setting which differ from previous settings published in the literature. Method: A convenience sample of 71 adults referred for neuropsychological assessment regarding a possible diagnosis of ADHD was collected. The sample was composed of 56% males and 43% females. Demographic characteristics of the sample include 64% Caucasian, 14% African American, 4% Hispanic, 7% Asian, 6% other, 6% unknown or undisclosed. Mean age was 31 (SD = 10.58) and mean educational attainment was 15 (SD = 2.5). Results: 27% of adults failed the WMT, 13% failed the RDS, and 7% failed both. Conclusions: The findings indicate the base rate for WMT failure in adults referred for ADHD in an outpatient private practice setting is 26% and is 13% on the RDS.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- C - 48Base Rate of WMT and RDS Failure in ADHD
- Date Crossref
- 01/09/2018
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.