Assessing for Noncredible Presentations in ADHD Across the Lifespan

1.5 CE Credits


Julie A. Suhr, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training
Ohio University

In this workshop, concerns about noncredible presentations of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) will be discussed. The workshop will include review of the existing research literature on noncredible presentations of ADHD in both children and adults. The base rates of noncredible presentation will be discussed. Evidence that assessment for noncredible presentation is currently lacking in most psychoeducational evaluations will also be presented. The workshop will include discussion of both noncredible self-report (including prior and current symptoms and impairment) and noncredible behavior on cognitive tests. Empirical evidence for the use of both Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) and Performance Validity Tests (PVTs) in ADHD assessment across the lifespan will be reviewed, and some “best practices” based on this literature will be presented. There will also be attention given to development of new SVTs and PVTS for use in ADHD assessment, with discussion of research methodology relevant to both child and adult assessments.

After the session, participants will be able to:
1. Describe the need for assessment for noncredible presentations in both child and adult ADHD.
2. Explain the empirical support for SVT and PVT use in child and adult ADHD assessment.
3. Describe methods for development of new SVTs and PVTS for use on ADHD assessment across the lifespan.

Target Audience: Neuropsychologists and trainees
Instructional Level: Intermediate
Julie A. Suhr, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training at Ohio University. She received her Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Iowa in 1994. She completed a year-long internship in clinical neuropsychology at Brown University in 1994, and 3 years of postdoctoral training in clinical neuropsychology in the Department of Neurology, University of Iowa College of Medicine in 1994-1997. She has published over 80 peer-reviewed articles, a sole authored book on psychological assessment in 2015, and a co-edited book on clinical assessment and diagnosis in 2019, as well as over a dozen book chapters. She is a Fellow of the Society for Clinical Neuropsychology (APA Division 40) and the National Academy of Neuropsychology.  

NAN members login and non-members create an account to:

Review and Update on Adult Performance Validity Testing

1.5 CE Credits

Presented by:
Patrick Armistead-Jehle, Ph.D.
Chief, Concussion Clinic
Munson Army Health Center

This course will provide a review and update on performance validity testing (PVT) in adult neuropsychological evaluations.  Recent literature discussing the utility of validity testing in neuropsychological assessment, as well as reviews of stand-alone and embedded measures, will be discussed.  Special topics to be covered will include:  (1) feedback to patients and referring providers; and (2) use of PVTs in special populations. Emphasis will also be given to future directions in PVT research.

After the webinar, participants will be able to:

  1. Describe the influence of performance validity testing on interpretation of cognitive test results.
  2. Explain and utilize feedback strategies with patients and referring providers. 
  3. Discuss application of PVTs in patients with low IQ, dementia, and English as a second language.

Target Audience: Neuropsychologists, as well as psychologists involved in cognitive assessments.

Instructional Level: Intermediate

Patrick Armistead-Jehle, Ph.D. ABPP-CN is the chief of the concussion clinic at Munson Army Health Center at Fort Leavenworth, KS.  He completed undergraduate training at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and subsequently obtained a PhD in clinical psychology from Virginia Commonwealth University.  He is board certified by the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology.  Dr. Armistead-Jehle has published several dozen articles in peer reviewed psychological and neuropsychological journals, with the majority if these publications addressing the topics of validity testing and traumatic brain injury.  In addition to part time research and administrative duties, he maintains day to day patient care responsibilities.

NAN members login and non-members create an account to:

Testing Accommodations for People with Disabilities: Research-Based Practice

1.5 CE Credits

Presented by:
Benjamin J. Lovett, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
State University of New York at Cortland

An increasing number of individuals are receiving accommodations such as extra time, a separate room, and a reader on high-stakes tests used for admission, selection, certification, and educational accountability. However, poor decisions about accommodations use can invalidate test scores and compromise resulting judgments about individuals’ skill levels. After reviewing relevant legal guidelines, we will cover five essential psychometric issues to consider when recommending an accommodation; for each issue, examples of relevant research studies will be discussed. Based on the legal and psychometric foundations, a best-practices model for testing accommodations decision-making will be explicated, and then applied, step-by-step, to several example scenarios. Throughout, the emphasis will be on accommodations for individuals with learning, cognitive, and psychiatric disabilities; however, the model presented can be applied to individuals with sensory and physical disabilities as well. 

After the webinar, participants will be able to:

  1. Describe the requirements of laws and regulations affecting disability accommodations.
  2. Discuss the results of relevant research studies exploring the effects of accommodations on test score interpretations.
  3. Apply a model for accommodations decision-making to common assessment situations.  

Target Audience: Psychologists, educators, and physicians

Instructional Level: Introductory

About Benjamin J. Lovett, Ph.D.
Dr. Lovett is Associate Professor of Psychology at the State University of New York at Cortland, where he teaches courses on the assessment and management of students with disabilities. He has published over 60 papers in peer-reviewed journals and edited books, mostly on assessment issues in students with learning and attention problems. His book, Testing Accommodations for Students with Disabilities, was published by the APA Press in 2015. Dr. Lovett consults widely with testing agencies and educational institutions on the topics of disability documentation and testing accommodations, and he has given invited talks and workshops at numerous national and international conferences.

NAN members login and non-members create an account to:


The Use of Positive and Negative Validity Findings in Clinical Versus Forensic Cases

1.5 CE Credits


Michael Chafetz, Ph.D., ABPP 
Algiers Neurobehavioral Resource, LLC

The central question of this workshop is whether negative validity test findings should be used in the aggregate along with positive test findings for the determination of a case of illness-deception (ID), as it was asserted by Frederick (2015) and Black, Necrason, and Omasta (2016). A comparison of the use of validity tests versus other kinds of medical and psychological tests is made, with findings suggesting that ID is fundamentally different from other constructs/diseases in evidence-based medicine, psychology, and neuropsychology because deception about illness involves a deliberate process that may involve coaching, research, and/or focusing the deception on one aspect of functioning (e.g., slowness). A case study is presented to consider how decisions about other medical and neuropsychological problems are enhanced by considering positive and negative findings, how likely findings are to be manipulated by the patient, and how well the assertion that both positive and negative validity test findings must be used together in the aggregate stands up to comparative scrutiny. The fundamental assumption that a negative test finding concerning ID represents good effort is flawed, as it simply represents a lack of evidence of ID which cannot, in turn, be construed as evidence of lack of deception. Commentary is provided on best practice in neuropsychology regarding use of validity tests.

After the session, participants will be able to:
1. Explain how positive and negative test results are used together to determine the probability of a given condition of interest in medicine and psychology.
2. Compare the changes in posterior probabilities from positive versus negative test findings for a condition of interest.
3. Describe how the case example supports using only positive test findings in a determination of illness-deception.

Target Audience:
Neuropsychologists and trainees
Instructional Level: Intermediate
Dr. Michael Chafetz
is a Board Certified clinical neuropsychologist in independent practice in New Orleans.  His research interests have focused on the validity of Social Security disability examinations, where he has sought to understand how validity testing operates in low functioning claimants.  This research led to an initiative to help the Social Security system produce more accurate assessments.  In these endeavors, he consulted with a United States Senator and the Office of the Inspector General to bring attention to this research in the Social Security system.  More recently, he consulted with the Swedish Social Security system to help bring about needed changes in assessment. His current research interests include the connection between factitious disorder and malingering and in the probability calculations you will see in this talk.

NAN members login and non-members create an account to: