CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 167Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDeception detection and forensic psychologyPsychological Testing and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The relationship of malingering test failure to self-reported symptoms and neuropsychological findings in adults referred for ADHD evaluation

SUHR, J, HAMMERS, D, DOBBINSBUCKLAND, K, ZIMAK, E, HUGHES, C·2008·Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
DOI 10.1016/j.acn.2008.05.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Diagnosis of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) adults is difficult, as neither symptom report nor neuropsychological findings are specific to ADHD. Few studies address the possibility that noncredible performance influences both symptom report and neuropsychological findings. The present study utilized archival data from young adults referred for concerns about ADHD, divided into three groups: (1) those who failed a measure of noncredible performance (the Word Memory Test; WMT), (2) those who met diagnostic criteria for ADHD, and (3) controls with psychological symptoms but no ADHD. Results showed a 31% failure rate on the WMT. Those who failed the WMT showed clinical levels of self-reported ADHD symptoms and impaired neuropsychological performance. Neither self-report measures nor neuropsychological tests could distinguish ADHD from psychological controls, with the exception of self-reported current hyperactive/impulsive symptoms and Stroop interference. Results underscore the effect of noncredible performance on both self-report and cognitive measures in ADHD.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.acn.2008.05.003

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 167

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
SUHR, J., HAMMERS, D., DOBBINSBUCKLAND, K., ZIMAK, E., & HUGHES, C.
Affiliations
Ohio University (US)
Corresponding author
SUHR, J
ORCID
Venue
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2008-09
Volume
23
Issue
5
Pages
521-530
ISSN
0887-6177 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.acn.2008.05.003
OpenAlex
W1972828223
Semantic Scholar
a1b7d4d78bb915d2ac7f51c6028d19fb32fc840e
Cited by
167
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
FWCI
5.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
adult ADHD, malingering, Word Memory Test, self-reported symptoms, neuropsychological performance, Stroop interference, hyperactive-impulsive symptoms, differential diagnosis, young adults
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Male, Malingering, Memory, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychometrics, Retrospective Studies, Self-Assessment, Verbal Learning, Multivariate Analysis, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review