Detecting Noncredible Responding in College Student ADHD Assessment: A Comparison of Several Brief Symptom Validity Tests

Abstract A diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) offers tangible and psychological benefits to college students. These incentives lead some students to exaggerate symptoms on self-report rating scales. Although validity tests can detect noncredible responding, they are seldom used by clinicians who conduct adult ADHD evaluations. Many validity tests require considerable time, are expensive to administer, or are not accessible to many clinicians. We conducted a between-subjects simulation study examining the ability of several brief symptom validity tests to differentiate college students with self-reported ADHD ( n = 229) and students without ADHD randomly assigned to honest control ( n = 260) or simulator ( n = 239) conditions. All participants completed the Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) with several embedded validity indicators (i.e., CAARS Inconsistency Index, CAARS Infrequency Index CII, Dissociative Experiences Scale, Exaggeration Index EI), and the Subtle ADHD Malingering Screener. Results showed that students without ADHD could easily simulate this condition. Simulators earned significantly higher scores than participants in the ADHD and control conditions on all the validity tests that we examined, except the CAARS Inconsistency Index. Elevated scores on the CAARS hyperactive-impulsive scale, the CII, or the EI yielded the best classification statistics with specificity to controls ranging from 98.5 to 100%, sensitivity to simulators ranging from 35.6 to 42.7%, and low positive cases among participants in the ADHD condition. Associations between these validity scales were moderate. Requiring elevated scores on multiple validity scales yielded perfect specificity to controls, sensitivities to simulators between 27.2 and 31.8%, and few positive cases among participants in the ADHD condition (0 to 3.1%). These tests may offer clinicians a time- and cost-effective way to evaluate the validity of students’ self-reports, especially when integrated with objective information from other sources.