Conners CPT 3™

Assessment Reports provide detailed information about scores from a single administration, presented both numerically and graphically. An individual's scores are compared to those in the normative sample and elevations at the scale and subscale level are indicated.
Progress Reports compare the results of two to four administrations for the same individual to measure changes over time. These reports are ideal to use when monitoring treatment and intervention effectiveness.

During the 14-minute, 360-trial administration, respondents are required to press the spacebar or wired mouse button when any letter except “X” appears. Once complete, the computer generates two easy-to-use reports that better guide assessors through each step of the recommended interpretation process.

Reliability

Users can be confident that the Conners CPT 3 will yield consistent and stable scores across administrations.

Internal Consistency

One measure of a test's internal consistency is split-half reliability, which has been previously used to establish the reliability of other continuous performance tests. Split-half reliability estimates of the Conners CPT 3 scales were calculated for the normative and clinical samples. Results were very strong across all scores, the median split-half reliability estimate was .92 for the norm samples and .94 for the clinical samples (all correlations were significant, p < .001). These results indicate that the Conners CPT 3 demonstrates excellent internal consistency for both the normative and clinical groups.

Test-Retest Reliability

Test-retest reliability refers to the consistency of scores obtained from the same respondent on separate occasions over a specified period of time. To estimate the test-retest reliability of the Conners CPT 3, a sample of 120 respondents from the general population completed the Conners CPT 3 twice with a 1- to 5-week interval between administrations. The median test-retest correlation was .67. These results suggest a good level of test-retest reliability.

Validity

Users can be assured that the Conners CPT 3 will help detect attention deficits and differentiate clinical from non-clinical cases.

Discriminative Validity

Discriminative validity pertains to an instrument's ability to distinguish between relevant participant groups (i.e., the test's ability to differentiate between clinical and non-clinical groups). In order to conduct discriminative validity analyses, Conners CPT 3 data were collected during the standardization process from 346 children and adults who had an existing ADHD diagnosis. Conners CPT 3 scores from this ADHD sample were compared to a matched sample from the general population. Results indicated that differences were found between the ADHD sample and the matched general population sample on most measures with small to moderate effect sizes (d = 0.10 to 0.49). As expected, the ADHD sample performed more poorly (i.e., they had higher scores on the Conners CPT 3). In particular, the ADHD sample had lower dscores, indicating that they had more difficulty in distinguishing between relevant stimuli and distractors. Similarly, the ADHD sample made a greater number of errors (i.e., they had higher percentages of Omissions, Commissions, and Perseverations than did the general population sample) and showed more variability in their responses overall (i.e., higher HRT SD scores) and across subblocks (i.e., higher Variability scores) compared to the matched general population sample. The responses of the ADHD sample were also affected more by changes in block and ISI (i.e., higher HRT Block Change and HRT ISI Change scores).

Incremental Validity

Another approach in establishing the Conners CPT 3's validity is to show how it works together with other measures of similar constructs in the assessment of attention problems. To determine how well the Conners CPT 3 works in combination with other measures of attention, a sample of 112 parents of non-clinical and ADHD youth completed both the Conners Third Edition (Conners 3-P) and the CPT 3. A second sample of 137 non-clinical and ADHD adults completed a self-report form from the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) and the CPT 3. Logistic regressions were conducted in order to determine how well scales from the Conners CPT 3 improve the diagnostic efficacy of the rating scales in predicting group membership into ADHD or general population groups. For youth, when the Conners 3-P and Conners CPT 3 scores were considered together, there was an overall correct classification rate (i.e., the ability to accurately predict group membership) of 88.4%, sensitivity (i.e., the ability to correctly detect ADHD cases) of 89.5%, and specificity (i.e., the ability to correctly detect general population cases) of 87.3%. These values were 4.5%, 3.5%, and 5.5% higher respectively than when the rating scale was used on its own. For adults, when the CAARS and Conners CPT 3 scores were considered together, the overall correct classification rate was 92.7% , sensitivity was 73.1%, and specificity was 97.3%. These values were 4.5%, 3.5%, and 5.5% higher, respectively, than when the rating scale was used on its own. These results indicate that adding the Conners CPT 3 to scores from rating scales increases the ability to predict group membership.

The normative sample consists of 1,400 cases and is representative of the United States (U.S.) population in terms of key demographic variables such as gender, race, geographical region, and parental education level.