Deficits in visual-motor coordination and/or fine motor dexterity are often present in pediatric neurological and neurodevelopmental conditions and may adversely affect performance on tests with motor demands. This consideration is relevant when interpreting discrepant scores across Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V) Processing Speed Index (PSI) subtests, specifically Symbol Search and the more motorically demanding Coding. Although test developers maintain that motor ability is unlikely to significantly impact Coding performances, clinicians often consider whether uneven WISC-V PSI subtest scores (Coding<Symbol Search) may in part be attributed to motor-related difficulties, when indicated. This has important clinical implications, as WISC-V Coding may then be omitted or substituted when calculating FSIQ. Thus, the present study aims to evaluate the role of motor task deficits in uneven PSI subtest scores in a sample of clinic-referred youth.

Participants were 238 children and adolescents (MAge=10.62 years; 65.5% male; 60.5% white) referred for neuropsychological assessment. All participants completed the Coding and Symbol Search subtests of the WISC-V and at least one of two motor tasks: the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI) and the Grooved Pegboard (GP). To evaluate patterns of functioning, we determined the frequencies of patients who demonstrated uneven PSI subtest performances (defined in this study as a Coding scaled score [ss] at least 3-points lower than that of Symbol Search) and/or normative weaknesses (i.e., Standard Score [SS] below 80, per recommendations from the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology) on motor tasks. A chi-square test of independence was used to evaluate associations between uneven PSI performance and the presence/absence of motor weaknesses. Among those with uneven PSI performance, a one-way ANOVA was used to examine whether PSI subtest difference scores varied as a function of motor performance group (No Weakness=0, VMI Weakness Only=1, GP Weakness Only=2, Weaknesses on Both=3).

Of the 238 participants, 28 (11.0%) displayed normative weaknesses on the VMI only, 43 (16.9%) displayed weaknesses on the dominant-GP only, and 18 (7.1%) displayed weaknesses on both tasks. On the WISC-V, 56 participants (23.5%) exhibited uneven PSI subtest performance (Coding<Symbol Search), with 21 (37.5%) of those participants displaying at least one normative motor weakness. Chi-square analyses indicated no significant association between the presence/absence of motor skill weakness and uneven PSI subtest performance, (X2 (3) = 5.79, p = .122). Among those with uneven PSI performance, Coding/Symbol Search difference scores were not significantly associated with motor performance group (F(3,55) = 1.26, p = .297).

These findings suggest that while patients with uneven WISC-V Coding and Symbol Search scores may also display motor task deficits, these deficits are not significantly associated with uneven performances overall. Additionally, of the participants with uneven PSI subtest scores, the majority did not exhibit normative weaknesses on motor tasks. Therefore, clinicians may be overcorrecting for a motoric cause of uneven performance and underappreciating the potential unevenness a child demonstrates in processing speed. Future studies should evaluate the role of other neurocognitive factors, such as working memory, in this score discrepancy pattern.

Adequate effort by examinees during neurocognitive testing is a prerequisite to valid interpretation of test results. Utilizing performance validity tests (PVTs) is strongly recommended within pediatric mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) populations. PVTs have historically been created based on majority-white and monolingual groups; investigating their validity in additional patient populations remains essential. The Automatized Sequencing Task (AST) was developed as a brief validity measure within mTBI youth (Kirkwood, et.al., 2014). This study aimed to examine the clinical utility of the AST among youth identifying as Hispanic/Latino and/or bilingual within a mTBI clinical sample.

Participants ages 8-17 (N=103, M age=14.08, SD=2.2, 51.5% male, 42.7% Hispanic/Latino, 23.6% bilingual) were drawn from an outpatient mTBI/concussion program within the past 2.6 years. Median time of evaluation since injury was 3.7 weeks. Eligibility criteria included: 1) evaluated for a mTBI (GCS . 13) and 2) 8 through 17 years of age. Language status included English only and English-Spanish bilingual youth. Of the bilingual youth, 95% were considered English dominant. Youth were timed while reciting four well-learned (i.e., automatized) sequences as rapidly as possible: 1) the alphabet, 2) counting from 1-20, 3) the days of the week, and 4) the months of the year. Pass rates for the AST were examined using chi-square tests to compare performance based on ethnic/cultural identity (Hispanic vs Non-Hispanic), language status, age (children 8-12; teens 13-17), and gender.

In the clinical sample, 11.7% (n=12) could not complete AST months; 75% of non-completers were Hispanic/Latino. Participants who identified as Hispanic/Latino compared to Non-Hispanic/Latino participants were significantly more likely to fail the 4-item AST, χ2(1) =4.3, p<.05. The odds of failing the 4-item AST was 2.3 times higher if patients identified as Hispanic/Latino. Further, patients identifying as bilingual were even more likely to fail the 4-item AST, χ2(1) =4.5, p<.05. The odds of failing the 4-item AST was 3.0 times higher if patients were bilingual. There were no ethnicity or bilingual group differences in AST failure when examining performance on the 3-item AST. Neither age nor gender were a significant predictor of failure on the 3-item or 4-item AST.

Results suggest that the month item on the AST does not function consistently across Hispanic/Latino and bilingual youth. It cannot be presumed to be ‘automatic’ as a significant number of Hispanic/Latino and/or bilingual patients were unable to complete the month item, but with otherwise intact performance on the first three items. Administering only the first three items on the AST appears to be a more culturally sensitive alternative given the increased odds of 4-item failure in Hispanic/Latino and bilingual youth. Additional research is needed to explore the predictive validity of the AST as a PVT in varying ethnic, culturally, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse mTBI pediatric populations.

Continuous performance tests (CPT) are often considered the gold standard for the diagnosis attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), particularly when parent and teacher rating scales are inconclusive. Prior work has indicated that CPT can also help differentiate between ADHD subtypes. However, the ability of CPT to differentiate ADHD subtype has not been examined among youth with comorbid ADHD and anxiety (ADHD+A). This is particularly concerning as the extant literature suggests that anxiety symptoms may exacerbate deficits associated with ADHD (e.g.. , working memory, attention) and attenuate others (e.g., inhibition); thus, anxiety may influence expected patterns on the CPT. This study therefore seeks to examine the role of ADHD subtype on the relationship between ADHD+A and performance on a CPT among youth with ADHD+A.

Participants included 54 children ranging from 6 to 20 years old (Mage=11.83, 54% female) who were diagnosed with ADHD+A via neuropsychological evaluation. In terms of ADHD subtype, 51.9% (n=28) were diagnosed with ADHD combined or ADHD primarily hyperactive and 48.1% (n=26) were diagnosed with ADHD primarily inattentive. Approximately 46.30% (N=25) of participants were medication naive. Analyses were conducted using data from the Conners Kiddie Continuous Performance Test -Second Edition (KCPT-2), Conners Continuous Performance - Second Edition (CPT-2) and the Conners Continuous Performance - Third Edition (CPT-3), which are part of the same family of performance-based attention measures. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to examine performance differences in aspects of attention (e.g., inattentiveness, sustained attention) and hyperactivity (e.g., impulsivity, inhibition).

ADHD subtype was not significantly related to measures of inattentiveness. This includes the number of targets missed (omissions; (t(39)=-.532, p=.59)) and variability in response time (variability; (t(39)=-0.30, p=.77)). In terms of sustained attention, ADHD subtype was not related to variability in response speed across blocks (Hit SEBC/HRT Block Change; (t(39)=-0.26, p=.79)). Importantly, these results were consistent regardless of ADHD medication status. ADHD subtype was also not significantly related to impulsivity. This includes responses to nontargets (commissions; (t(39)=-1.05, p=.30)), random or anticipatory responding (perseverations; (t(39)=-0.19, p=.85)), and mean response speed of correct responses (HR; (t(39)=-0.72, p=.48)).

The extant literature suggests that CPT can help clinicians differentiate between ADHD subtypes. However, the results of this study indicate that there are no performance differences on the CPT among youth with comorbid ADHD and anxiety. There are several limitations to consider. First, this study had a relatively small sample size, which also limited the ability to examine ADHD primarily hyperactive/impulsive as a distinct subtype. Additionally, this study did not examine the effect of individual anxiety disorders (i.e., generalized anxiety disorder, specific phobias). Finally, these findings may not generalize to other standardized measures of attention or more ecologically valid measures. Despite these limitations, this study is an important step in understanding the relationship between ADHD+A and performance on attention measures. Clinicians should be cautious in using results from CPT to distinguish between ADHD subtype among children with comorbid anxiety.