On Feb 21, 12:23 pm, "jlazar...@no-spamgmail.com"
<jlazar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry for the delay in responding as promised earlier.

The way the Connors Continuous Performance Test (c. 1994 version,
anyway) works is something comes up on a computer screen and if it's
an X, you don't press the space bar and vice-versa. The program then
deduces scores, which are compared to the population average, on the
following measures.  (Please note that I am translating everything
here into everyday language, to the best of my ability.)

1.  Average speed of correct response.
2.  Consistency of response speed.
3.  Maintenance of response speed.
4.  Variability of response speed over time.
5.  Number of responses not provided.
6.  Number of incorrect responses provided.
7.  Accuracy of perception of letters on screen.
8.  Whether responses tend to be frequent or cautious.
9.  Adjustment of reaction time to speed of stimulus.

When I took this test in 1998 I scored atypically on 1, 2 and 9. The
program commented as follows.

Regarding 'average speed of correct response', the computer said "Bill
King's average response time was unusually slow. This could be an
indication of unusually slow processing ability, or that BK was
sacrificing resopnse speed in an attempt to provide accurate
responses."

Regarding 'consistency of response speed', the computer offered its
opinion that "BK's responses were inconsistent and variable from
moment to moment indicating difficulties in maintaining attention."
On 'maintenance of response speed', however, the program said I did
not slow down "to any great degree" over the course of the test.

Finally, regarding "Adjustment of reaction time to speed of stimulus',
the program said, "BK showed atypical change in response pattern when
the letters (stimuli) were presented slowly. BK's responses were much
slower when the length of time between letters (stimuli) was
increased."

It also summarized, "Although BK's performance was atypical on only a
few measures, these are key measures for indicating individuals with
attention problems". However, the test also cautions that it should
only be regarded as one of several aids in the assessment of attention
problems. (And provides further statistical and psychometrical
information which is utterly beyond my ability to comprehend.)

The test was very worthwhile. Not because it revealed anything
startling, but because it helped me considerably to refine some things
I perceived about myself. Even if one does not believe in ADD and/or
(pharmaceutical) remedies for it, it is certainly worth 14 minutes to
get some deeper insight into the way your brain works - especially if
your activities require you to use it - and at the very least it will
help you to identify compensating behaviours.

I was somewhat relieved to have some objective confirmation that I
differed from the average population, and that my difficulties were
not simply a result of effort declining over time. When you have ADD-
type problems I think there is usually a lurking fear that you are
simply lazier than other people and thereby place more blame on
yourself for your shortcomings because you are over-simplifying their
cause. I see more clearly, as a result of the CCPT, how my efforts
tend to quickly wan as stimulation (or pressure) decreases; how I
devote disproportionate effort to things in an effort to achieve a
perfect result; how my attention varies a great deal from moment to
moment.

To summarize, the CCPT strikes me as a very worthwhile diagnostic
test. I had to pay for it at a private clinic and I am very surprised
that the test (or onse like it) are not standard tools in the
assessment of attention problems (at least where I live - Ontario,
Canada). It seems to me that when it comes to diagnosis, psychiatrists
often have an indoridnate faith in the accuracy of their intuitions.
(If the comments on RateMDs.com are an accurate indicator, mine was
particularly defective.)

Bill King