Continuous Performance Test 3rd Edition

C. Keith Conners, Ph.D.

Progress Report
Name/ID:
Gender:
Alexandra Sample
Female
February 16, 1998

LE
P
Birth Date:
Normative Option: Gender Specific norms

Admin 1 Admin 2 Admin 3

Name/ID: Alexandra Sample Alexandra Sample Alexandra Sample

M
Administration
December 6, 2013 January 3, 2014 February 26, 2014
Date:
Age: 16 years 16 years 16 years

A
Grade: 11 11 11
Input Device: Keyboard Keyboard Keyboard

S
Assessor's Name: Dr. Smith Dr. Smith Dr. Smith
Medication/Notes:

This Progress Report is intended for use by qualified assessors only, and is not to be shown or presented to the respondent or any other
unqualified individuals or used as the sole basis for clinical diagnosis or intervention. Administrators are cautioned against drawing
unsupported interpretations. To obtain a comprehensive view of the individual, information from this report should be combined with
information gathered from other psychometric measures, interviews, observations, and available records. This report is based on an
algorithm that produces the most common interpretations of the obtained scores. Additional interpretive information is found in the Conners
CPT 3 Manual (published by MHS).

Copyright © 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.

P.O. Box 950, North Tonawanda, NY 14120-0950
3770 Victoria Park Ave., Toronto, ON M2H 3M6
The Conners Continuous Performance Test 3rd Edition (Conners CPT 3™) assesses attention-related problems in individuals
aged 8 years and older. During the 14-minute, 360-trial administration, respondents are required to respond when any letter
appears, except the non-target letter “X.” By indexing the respondent’s performance in areas of inattentiveness, impulsivity,
sustained attention, and vigilance, the Conners CPT 3 can be a useful adjunct to the process of diagnosing Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), as well as other psychological and neurological conditions related to attention. This
report combines the results of up to four administrations to help the user interpret important changes that have occurred over
time. Please note that this Progress Report is intended to provide an overview of how scores have changed over time. For detailed
information about any given administration, please refer to the Conners CPT 3 Assessment Reports.

The Conners CPT 3 performs a validity check based on the number of hits and omission errors committed, as well as a
self-diagnostic check of the accuracy of the timing of each administration. If there is an insufficient number of hits to compute
scores, and/or if the omission error rate exceeds 25%, these issues will be noted. Also, the program will issue a warning message
noting that the administration was invalid if a timing issue is detected.
Admin 1 Admin 2 Admin 3

E
(12/6/2013) (1/3/2014) (2/26/2014)
Valid Valid Valid

L
There was no indication of any timing difficulties for Admin 1, Admin 2, and Admin 3.

P
The variable C represents an individual’s natural response style in tasks that involve a speed-accuracy trade-off. Alexandra’s
response style, and its influence on other Conners CPT 3 scores, should be taken into consideration throughout the interpretation
process for each administration.

M
Admin 1 Admin 2 Admin 3
(12/6/2013) (1/3/2014) (2/26/2014)
T-score (CI) 64 (58-70) 56 (50-62) 48 (42-54)

A
Classification Conservative Balanced Balanced
Interpretation Balanced response style between Balanced response style between
Emphasizes accuracy over speed
speed and accuracy speed and accuracy

S
Note. CI = Confidence Interval.

The guidelines in the following table apply to all T-scores in this report.

Ver 1.0
Copyright © 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved. 2 Conners CPT 3 Report: Alexandra Sample
 Overview of Changes in Conners CPT 3 Scores
This section provides an overview of Alexandra’s Conners CPT 3 scores across administrations.

Measures of Detectability and Errors

Detectablity (d') Omissions Commissions Perseverations

90+

80

70
T-score

60

50

E
40

L
≤ 30
T-score 74 74 61 90 90 53 64 69 62 90 63 71

P
(2/26/2014)

(2/26/2014)
(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)

(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)

(12/6/2013)

(12/6/2013)
(1/3/2014)

(1/3/2014)

(1/3/2014)

(1/3/2014)
Admin 3

Admin 3
Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3

Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3

Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 1

Admin 2
Measures Involving Reaction Times
Hit Reaction
Time (HRT)

A M
HRT Standard Variability HRT Block Change HRT ISI Change

S
Deviation (SD)

90+

80

70
T-score

60

50

40

≤ 30
T-score 90 84 64 90 90 61 74 90 75 53 28 39 90 73 25
(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)

(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)

(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)

(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)

(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)
(1/3/2014)

(1/3/2014)

(1/3/2014)

(1/3/2014)

(1/3/2014)
Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3

Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3

Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3

Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3

Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3

Ver 1.0
Copyright © 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved. 3 Conners CPT 3 Report: Alexandra Sample
 Overview of Changes in Conners CPT 3 Scores
Overview Summary
The following table summarizes the aspect(s) of attention Alexandra may have had problems with at each administration.

Admin 1 Admin 2 Admin 3

Area
(12/6/2013) (1/3/2014) (2/26/2014)

Inattentiveness Problems Strong Indication Strong Indication Strong Indication

Impulsivity Problems No Indication No Indication No Indication

Sustained Attention Problems No Indication No Indication No Indication

Vigilance Problems Strong Indication Some Indication Some Indication

E
The following tables summarize Alexandra’s Conners CPT 3 scores across administrations. If a statistical difference is noted between a
pair of administrations, then the difference reached statistical significance (p < .10) and/or was at least 10 T-score points (1 Standard

L
Deviation) apart. Statistical significance is denoted with this symbol (°).
Notes. T = T-score; CI = 90% Confidence Interval; Guide = Guideline.
Measures of Detectability and Errors

Score
Admin 1
(12/6/2013)
Admin 2
(1/3/2014)
Admin 3
(2/26/2014)

P Overall
Statistical Differences in T-scores
Admin Admin

M
(1 to 3) 1 to 2 2 to 3
Detectability (d')
(d'): Ability to differentiate targets from non-targets

T (CI) 74 (70-78) 74 (70-78) 61 (57-65)

A
Percentile 99th 99th 85th Increased ability° No Change Increased ability°

S
Guide Very Elevated Very Elevated Elevated

Omissions
Omissions: Rate of missed targets

T (CI) 90 (90-93) 90 (89-95) 53 (50-56)

Percentile 99th 99th 78th Decreased Decreased

No Change
error rate° error rate°
Guide Very Elevated Very Elevated Average

Commissions
Commissions: Rate of incorrect responses to non-targets

T (CI) 64 (60-68) 69 (65-73) 62 (58-66)

Percentile 90th 96th 90th No Change No Change No Change

Guide Elevated Elevated Elevated

Perseverations
Perseverations: Rate of random, repetitive,or anticipatory responses

T (CI) 90 (90-97) 63 (56-70) 71 (64-78)

Percentile 99th 88th 94th Decreased Decreased

No Change
error rate° error rate°
Guide Very Elevated Elevated Very Elevated

Caution
Caution: One or more T-scores have been truncated to 90; this may affect the assessment of significant change in T-scores. It may be of
value to consider changes in raw scores in addition to T-score changes (See the Conners CPT 3 Raw Scores section of this report; the raw
scores may need to be turned on in the report option preferences; see the Conners CPT 3 Manual for more information).

Ver 1.0
Copyright © 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved. 4 Conners CPT 3 Report: Alexandra Sample
 Overview of Changes in Conners CPT 3 Scores
The following tables summarize Alexandra’s Conners CPT 3 scores across administrations. If a statistical difference is noted between a
pair of administrations, then the difference reached statistical significance (p < .10) and/or was at least 10 T-score points (1 Standard
Deviation) apart. Statistical significance is denoted with this symbol (°).
Notes. T = T-score; CI = 90% Confidence Interval; Guide = Guideline.
Measures Involving Reaction Times

Statistical Differences in T-scores

Admin 1 Admin 2 Admin 3
Score Overall Admin Admin
(12/6/2013) (1/3/2014) (2/26/2014)
(1 to 3) 1 to 2 2 to 3
Hit Reaction Time (HRT)
(HRT): Mean response speed across the administration

T (CI) 90 (90-92) 84 (82-86) 64 (62-66)

Percentile 99th 99th 91st Faster° No Change Faster°

E
Guide Atypically Slow Atypically Slow Slow

L
HRT Standard Deviation (SD)
(SD): Reaction times consistency across the administration

T (CI) 90 (90-94) 90 (88-96) 61 (57-65)

P
Percentile 99th 99th 88th More Consistent° No Change More Consistent°

Guide Very Elevated Very Elevated Elevated

Variability
Variability: Variability in reaction times consistency across the administration

M
T (CI) 74 (66-82) 90 (85-101) 75 (67-83)

A
Percentile 96th 99th 97th No Change More Variability° Less Variability°

Guide Very Elevated Very Elevated Very Elevated

S
HRT Block Change
Change: Change in average response speed across blocks

T (CI) 53 (48-58) 28 (23-33) 39 (34-44)

Percentile 57th 1st 9th Less slowing across Less slowing across More slowing across
blocks blocks° blocks
Guide Average Low Low

HRT Inter-Stimulus Interval (ISI) Change

Change: Change in average response speed at various ISIs

T (CI) 90 (90-96) 73 (67-79) 25 (19-31)

Percentile 99th 98th 1st Less slowing at Less slowing at Less slowing at
longer ISIs° longer ISIs° longer ISIs°
Guide Very Elevated Very Elevated Low

Caution
Caution: One or more T-scores have been truncated to 90; this may affect the assessment of significant change in T-scores. It may be of
value to consider changes in raw scores in addition to T-score changes (See the Conners CPT 3 Raw Scores section of this report; the raw
scores may need to be turned on in the report option preferences; see the Conners CPT 3 Manual for more information).

Ver 1.0
Copyright © 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved. 5 Conners CPT 3 Report: Alexandra Sample
 Measures of Inattentiveness
This section summarizes Alexandra’s scores on the inattentiveness measures across administrations. If a statistical difference is noted
between a pair of administrations, then the difference reached statistical significance (p < .10) and/or was at least 10 T-score points (1
Standard Deviation) apart. Statistical significance is denoted with this symbol (°).

Hit Reaction Time HRT Standard

Detectablity (d') Omissions Commissions (HRT) Deviation (SD) Variability

90+

80

70
T-score

60

50

40

E
≤ 30
T-score 74 74 61 90 90 53 64 69 62 90 84 64 90 90 61 74 90 75

L
(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)

(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)

(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)

(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)

(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)

(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)
(1/3/2014)

(1/3/2014)

(1/3/2014)

(1/3/2014)

(1/3/2014)

(1/3/2014)
Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3

Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3

Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3

Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3

Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3

Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3
P
Detectability (d') measures the respondent’s ability to differentiate non-targets (i.e., the letter X) from targets (i.e., all other letters). Higher

M
T-scores indicate worse performance. The following T-scores were obtained: Admin 1 (T = 74; 90% CI = 70-78; 99th percentile; Very
Elevated), Admin 2 (T = 74; 90% CI = 70-78; 99th percentile; Very Elevated), and Admin 3 (T = 61; 90% CI = 57-65; 85th percentile;
Elevated). Scores on this variable statistically decreased across: Admin 1 to Admin 3° and Admin 2 to Admin 3°.

A
Omissions result from a failure to respond to targets. Higher T-scores indicate worse performance. The following T-scores were obtained:
Admin 1 (T = 90; 90% CI = 90-93; 99th percentile; Very Elevated), Admin 2 (T = 90; 90% CI = 89-95; 99th percentile; Very Elevated),
and Admin 3 (T = 53; 90% CI = 50-56; 78th percentile; Average). Scores on this variable statistically decreased across: Admin 1 to Admin

S
3° and Admin 2 to Admin 3°.
Commissions are made when responses are given to non-targets. Higher T-scores indicate worse performance. The following T-scores
were obtained: Admin 1 (T = 64; 90% CI = 60-68; 90th percentile; Elevated), Admin 2 (T = 69; 90% CI = 65-73; 96th percentile;
Elevated), and Admin 3 (T = 62; 90% CI = 58-66; 90th percentile; Elevated). Scores did not statistically change across administrations.
HRT is the mean response speed of correct responses for the whole administration. Higher T-scores indicate slower responses. The
following T-scores were obtained: Admin 1 (T = 90; 90% CI = 90-92; 99th percentile; Atypically Slow), Admin 2 (T = 84; 90% CI =
82-86; 99th percentile; Atypically Slow), and Admin 3 (T = 64; 90% CI = 62-66; 91st percentile; Slow). Scores on this variable statistically
decreased across: Admin 1 to Admin 3° and Admin 2 to Admin 3°.
HRT SD is a measure of response speed consistency during the entire administration. Higher T-scores indicate less consistency. The
following T-scores were obtained: Admin 1 (T = 90; 90% CI = 90-94; 99th percentile; Very Elevated), Admin 2 (T = 90; 90% CI = 88-96;
99th percentile; Very Elevated), and Admin 3 (T = 61; 90% CI = 57-65; 88th percentile; Elevated). Scores on this variable statistically
decreased across: Admin 1 to Admin 3° and Admin 2 to Admin 3°.
Variability
Variability, like HRT SD, is a measure of response speed consistency; however, Variability is a “within respondent” measure; that is, the
amount of variability the individual shows in 18 separate segments of the administration in relation to her own overall HRT SD. The
following T-scores were obtained: Admin 1 (T = 74; 90% CI = 66-82; 96th percentile; Very Elevated), Admin 2 (T = 90; 90% CI =
85-101; 99th percentile; Very Elevated), and Admin 3 (T = 75; 90% CI = 67-83; 97th percentile; Very Elevated). Scores on this variable
statistically increased across: Admin 1 to Admin 2°. Scores on this variable statistically decreased across: Admin 2 to Admin 3°.
Alexandra’s profile of scores on the above measures strongly suggests that she may have had problems with inattentiveness during Admin
1, Admin 2, and Admin 3.

Ver 1.0
Copyright © 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved. 6 Conners CPT 3 Report: Alexandra Sample
 Measures of Impulsivity
This section summarizes Alexandra’s scores on the impulsivity measures across administrations. If a statistical difference is noted between
a pair of administrations, then the difference reached statistical significance (p < .10) and/or was at least 10 T-score points (1 Standard
Deviation) apart. Statistical significance is denoted with this symbol (°).

Hit Reaction Time (HRT) Commissions Perseverations

90+

80

70
T-score

60

50

E
40

L
≤ 30
T-score 90 84 64 64 69 62 90 63 71

P
(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)

(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)

(12/6/2013)

(2/26/2014)
(1/3/2014)

(1/3/2014)

(1/3/2014)
Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3

Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3

Admin 1

Admin 2

Admin 3
A M
HRT is the mean response speed of correct responses for the whole administration. Lower T-scores indicate faster responses. The following
T-scores were obtained: Admin 1 (T = 90; 90% CI = 90-92; 99th percentile; Atypically Slow), Admin 2 (T = 84; 90% CI = 82-86; 99th
percentile; Atypically Slow), and Admin 3 (T = 64; 90% CI = 62-66; 91st percentile; Slow). Scores on this variable statistically decreased

S
across: Admin 1 to Admin 3° and Admin 2 to Admin 3°.
Commissions are made when responses are given to non-targets. Higher T-scores indicate worse performance. The following T-scores
were obtained: Admin 1 (T = 64; 90% CI = 60-68; 90th percentile; Elevated), Admin 2 (T = 69; 90% CI = 65-73; 96th percentile;
Elevated), and Admin 3 (T = 62; 90% CI = 58-66; 90th percentile; Elevated). Scores did not statistically change across administrations.
Perseverations are random or anticipatory responses. Higher T-scores indicate worse performance. The following T-scores were obtained:
Admin 1 (T = 90; 90% CI = 90-97; 99th percentile; Very Elevated), Admin 2 (T = 63; 90% CI = 56-70; 88th percentile; Elevated), and
Admin 3 (T = 71; 90% CI = 64-78; 94th percentile; Very Elevated). Scores on this variable statistically decreased across: Admin 1 to
Admin 3° and Admin 1 to Admin 2°.
Alexandra’s profile of scores did not indicate impulsivity during Admin 1, Admin 2, and Admin 3.

Ver 1.0
Copyright © 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved. 7 Conners CPT 3 Report: Alexandra Sample
 Measures of Sustained Attention
This section summarizes Alexandra’s scores on the sustained attention measures across administrations. For Hit Reaction Time (HRT)
Block Change, if a statistical difference is noted, then the difference reached statistical significance (p < .10) and/or was at least 10 T-score
points (1 Standard Deviation) apart. Statistical significance is denoted with this symbol (°).

Hit Reaction Time by Block

800+
Raw Score (ms)

600
Admin 1

400

≤ 200
800+

E
Raw Score (ms)

600
Admin 2

L
400

P
≤ 200
800+
Raw Score (ms)

600
Admin 3

M
400

A
≤ 200

HRT (SD)

S
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Block 6
Admin 1 (12/6/2013) 905 (664) 925 (763) 938 (625) 784 (564) 966 (621) 906 (661)
Admin 2 (1/3/2014) 535 (408) 1129 (844) 524 (466) 534 (196) 613 (461) 478 (189)
Admin 3 (2/26/2014) 605 (424) 470 (135) 451 (74) 472 (109) 426 (73) 498 (223)

Note. ms = milliseconds; SD = Standard Deviation.

HRT Block Change

90
80
70
T-score

60
50
40
≤ 30
T-score 53 28 39
Admin 1 Admin 2 Admin 3
(12/6/2013) (1/3/2014) (2/26/2014)

Ver 1.0
Copyright © 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved. 8 Conners CPT 3 Report: Alexandra Sample
 Measures of Sustained Attention (Cont’d)
Omissions and Commissions by Block
30+ 100
80
20
Admin 1

Admin 1
60
40
10
20
0 0

30+ 100
80

E
20
Admin 2

Admin 2
60
40

L
10
20
0 0

P
30+ 100
80
20
Admin 3

M
Admin 3

60
40
10
20

A
0 0

Omissions (%) By Block Commissions (%) By Block

Admin Admin

S
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 (12/6/2013) 21 15 17 13 23 33 1 (12/6/2013) 67 50 75 67 67 67
2 (1/3/2014) 23 25 8 17 25 4 2 (1/3/2014) 83 75 58 75 58 92
3 (2/26/2014) 2 6 0 4 4 4 3 (2/26/2014) 58 75 67 50 67 50

Note. The < symbol indicates that the error rate of the later block is significantly (p < .10) higher than the error rate of the previous block.

HRT Block Change indicates the change in mean response speed across blocks. Higher T-scores indicate more slowing across blocks. The
following T-scores were obtained: Admin 1 (T = 53; 90% CI = 48-58; 57th percentile; Average), Admin 2 (T = 28; 90% CI = 23-33; 1st
percentile; Low), and Admin 3 (T = 39; 90% CI = 34-44; 9th percentile; Low). Scores on this variable statistically increased across: Admin
2 to Admin 3. Scores on this variable statistically decreased across: Admin 1 to Admin 3 and Admin 1 to Admin 2°.
Alexandra’s profile of scores did not indicate a problem with sustained attention during Admin 1, Admin 2, and Admin 3.

Ver 1.0
Copyright © 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved. 9 Conners CPT 3 Report: Alexandra Sample
 Measures of Vigilance
This section summarizes Alexandra’s scores on the vigilance measures across administrations. For Hit Reaction Time Inter-Stimulus
Interval Change (HRT ISI Change), if a statistical difference is noted, then the difference reached statistical significance (p < .10) and/or
was at least 10 T-score points (1 Standard Deviation) apart. Statistical significance is denoted with this symbol (°).

Hit Reaction Time by ISI

800+
Raw Score (ms)

600
Admin 1

400

≤ 200
800+

E
Raw Score (ms)

600
Admin 2

L
400

P
≤ 200
800+
Raw Score (ms)

M
600
Admin 3

400

A
≤ 200

HRT (SD)

S
1-second ISI 2-second ISI 4-second ISI
Admin 1 (12/6/2013) 526 (270) 867 (478) 1145 (820)
Admin 2 (1/3/2014) 456 (138) 561 (336) 818 (737)
Admin 3 (2/26/2014) 488 (116) 497 (240) 477 (272)
Note. ms = milliseconds; SD = Standard Deviation.

HRT ISI Change

90+
80
70
T-score

60
50
40
≤ 30
T-score 90 73 25
Admin 1 Admin 2 Admin 3
(12/6/2013) (1/3/2014) (2/26/2014)

Ver 1.0
Copyright © 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved. 10 Conners CPT 3 Report: Alexandra Sample
 Measures of Vigilance (Cont’d)
Omissions and Commissions by ISI
30+ 100

80
20
Admin 1

60

Admin 1
40
10
20

0 0

30+ 100

80
20
Admin 2

60

Admin 2
E
40
10
20

L
0 0

P
30+ 100

80
20
60
Admin 3

Admin 3

M
40
10
20

0 0

A
Omissions (%) By ISI Commissions (%) By ISI
Admin Admin
1-second ISI 2-second ISI 4-second ISI 1-second ISI 2-second ISI 4-second ISI

S
1 (12/6/2013) 43 11 6 1 (12/6/2013) 42 75 79*
2 (1/3/2014) 21 20 10 2 (1/3/2014) 75 63 83
3 (2/26/2014) 3 5 2 3 (2/26/2014) 38 63 83*

Note. The < symbol indicates that the error rate of the longer ISI is significantly (p < .10) higher than the error rate of the shorter ISI. The *
symbol indicates that the error rate in the 4-second ISI is statistically significantly (p < .10) higher than the error rate in 1-second ISI.

HRT ISI Change reflects change in response speed across ISIs. Higher T-scores indicate more slowing across on trials with longer ISIs.
The following T-scores were obtained: Admin 1 (T = 90; 90% CI = 90-96; 99th percentile; Very Elevated), Admin 2 (T = 73; 90% CI =
67-79; 98th percentile; Very Elevated), and Admin 3 (T = 25; 90% CI = 19-31; 1st percentile; Low). Scores on this variable statistically
decreased across: Admin 1 to Admin 3°, Admin 1 to Admin 2°, and Admin 2 to Admin 3°.
Alexandra’s profile of scores on the above measures strongly suggests that she may have had problems with vigilance during Admin 1.
Alexandra’s profile of scores on the above measures suggests that she may have had problems with vigilance during Admin 2 and Admin
3.

Ver 1.0 Date Printed: 2/27/2014 · End of Report

Copyright © 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved. 11 Conners CPT 3 Report: Alexandra Sample
 CPT 3 Conners Raw Scores
Raw Scores
Admin 1 Admin 2 Admin 3
Variable Type Measure
(12/6/2013) (1/3/2014) (2/26/2014)

Detectability d' -0.31 -0.31 -1.44

Omissions 20% 17% 3%

Error Type Commissions 65% 74% 61%

Perseverations 5% 1% 1%

Hit Reaction Time (HRT) 901.22 620.89 487.04

HRT Standard Deviation

654.39 (0.764) 512.30 (0.531) 219.84 (0.311)
(SD)

E
Reaction Time
Variability 229.08 (0.156) 284.50 (0.229) 145.66 (0.162)
Statistics
HRT Block Change -0.65 (0.013) -52.08 (-0.045) -18.47 (-0.020)

L
HRT Inter-Stimulous
196.74 (0.209) 121.73 (0.121) -4.52 (-0.025)
Interval (ISI) Change

P
Note. The values in parentheses in the Raw Score column are based on the natural logarithm of the Hit Reaction Times. These logged
values were used in the computations of the T-scores. For d', HRT Block Change, and HRT ISI change, negative raw score values are
possible. See the Conners CPT 3 Manual for more information.

A M
S

Ver 1.0
Copyright © 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved. 12 Conners CPT 3 Report: Alexandra Sample
 Glossary
Response Style response speed. Response speed inconsistency is sometimes indicative
C is a signal detection statistic that measures an individual’s natural of inattentiveness, suggesting that the respondent was less engaged and
response style in tasks involving a speed-versus-accuracy trade-off. processed stimuli less efficiently during some parts of the administration.
Based on his or her score on this variable, a respondent can be classified
as having one of the following three response styles: a conservative style Variability
that emphasizes accuracy over speed; a liberal style that emphasizes speed Variability, like HRT SD, is a measure of response speed consistency;
over accuracy; or a balanced style that is biased neither to speed nor accuracy. however, Variability is a “within respondent” measure (i.e., the amount
Response style can affect scores such as Commissions and Hit Reaction of variability the respondent showed in 18 separate sub-blocks of the
Time (HRT), and should be taken into consideration during interpretation. administration in relation to his or her overall HRT SD score). Although
Variability is a different measure than HRT SD, the two measures typically
Detectability (d’) produce comparable results and are both related to inattentiveness.
d-prime (d’) is a measure of how well the respondent discriminates non- High response speed variability indicates that the respondent’s attention
targets (i.e., the letter X) from targets (i.e., all other letters). This variable and processing efficiency varied throughout the administration.
is also a signal detection statistic that measures the difference between
the signal (targets) and noise (non-targets) distributions. In general, the Hit Reaction Time Block Change

E
greater the difference between the signal and noise distributions, the (HRT Block Change)
better the ability to distinguish non-targets and targets. On the Conners HRT Block Change is the slope of change in HRT across the six blocks

L
CPT 3, d′ is reverse-scored so that higher raw score and T-score values of the administration. A positive slope indicates decelerating reaction
indicate worse performance (i.e., poorer discrimination). times as the administration progressed, while a negative slope indicates
accelerating reaction times. If reaction times slow down, as indicated by

P
Omissions (%) a higher HRT Block Change score, the respondent’s information processing
Omissions are missed targets. High omission error rates indicate that the efficiency declines, and a loss of sustained attention is indicated.
respondent was not responding to the target stimuli due to a specific reason
(e.g., difficulty focusing). Omission errors are generally an indicator of Omissions by Block
inattentiveness. Omissions by Block (raw score only) is the rate of the respondent’s

M
missed targets in each of the six blocks. An increase in omission error
Commissions (%) rate in later blocks indicates a loss of sustained attention.
Commissions are incorrect responses to non-targets. Depending on the

A
respondent’s HRT, high commission error rates may indicate either in- Commissions by Block
attentiveness or impulsivity. If high commission error rates are coupled Commissions by Block (raw score only) is the rate of the respondent’s
with slow reaction times, then the respondent was likely inattentive to the incorrect responses to non-targets in each of the six blocks. An increase

S
stimulus type being presented and thus responded to a high rate of non-targets. in commission error rate in later blocks indicates a loss of sustained
If high commission error rates are combined with fast reaction times, the attention.
respondent was likely rushing to respond and failed to control his or her
impulses when responding to the non-targets. In the latter case, high commission Hit Reaction Time Inter-Stimulus Intervals
error rates would reflect impulsivity rather than inattentiveness. Change (HRT ISI Change)
HRT ISI Change is the slope of change in reaction time across the three
Perseverations (%) ISIs (1, 2, and 4 seconds). A positive slope indicates decelerating HRT
Perseverations are responses that are made in less than 100 milliseconds at longer intervals; whereas, a negative slope indicates accelerating
following the presentation of a stimulus. Normal expectations of physio- HRT at longer intervals. A higher HRT ISI Change score means that the
logical ability to respond make it virtually impossible for a respondent respondent’s information processing efficiency declined with longer pauses
to perceive and react to a stimulus so quickly. Perseverations are usually between stimuli, and a loss of vigilance is indicated. A significant change
either slow responses to a preceding stimulus, a random response, an in response speed at the different ISIs may indicate that the respondent
anticipatory response, or a repeated response without consideration of was having trouble adjusting to changing task demands. Sometimes,
the task requirements. Perseverations may be related to impulsivity or an this finding relates to activation/arousal needs; some respondents may
extremely liberal response style. Perseverations are, therefore, likely the be more efficient in a busier/more stimulating environment (e.g., during
result of anticipatory, repetitive, or impulsive responding. the 1-second ISI) than in a less active environment where the stimuli are
presented less frequently (e.g., during the 4-second ISI), or vice-versa.
Hit Reaction Time (HRT)
HRT is the mean response speed, measured in milliseconds, for all Omissions by ISI
non-perseverative responses made during the entire administration. Omissions by ISI (raw score only) is the rate of missed targets in each
An atypically slow HRT may indicate inattentiveness (especially when of the three ISI trial types. An increase in omission error rate on trials
error rates are high), but it may also be the results of a very conservative with longer ISIs indicates a loss of vigilance.
response style. Alternatively, a very fast HRT, when combined with high
commission error rates, may indicate impulsivity. Commissions by ISI
Commissions by ISI (raw score only) is the rate of incorrect responses to
Hit Reaction Time Standard Deviation (HRT SD) non-targets in each of the three ISI trial types. An increase in commission
HRT SD measures the consistency of response speed to targets for the error rates on trials with longer ISI indicates a loss of vigilance.
entire administration. A high HRT SD indicates greater inconsistency in

Ver 1.0
Copyright © 2014 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved. 13 Conners CPT 3 Report: Alexandra Sample