For clinicians
Objective measurement in ADHD assessment
A clinician-facing reference for the Continuous Performance Tests (CPTs) used in ADHD assessment, medication titration, and longitudinal outcome tracking. Side-by-side vendor comparisons, score interpretation, billing reference, and integration guidance.
5 CPT tools compared
Side-by-side CPT comparison
TOVA, Conners CPT-3, QbCheck, IVA-2, AxonCPT — task paradigm, normative sample, format, FDA clearance, score outputs. One table.
CPT score interpretation calculator
Generic-norms-based percentile interpretation for omission errors, commission errors, RT, and RT variability. For tool-specific norms use the vendor's platform.
Omission vs commission errors
What each metric actually measures, how they map to inattention vs. impulsivity, and how to interpret elevations clinically.
Reaction time variability — the most ADHD-sensitive metric
Why intra-individual variability often discriminates ADHD better than mean RT. Implications for assessment and titration.
Billing CPT 96138 / 96139
Coding objective testing under the Psychological / Neuropsychological Test Administration codes — what gets paid and what doesn't.
Integrating CPT into clinical practice
When to use objective measures, what they add to interview + rating scales, and how to communicate results to patients.
Editorial position
CPT testing is an aid to clinical judgement — not a standalone diagnostic instrument. Every CPT vendor on this site, including AxonCPT, frames their tool the same way. The clinical literature supports CPT as a useful adjunct to interview and rating scales; it does not support replacing the diagnostic process with objective testing alone.
We compare vendors on their merits — task paradigm, normative sample, validation evidence, format, cost transparency. Clinicians should evaluate based on the population they serve, the integration with their workflow, and the available evidence for the specific tool in their use case.
AxonCPT is one of five tools listed in our comparison. It appears alongside the others on its merits, not as a recommendation. More on editorial policy →